OK - could we avoid brand bashing or pining for the simpler days of yore? While I am an engineer designing electronics, I am actually no fan of overcomplication or gratuitous technology. Also, I quite like Echos and Makitas and don't think absolute minimum weight and max horsepower are the only measures of a good saw. However, without some major change the 2-stroke is dead because people are not going to put up with the pollution and fuel waste from its inherent design deficiencies. And part of that reputation for pollution is actually the defective "carburetors" that they used for so long, but no matter the damage is done. These systems are being introduced in a desperate attempt to meet the regs and companies that don't have them will likely be out of the US market.
What I wanted to figure out was who owns them, who has to pay royalties and who is out in the cold? Also if there were some other alternatives to strato and feedback carbs coming down the line. Companies will often put a lot of R&D in rather than spending money on royalties to a competitor - sometimes this is for good stuff and sometimes it ends up just being half-assed workarounds (which is what SLR looks like to me, but maybe not).
Maybe crankcase injection has some advantage over a feedback carb, although I don't see it, but it would be mechanically more complicated. You could try to time the injection pulses for late in the scavenge part of the cycle to get a strato-like effect I guess, and it might get Stihl around Husky's patents - but likely at a higher cost. And just because they do direct cylinder injection on mounted engines does not translate into hand-held tools.
So it looks like strato and feedback carbs for the foreseeable future - these really are major advances, and Husky owns them both. Maybe crankcase injection eventually but I wouldn't hold my breath for direct cylinder injection. SLR will probably go nowhere.