commercial ecosystems to flourish in the face of equally fierce standards characteristics. We explored whether standards profes- market competition. No agreements need to be signed in order sionals feel that “open” means RF access to necessarily infringed IP. 7 to use open source software as defined by the OSI. However, to We explored where organizations derive value from standards. We produce open source software, many communities require RF explored what real and perceived benefits organizations receive access to IP. Without this reciprocal arrangement, access to the in exchange for participating and engaging in standards. Finally, open source software commons would be at risk. Therefore, many we explored the challenges to participating in standards develop- open source software communities look for standards that allow ment and to what extent organizational involvement in standards open source software implementations, and communities such is connected to open source. 8 as Open Innovation Network have formed to further protect open source communities from patent aggressors. From the The survey behind this report approached the subject of stan- perspective of most open source software communities, “An open dards in a simplistic way. This survey, while useful in evaluating standard is a standard that is freely available for adoption, imple- alignment with the open and closed endpoint in the standards mentation and updates.”9 continuum, did not examine the nature of this continuum with nuance. Although the survey results in this report are effective at The Linux Foundation is perhaps best known for its work in open highlighting the polarization that exists in open and closed stan- source and for supporting its flagship project community, the dards, it is important to recognize that they do not capture the Linux kernel. The Linux Foundation was formed out of a merger of different ways that open and closed standards are influenced by the Free Standards Group with Open Source Development Labs, a each other across the standards continuum. Linux Foundation combination of standards and open source efforts. Our 20+ years Research understands that follow-on research that provides a of contributions to standardization efforts are less well-known, more nuanced view of standards is necessary. Nevertheless, this but no less impactful. Nearly 20% of Linux Foundation projects are survey effectively communicates the seismic change that open related to standards and specifications, and those projects range standards are creating in the standards continuum. 10 in size, complexity, development style, and IP mode. They cut across industry, geography, and target market and have engaged Key findings from this survey are as follows: thousands of contributors, organizations, and end users. This • Open standards continue to offer strategic value for history has led us to develop our own, unique perspective on organizations: 76% of organizations say that open standards information and computing technology standardization based on will make them more innovative. principles of openness, developer-friendly tooling, straightforward • Open standards are preferred by 71% of organizations IP rights (IPR) policies, and flexible working modes. Conversely, we compared with restrictive standards (only 10%). also see many standards development projects that want to build • The top characteristics of an open standard shared by an open source software implementation to help facilitate faster, participants from all regions are being openly published and easier adoption of the standard. available RF for implementers. With this background, we are excited to share the first-ever State • Open standards encourage competition: 80% of of Open Standards report, which features insights from global organizations say open standards will make them more standards participants from a variety of organizations. Our competitive. research asked participants questions about the spectrum of THE 2023 STATE OF OPEN STANDARDS EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE TRANSITION TO OPEN STANDARDS 7