@psyq
"Second, H.264, MP3 and AAC are as open as it gets - they ALL are fully documented and available from ISO/ITU directly (or your country standards body) with open source reference C/C++ software being available as well. When those patents expire, they will be fully public domain - much more "free" (as in freedom) than some GPL-ed stuff."
The difference is that GPL uses copyright laws, which are more reasonable as they don't preclude others from implementing similar algorithms. Software patents do not offer freedom because the holders can demand royalties and dictate terms on when the algorithms may be used, even on implementations not owned by them. When patents do finally expire, the public is only entitled to is a useless patent document written in legalize.
"The fact of the matter is - yes, complex audio and video codecs ARE based on patented technology more often than not."
True, any significant piece of software risks patent infringement.
"And there is NOTHING bad in that and NOTHING preventing them from being open for everyone to implement and use, with reasonable and non-discriminatory cost model."
You are incorrect, several years ago I wanted to write and sell my own consumer multimedia software. There were plenty of shortcomings, particularly in the area of multichannel audio capabilities, which I wanted to target. However the more I researched it, the more it became apparent that patent royalties would take out the majority of my revenue. When I saw that patent holders would make most of the profit off of my work, I concluded that it just wasn't worthwhile.
You can defend software patents any way you please, but in the end you can not deny what they are - a legal monopoly.
"It is only the freetards of this planet who are trying to spread FUD about the well-proven international standards like H.264. Sorry guys, technology has a price - someone worked very hard to invent it. No, those companies WILL NOT give it away "for free" so Apples and Googles of this would would use it to make money."
Companies can charge what they please for their products/services, but why would they need to threaten their competitors with patent suits if their products were worth buying? It seems like they genuinely fear competition on a level playing field and would rather not let the free market play out.