His argument is blatantly invalid.

He first points out that a royalty-free format was actually better than the patent-pending alternative that he was responsible for pushing.

In the end, he concludes that the that the progress of video compression would stop if developers can't make money from patents, providing a comparison table on codec improvements that conveniently omits the aforementioned royalty-free code being better than the commercial alternatives pushed by his group.

Besides the above fallacy, the article is simply full of boasting about his own self-importance and religious connotations.