OpenRAW

Commercial progress has to measured and balanced against the interests of photographers - some of whom are are artists - but most of whom are the general public who need to preserve the memories they capture in their digital cameras.

I can understand why computer manufacturers have patents or trade secrets (they are actually 2 separate categories from an intellectual property perspective) associated with file formats. Some of the main reasons have to do with protecting innovative inventions that can derive useful revenue streams; other reasons involve getting a competitive advantage against another vendor. Hence as an example, and in the context of digital photography, it is perfectly reasonable for Adobe to protect their PSD format, as it offers a competitive advantage over their competitors.

However, I would assert that digital RAW formats offer no such advantages to camera vendors. Why? Well we have to consider the state of the market. Digital photography is rapidly replacing traditional film photography at an exponential rate of change, as is the trend with most digital technologies, mostly driven by memory price / performance. However, the majority of consumers want assurances that their "pictures" i.e. their files - in the old days that would have been their old (mostly forgotten but sometimes filed) negatives - can be preserved with some "high fidelity".

Furthermore, the rate of innovation of RAW software processors is also helping to drive the digital photography market. In my opinion, this is where the camera manufacturers tend to get stuck. The fundamental assumption of the camera manufacturers seems to be either that:
1) They can innovate faster than independent software vendors (ISVs) and hence create the "de facto" RAW processing standard software packages for their cameras. In my opinion, tihs is not a viable commercial model, as there is no future revenue for the vendors, as everyone expects the Canon or Nikon (or other vendor) software to be a free download, and consumers will not start to pay once it has been free.
or
2) They can make more revenues by licensing the IP rights to specialized RAW processing software libraries that they distribute to ISVs. So the classic issue here is that of preserving the vendor's right to change the format of the RAW format without "breaking" their own RAW processor code base. The real issue here is that of performance and function. RAW processors will inevitably innovate in an attempt to combine superior performance with new ways of exploiting the various RAW formats; however, the drawback for ISVs is that they will take a hit on "time to market" as they try to support new camera formats as they are launched.

What to do? Let the RAW processor ISVs innovate and fight it out in the market. This will be great for photographers everywhere. If the vendors want to participate in the battle, at least let everyone compete with a public file format, as it will grow the market and everyone wins.

PS: Are you listening Nikon?