If your idea is patented, then anyone that makes use of your idea should have made a search of the Patent Records and found out that their idea is not unique nor is it the first thought. Then they in truth would owe you license fees.
If you ever want to have some fun, look up and see who owns the patent on the concept of WINDOWS display. The idea of overlaying on a screen. (Hint it isn’t Bill Gates.)
I know that's how the law is set up, but does it make any sense? All it does is encourage people do document and patent things that are obvious but impractical in the hopes that they'll strike it rich.
Patents are supposed to be reserved for things that are sufficiently non-obvious that if the person who discovered them first hadn't done so, they'd have gone undiscovered for the term of the patent. That a person (or many people) could discover an idea independently should be considered prima facie evidence that it wasn't novel and non-obvious as patent law requires.
Back in the 1990's I toyed with trying to send audio chat over a 9600-baud modem. Couldn't get any results that didn't sound like garbage, but would have considered it pretty obvious that if the bandwidth were higher sending decent audio in a data stream would be straightforward.
Since the article doesn't give the number of the patent in question (why do these articles always leave out such relevant info!?) I can't see what is claimed and whether it is reasonable or not. Does anyone have the patent number in question?