Additionally, patent holders declined to enforce license fees on free and open source decoders, which allows many free MP3 decoders to develop.[20] Furthermore, while attempts have been made to discourage distribution of encoder binaries, Thomson has stated that individuals who use free MP3 encoders are not required to pay fees. Thus, while patent fees have been an issue for companies that attempt to use MP3, they have not meaningfully impacted users, which allows the format to grow in popularity.

I sent my father, who works for Motorola in digital video, the post and he said:

Your rant is understandable but reflects your inexperience in this technology space.

MPEG has always incorporated patented technolgies into the advanced profiles of the standard. Attendees and contributors to ITU and ISO (a UN body and the parent of MPEG) meetings are required to agree to allow ‘fair and reasonable’ licensing of any of their contributions. ‘Mpeg Licensing Authority (MPLA)’ was established to consolidate and simplify the commercial use of the patents. When companies spend billions on R&D, then they expect some compensation and control of the results. The internet has made up too familiar with ‘free’ advertising-driven content. The codecs you are using don’t fit that model.

I fully appreciate that companies spend lots on R&D and deserve to be compensated, but it strikes me as wrong and, for adoption, ultimately counter-productive to encourage the use of their proprietary technology in international standards. Granted, the MPEG standards are wildly popular, but the 3GPP formats aren’t… Maybe I just need to become a FLAC, Vorbis, and Theora evangelist. As my father notes, ITU and ISO participants have to allow fair and reasonable licensing. The restrictions on the AMR reference code documentation doesn’t strike me as reasonable.