> You're thinking about MPEG-LA, and even then your description is debatable.
As we say in Germany: "Wer mit den Hunden schläft, braucht sich nicht zu wundern, wenn er am nächsten Tag mit Flöhen aufwacht." ("Who sleeps with dogs should not wonder if next days he wakes up with fleas").
In other words: if the MPEG does not clearly distance itself against the business conduct of the MPEG-LA, it should not wonder if the MPEG gets the same hate as the MPEG-LA.
Guessing you wanted "standards organisation" and technically MPEG is a Working Group of a Subcommittee of the Joint Technical Committee between ISO and IEC.
Patents are sad because they create an incentive to argue for a technically inferior choice that you "own" over a superior choice that you don't own.
CA/B Forum (which isn't an SDO but bear with me) ran into trouble when setting up the Ten Blessed Methods (our name, not theirs) for validating control over an FQDN because it turns out some ways to implement these methods were patented by members. Although CA/B isn't an SDO, the effect of it making rules about how things are done is to set a standard, since all significant vendors in this space are members of CA/B, and all major trust stores require you to obey CA/B rules even if you're not a member.
The patents didn't cover any of the good ways to implement the Ten Blessed Methods. Literally in every case the patent described the most unsatisfactory half-arsed way to achieve something you could imagine, the existence of these patents was causing vendors to prefer to do something bad (which they'd patented) rather than something good (which they had not). But there was a reluctance to just say "OK, we patented all this stinking garbage, but forget about that" and get on with it, this stalled things for many months. After all patents aren't free, who wants to admit they bought something worthless? Ugh.
As it's constructed and the different patent pools involved, I'm not sure that a patent holder could benefit more than others by having MPEG use their patent.
That being said, patents are still annoying when you bump in to them. MPEG is remarkable in terms of the amount of interop though, you can watch video on your phone, laptop or your 4k TV all made by different vendors with different parts.
However, MPEG enables the rent-seeking behavior by MPEG-LA, quite deliberately. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that MPEG are complicit and a big part of the problem. People are always making excuses for MPEG.
Secondly: in the case of MPEG-G (the genomics 'standard' that is being developed by MPEG), the very same people who are working on MPEG-G, as part of the MPEG working group, are the people who are filing the patents. See the hackernews thread on MPEG-G that I linked above.
That means the rent-seeking behavior is not only the domain of the 'separate and completely unaffiliated entity' MPEG-LA. MPEG is just as bad as MPEG-LA.
Unfortunately, the (software) patent system does not distinguish between people actually innovating and rent-seekers. Patents very explicitly give their owners broad rights to shut down any use of their patented inventions through injunctions.
If you think that the MPEG-G patents are not going to be enforced in case someone was already doing what they were doing before the patent was granted, well, have I got a bridge to sell you...
As for MPEG-G creating value, I think that is highly debatable. See this post: https://datageekdom.blogspot.com/2018/09/, which summarizes the MPEG-G situation as "Patents + extensive high profile marketing + lack of evidence for benefit".
That's not a valuable contribution to society. It's simply a tax on the bio-informatics community.
That's sometimes the case for software patents in general, but not for patents tied to a standard like MPEG-G, where the point is to get people to pay for being compatible. I've looked at a couple of the MPEG-G patents, and if you're infringing the MPEG-G patent it's probably because you're actually using MPEG-G without paying for it, not because you happened to independently recreate the same thing.
One could argue that the MPEG could take a stronger stance by requiring a RF grant from its participants like some other SDOs do.
You're thinking about MPEG-LA, and even then your description is debatable.
MPEG itself is a standardisation organisms (technically a joint subgroup of ISO and IEC), defining standards out of technologies both patented and not.
MPEG-LA is a separate and completely unaffiliated entity which licenses patent pools: MPEG-LA does not create or hold patents itself, they get agreements from patent holders and sell "bundled" licenses for all patents essential to implement a relevant technology (or so they claim e.g. MPEG-LA created a patent pool for DisplayPort independently from VESA, which disputes this necessity and asserts the standard is completely royalty-free).