Well, I agree.
On one extreme, we have the clearly unreasonable position that popular audio and video codecs can only be implemented by proprietary software, so that open-source software can never implement them, and the majority of our audiovisual culture goes down the memory hole when that proprietary software stops working.
On the other extreme, we have the clearly unreasonable position that when a patent office grants a patent on an audio or video codec, we should kill the patent examiner and inventors, vaporize the country's capital and large cities with a thermonuclear holocaust, and hunt down and kill any relatives of the inventors and patent examiner who survive elsewhere, flaying them and hanging them upside down from gas-station awnings to rot as a warning to others.
This is unreasonable because, among other things, the inventors may have had no way to know that the patent would ultimately read on software implementations. Also, though it's understandable to want to make an exception in this case, the Geneva Conventions strictly prohibit collective punishment.
As a middle ground, I suggest that we merely criminalize attempts to enforce patents against software of any kind, following the model of SLAPP laws. We should levy fines as a percentage of the plaintiff's revenues and disbar the lawyers who filed the lawsuits, with six months to a year of prison time for the officers of the company, or for an individual if the plaintiff is an individual.
By contrast, your extremist proposal of allowing patentholders to block software implementations of international standards unless they are paid, that is clearly absurd, as it imposes a completely unreasonable burden on the open-source maintainers who are the backbone of modern software.