> Isn't this exactly the same way people get around patents now?
No, but the confusion comes from my ambiguous use of "copy".
Patents cover the use of mechanism X to accomplish purpose Y. Copying, for copyright purposes, is copying bytes (ignoring the whole look and feel thing). It's reasonably easy to use software mechanism X to accomplish purpose Y without copying bytes.
You seem to think that purpose should be limited to "H.264". If, for the purposes of argument, the relevant mechanism actually is useful for many other kinds of video encoding, it's unclear why that limitation makes sense. If the mechamism is worthy of protection for one protocol, why should it be unprotected when used in another?
Note that protocol ownership is different from mechanism ownership. The former is more akin to trademark, as in "real H.264" as opposed to some knockoff. (Coke vs Pepsi as it were.)
No, but the confusion comes from my ambiguous use of "copy".
Patents cover the use of mechanism X to accomplish purpose Y. Copying, for copyright purposes, is copying bytes (ignoring the whole look and feel thing). It's reasonably easy to use software mechanism X to accomplish purpose Y without copying bytes.
You seem to think that purpose should be limited to "H.264". If, for the purposes of argument, the relevant mechanism actually is useful for many other kinds of video encoding, it's unclear why that limitation makes sense. If the mechamism is worthy of protection for one protocol, why should it be unprotected when used in another?
Note that protocol ownership is different from mechanism ownership. The former is more akin to trademark, as in "real H.264" as opposed to some knockoff. (Coke vs Pepsi as it were.)