That's a valid view — but that's specifically what separates Fraunhofer from the others.
The Helmholtz-, Leibniz- and Max-Planck-Societies exist to do science for science's sake. They build stellerators and map the oceans, because it provides knowledge.
The Fraunhofer soxiety exists to turn theoretical research into something companies can directly implement. That is what separates it from all the others. It is supposed to provide finished templates and blueprints with its patents, so you can license something, and have it ready to use.
That is why Fraunhofer didn't just develop an algorithm for mp3 and aac, but developed production ready encoders, decoders, hardware en- and decoders, 5.1 decoders and stereo, even simple ones for mono. They created the source code, heavily documented, and the algorithms, and blueprints for building them in hardware.
So that companies can license it, just integrate it, and are done.
That is why the Fraunhofer society exists, because our economy of small to middle businesses can not compete in R&D with giants unless we do all the R&D in such a research institution licensing ready-made solutions to your small companies.
And yes, the US-view on patents with regards to not needing implementation detail and no requirement for Schöpfungshöhe (in fact, the US system even has the opposite of that) is severely damaging this concept.
I know - and that's where wanted to get at: I'd argue that, esp. in regard to their cooperation with SMBs and the benefits for the latter, nowadays it's the sheer concentration of R&D expertise (resulting in better risk mitigation, faster time-to-market etc.) that's the main driver for institutes like Fraunhofer, and monetization to third parties might sound that it is, but is actually incidental in practice.
(Ironically - in contrast to defense against patent violations/litigation, where having Fraunhofer's back is certainly a big benefit! :) )
I mean, we are in a time where e.g. even Sony (of all companies!) freely licenses their LDAC codec to the AOSP. To me it seems that after decades of countless multi-front patent wars many finally start to admit they are sick and tired of it. (Esp. when looking
to the rising China, which seems to do well at the innovation front while not giving much of a damn about patent protection...)
The Helmholtz-, Leibniz- and Max-Planck-Societies exist to do science for science's sake. They build stellerators and map the oceans, because it provides knowledge.
The Fraunhofer soxiety exists to turn theoretical research into something companies can directly implement. That is what separates it from all the others. It is supposed to provide finished templates and blueprints with its patents, so you can license something, and have it ready to use.
That is why Fraunhofer didn't just develop an algorithm for mp3 and aac, but developed production ready encoders, decoders, hardware en- and decoders, 5.1 decoders and stereo, even simple ones for mono. They created the source code, heavily documented, and the algorithms, and blueprints for building them in hardware.
So that companies can license it, just integrate it, and are done.
That is why the Fraunhofer society exists, because our economy of small to middle businesses can not compete in R&D with giants unless we do all the R&D in such a research institution licensing ready-made solutions to your small companies.
And yes, the US-view on patents with regards to not needing implementation detail and no requirement for Schöpfungshöhe (in fact, the US system even has the opposite of that) is severely damaging this concept.