On 05/08/2021 15.24, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
> I'm not sure why the mentality of the community in software engineering prevents any capital gains (except for Gates and Ballmer), Clang at least allows using their own code for commercial purposes and the ISO committee in general looks like open to deal with patents if it allows general advancements.

Which "the ISO committee"? There are probably thousands of them.

In general, my understanding is that participants in the ISO process
are required to disclose patents they have in the areas under discussion.

Then, the members of a committee can take that information into account
when forming an opinion about the merits of a specific proposal.
For example, a given specification might be implementable without using
some patented technology.

As far as I remember, the situation has not yet come up with C++
that a given part of the specification requires use of patented
stuff, so this would be novel.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea about patents, and
you should read the ISO patent policy yourself
https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html

Jens