I don't need to, I'm fully aware of the differences between Fraunhofer and the others (basically PPP, applied sciences etc.).

I simply posit that (software) patents actually aren't needed for that. Or to be more specific: economic exploitation of their patents - nowadays, I could e.g. imagine them to offer their considerable patent pools for defensive purposes, to "disarm" patent minefields in problematic fields. Of course, that would be a tightrope walk in regards to cooperation with private entities...

Well, then you missed an important part.

The use of patents by Fraunhofer is to ensure that the research is actually real-world usable (and the government isn't just wasting their grants) and that it is worth it to the industry, while at the same time ensuring that the industry helps in funding the research that it will make profit fron

Sorry, read my edit. IMO it's an incredibly reductionist view that it's only worth something to the industry if someone can make (most of?) money via patents from it.

And another edit: One could argue that's a side effect from the modern anglo-american tradition of patenting (that has seemingly spilled over to continental europe) that almost completele ignores "Erfindungshöhe", stripping patents of their inherent technical merit leaving exploitability as the only measurement.

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...)