I mean, you're right. But on the other hand, this is ten years overdue, so I'll take it. Do we even have a real licensing story yet? I can see this going one o

I mean, you're right. But on the other hand, this is ten years overdue, so I'll take it. Do we even have a real licensing story yet? I can see this going one of two ways... the ARM way (chipmaker pays the license fee) or the video codec way (system integrator / set-top box manufacturer / media player software vendor pays the fee). The ARM way has worked really well for ARM -- they only have to deal with a small handful of big chip companies, and there's no real way for any of them to get out of paying the fee, even in China. This being Fraunhofer, the codec way seems more likely, but it's not a particularly good business model. There are more companies for them to interact with, more chances for many of them to not pay the fee (none of the Chinese system integrators are going to pay, end users definitely aren't going to pay, etc.). Obviously everything would be easier if the BLE 5.2 chipmaker paid the fee, and then software can do whatever it wants, but I guess this is unlikely. Oh well. There'll be a usable implementation in `non-free` that everyone will use, Fraunhofer won't get their licensing fees, and it'll be too difficult / impractical for them to go after anyone.