It's the idea that adding a drop down menu to select installed compression codecs constitutes the ability to differentiate something enough to make it patentable that really irritates people.
Almost any modern operating system sports abstract interfaces or services which have a number of pluggable providers: compression codecs, cryptography algorithms, database drivers, input and output drivers. The idea that anytime there's more than one choice, if you simply add a user selectable feature as a claim, you can then obtain a new patent, is a very annoying feature of software patents.
If every software patent currently not-expired on record was maximally enforced, the courts would meltdown, and everyone would go bankrupt from legal fees. The only way the industry has been able to avoid gridlock and continue innovation is by essentially ignoring 99.99% of all software patents. The fact that no one pays attention to them, until one is losing in the marketplace or attempting to blockade competitors indicates that the system is broken.
And EP, SP, SLP aren't compression algorithms in the sense that any court would recognize. Let's not engage in sloppy thinking merely because we dislike software patents. There are plenty of rigorous reasons to oppose them.
I'm no patent expert, but doesn't that mean he's claiming things without codecs (e.g. the VCR) too? The first claim is generally the broadest and people seem to just laugh it off that these are often so ridiculously broad. But as far as I'm aware these are legally binding until someone overturns them with a presumption of legitimacy due to the USPTO seal of approval.
And since the claims include such things as the compression algorithm being user-selectable, it's trivially obvious that a VCR is not covered.