This is, maybe, an oddball choice for an analysis of this type; that’s why I’m doing it. This post is to be a beat-by-beat of the questions posed in the prompt.
Q1. This is a question that doesn’t really have a direct, linear answer. Truthfully, Bluetooth is “owned,” in a sense, by anyone that wants to use it. Like USB or video output standards, Bluetooth is managed by a special interest group that oversees the protection of the trademark. If a product you make is to include some form of the technology, it must be both approved and licensed by BSIG. This is fairly in-line with Marx. There’s no central, private ownership over the technology. It’s freely available, but must conform to a set standard for the sake of compatibility, and therefore ease of use on the user’s end.
Q2. This is a tricky one to pin down. From the outside, the organization’s operations are a little obfuscated. It’s clear that, from website materials, the day-to-day is mostly oriented around licensing, and setting standards. These standards are then adopted by companies actively using the technology in products. From the top down, the number of involved disciplines is almost too many to list. Marx is more at play here in the integration of Bluetooth than he is in the engineering and standards. The guy at Intel who’s ensuring the silicon wafers are chilled properly has approximately zero indication of how he’s related to someone using their JBL to blast Fetty Wap.
Q3. The true savings here are in the negation of any physical connector. The whole point of Bluetooth is that the air speaks in runes and your phone knows how to decrypt them. This means a reduction in both labor and material use; no longer are people tethered to their devices. With sound quality near-identical, wired devices lose a great deal of their appeal beyond aesthetics for the average consumer.
Q4. Yeah, I’d say so. Bluetooth is a direct result of it easing the process of production, and lessening the resources needed. Presently, Bluetooth connectivity is a near-universal requirement for a great deal of items; the consumer does not get a choice—”It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.” There’s no real competition, though, on the market side, in that Bluetooth being an open-standard means that individual companies don’t get a say over how the technology functions or can be integrated. It’s less something that’s being rapidly iterated in the way a phone’s internal processor might be; that’s a more applicable example.