That is true, but what I answered to was that the post used a specific example witout bothering to check the facts.
Using $1 per unit as an example when the actual fee is $0.05 misrepresents the facts, which needs to be pointed out.

When looking at a cost, you have to consider what the licensees get,
By paying a nominal sum per unit sold, the manufacturers gets access to an established market with more or less certain sales due to the widespread use of the technology. Is it not reasonable that hose who have in effect created a huge market for the product also get part of the profit?

I could understand the negativity if the license contributed significantly to the cost of the end product (which is the case for mobile phones), but when the license is so low that it does not really contribute much to the end cost, whaqt is the problem?.
For a cable it is 1% of the sales price (cheap cables) or less (not so cheap cables). For a TV, it is fractions of a percent. Even for a cheap unit like a chromecast unit (got one, it is too cheap not to get one), it is one seventh of a percent of the sales price. Hardly significant...

The "security" feature has a documented workaround, and is there because the components reading older versions have vulnerabilities. It si quite simple to define a folder as "safe" and move the documents there, or to define the folder where the documents are located as "safe". This feature has been ther esince Office 2003, and your IT support people should know this.

If your boss could not open ODF in MS Office, then maybe it is because Office open ODF files according to the standard. The problem is that most of the vendors using ODF have added extensions which are not (yet) part of the standard. Is that Microsofts fault?

When you are writing negatively about OOXML, at least get your facts correct. There is no "Do it like Excel 2007" in there. There are a few "do it like Office 95 Word", but those are only needed to correctly render a few minor formatting features on documents originally created in Word 95. How critical is it to ensure that every minor formatting detail from a document created more than ten years ago is correct?

As for your last paragraph: Even without the spec, you can get the content of any OOXML document. Any OOXML document is a zipped folder structure with the text stored as plain text with XML tags. No risk of losing access to the content. Quite an improvement compared to the old DOC/XLS formats, and for those who remember, the WordPerfect formats (yes, I have tried to decode it).

But what if $0.05 is the fee per cable/unit?
Because that is the actual license fee for HCMI.
Why make up numbers when the actual numbers are available through a simple search? http://www.hdmi.org/manufactur...

Spend the money on a cheap proper projector and use one of the participants' laptop. Just as cheap and actually useful. Most people cannot be bothered to use sub.standard stuff.

Cheap flat HD TVs killed the projector market (if there ever was one). Putting a low resolution projector in a PC will not help.
If I need to view content from my PC, I use Chromecast (and there are probably dozens of this type of devices within a year). Simple and easy, and no need for a white wall to project on and to dim the room lights.

Actually, if the domain admin account is used at all, except in emergency, then the domain is mismanaged from the start.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the price per channel reflect the cost of running it. It does not.

The income for a channel is based on what the market (subscribers, advertisers) will pay. The channel has to create its content based on that income. This basically means that in your scenario, if both viewers wanted only channel 1, they would pay half the cost.
Channel 2 would be without viewers, and would have the hard choice of either creating attractive content to get its viewer back, or simply close down.
There is no law in nature which says that all TV channels have to exist forever. Actually, a lot of them are not needed at all.