> Spending big money and organizing meetings with many people does give you right to prevent others to invent their own codecs?
No, making a novel and non-obvious contribution to the arts gives you the right to apply for a patent on your invention, which then gives you the right to prevent others from using that specific invention. Spending big money and organizing meetings may or may not be involved.
Nothing prevents others from inventing their own codecs.
Now commercializing those codecs may be another matter entirely, probably requiring resolving licensing issues depending on how much they rely on other patented methods. Ostensibly, pools like MPEG-LA exist to make this easier.
> Now commercializing those codecs may be another matter entirely, probably requiring resolving licensing issues depending on how much they rely on other patented methods. Ostensibly, pools like MPEG-LA exist to make this easier.
That would be fine. However, confusing the issue, claiming infringement by these new codecs in general, without providing any proof and otherwise trying to destroy the adoption of these new codecs is not OK. MPEG-LA and other right-holders conspiring to damage the alternative codecs uptake did cross this line.
No, making a novel and non-obvious contribution to the arts gives you the right to apply for a patent on your invention, which then gives you the right to prevent others from using that specific invention. Spending big money and organizing meetings may or may not be involved.
Nothing prevents others from inventing their own codecs.
Now commercializing those codecs may be another matter entirely, probably requiring resolving licensing issues depending on how much they rely on other patented methods. Ostensibly, pools like MPEG-LA exist to make this easier.