I don't know the reference about Vint and the 048 patent. In general, Google is a big target because it is a big pile of money. It has more to lose than gain from bad patents. So, there is certainly a desire to have bad patents go away. If Vint did make a comment against the 048 patent, it is because he agrees with me and others that it seems obvious.
But, Google like anyone must respect the rule of law. Google patents things too, and has every interest in supporting a functional patent system. This doesn't mean they can't have an opinion and lobby for the 'right' outcome.
You ask a good question: why isn't everyone using direct then? I will give my answer for your consideration.
Here are outcomes, ordered by desirability, if I am a small barcodes-related firm:
1. I dominate the barcodes market, and I control the ecosystem
2. I dominate the market, and don't control the ecosystem
3. I don't dominate the market
I think these various firms have been shooting for #1 for years, and rightly so. You can't have #1 unless you also control the ecosystem, and this requires some degree of closed-ness -- which is what the indirect model gets you, since nobody can use the codes without going through you.
I don't think #1 is going to happen, but, not everyone has fallen back on #2 yet. That is, you could be the premier barcode market service firm without an indirect model. I think using the direct model is an advantage. Therefore I expect a firm that admits #1 isn't feasible anymore and falls back to #2 stands to win -- but #2 is a smaller prize.
The psychological investment in strategy #1 is a powerful force. I understand why one is reluctant to give it up. Because, once you get to #2, you're simply competing on service, with any number of large, established advertising and marketing service providers.
(I can also turn this around: if indirect is so much better... well why can't one come up with one technical reason in its defense?)
To your point about monopoly: Google is the one pushing for completely open systems. How can they monopolize the market while also pushing to make sure nobody controls the ecosystem?
I... don't really want to get into a discussion about the standards body, since I've said too much already. These standards efforts are, frankly, small-time, and mostly participated in by companies who already have an interest in standardizing this stuff. To say indirect is important because there are standards bodies run by companies who think indirect is important is to say little. There is a reason Google declined to join any of them.
Lest you think I am taking a shot at these particular organizations... let me say I have seen this phenomenon repeatedly in my work at the W3C. It does some great things, but, some standardization efforts are really little more than one company looking for attention. Who *else* is really expending time and energy on this?
