"Just let this one patented non-royalty-free technology in because everyone is using it"
Well, how about
"Let's use this free technology, in the hopes nobody has gotten a patent on it"?
And it's important to see that both these choices are equal. "This one patented technology" is actually the same as "this technology somebody asserts patents against". The patent-assertions are NOT proven, same as in "this technology nobody asserts patents against YET". In front of the law, both are the same until it gets into court and the assertions are proven.
Either way, you loose. You even loose when NOT using the technology.
So clearly, these patents are totally irreleveant. Its actually proven that you can't even research the patents you might violate: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016968
The only thing you can do is to ignore them, no matter if anyone claims some technology is covered by patents or not.
Now, with regards to software, we've got another thing: Software Patents are not valid. None of them. All are invalid. And this they are in just about EVERY jurisdiction. Not just because most jurisdiction prohibit patents on software, but because every jurisdiction prohibits mathematics from being patented. And ALL software-patents are patents on math, mathematically provable: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110426051819346
True, there is some misunderstanding in the courts and patent offices regarding this, but from a scientific point of view, the courts just did the equivalent of defining lightning as "punishment from god". And I don't think they'll be able to uphold that view for much longer.