Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's the real problem. Heck, it doesn't even need to be an NPE, it just needs to be one of the patent holders they're "avoiding" who wants to fire up some litigation. They don't even need to be able to win. An existing "legit" patent holder might choose to simply throw lawyers at as a tactic to delay or defeat a potential competitor. In that case, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis for the would-be litiga…
Certainly the risk is better with a royalty-free video codec, though. In the case of Daala, the goal is to be sufficiently different to avoid these broad patents, too. Also, any companies contributing to the NETVC standard are required to declare IPR, which is not the case for MPEG standards.
I'm not sure what this means. A royalty-free video codec basically has a bullseye painted on it from the perspective of existing rightsholders. The only reason such entities might exercise restraint is because the cost/benefit analysis doesn't support litigation. Even if they don't think a competitor codec is a threat at the outset, there's nothing stopping an attacker from just sitting on the sidelines and waiting until the threat profile (and depth of infringers's pockets) becomes clearer. I.e. the "submarine patent" model, except it could even be a known patent in this case.
edit: clarity.