My agreement with Monty's assessment depends upon the definition of the "codec market". The people who write the checks to pay the royalties know the costs very well. The people who pay indirectly don't care, because the costs are low enough that they don't register any pain for them. Arguably, what has been reached is an optimal economic balance.
When incorporating footnote 1, it appears that he's talking more about the selective enforcement that MPEG LA engages in, which I could see being more of a don't ask, don't tell scenario, but I'm not sure the limited number of licenses are proof that companies don't know about their licensing issues. It's just proof that MPEG LA selectively enforces the licensing requirements; a fact that is pretty well known amongst those who are in the affected markets.
The arguments in support of an open web, with open audio & video codecs, are (under current circumstances) principle-based arguments. It is notoriously difficult to get people to take action over principled issues unless there is some practical impact that they can feel directly. Mozilla made an attempt at this by digging in their feet on the H.264 inclusion issue. Unfortunately, that stand didn't really affect end-users, because website authors worked around the issue (e.g., Flash video players).
If open web proponents want to advance their agenda, they need to be more strategic. They need to identify and execute on plans that increase end-user exposure to MPEG LA licensing restrictions in a way that has a practical impact on them.
If that's not possible, then you're left with a principled disagreement only. If that's the case, then we have to fall back to the rationalization presented in Carl Sagan's "Dragon in My Garage" argument. If there is no practical difference between open and closed video codecs, then there is no difference at all. The principle disagreement is as incorporeal as Carl's dragon.