H.264 is an open standard under the accepted definition of what an open standard is. The W3C patent policy doesn't change that and the fact that they have decided not to specify codecs makes it entirely irrelevant since there will be no standard codec.
It's pretty amazing how you keep attacking Google for something irrelevant like Google Books. Using your logic, Apple would be a willful violator and hater of open web standards, since it has cockblocked the W3C Widgets standard at least twice because it allegedly infringed on Apple patents.
It's entirely to the point. Google has shown that it is an outlaw company that does not respect intellectual property law. Therefore, they cannot be trusted when they say something doesn't violate that law: they claim nothing they do violates the law and they've misled the public on it in cases where they were clearly in violation of the law. Simply, they have no credibility left.
W3C Widgets have no bearing on that issue, which you clearly either don't understand or wish to dance around by bringing in irrelevant side topics to confuse the issue.
No, what promotes an open web is to not allow companies like Microsoft (IE), Adobe (Flash) and Google (where to begin, but WebM in this instance) exercise control over the technology and data of the Web. H.264, which is an open standard, no matter how many times you deny that it is, that promotes an open Web, and has been embraced by an open Web. WebM is nothing but a power play by Google to control the Web, and make it less open, less free, and more their private property. Interestingly, sabotaging the open Web with WebM fits nicely into the strategy they revealed when they conspired with Verizon to sabotage net neutrality. Part of a pattern and entirely relevant to the discussion.