Well, if it's an algorithm as the article alleges - compression is an algorithm and so are video codecs. They can be patented. Why should this be treated differently?
It just seems to me if you can write software you should be able to own it. If you can own it then you get to say where and how it is used and what compensation you want.
Isn't an algorithm or a codec a lot like saying a program? Why shouldn't people be able to own the fruit of their labors?
Copyright is fine, if we ignore the recent length extensions. If you write software, you get to say who uses that software. But you don't get to say who uses similar software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents http://endsoftpatents.org/