Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Granted Patent on DVD Subscription Rentals
A few folks noted a new patent showing up
from netflix. They apparently now have a patent on their model of subscribing to rentals- where instead of being charged per disc, you are charged a monthly fee and can keep the rentals indefinitely without late fees. You can patent anything! Get on the bus!
Does this patent only cover DVD rentals? I'd hate to see a site like gamefly get hurt over this if the patent is broad enough to include all media rentals with the same scheme.
Walmart To Buy NetFlix.
They've succeeded in making themselves worth buying, kudos.
-R
Patents are for keeping out those pesky small innovative companies who can't affort to go to court and don't have their own patent portfolio so that they can force cross-licensing.
Expect Wal-mart to fucking bend Netflix over. I get your "pull for the little man" thing. On the other hand, I'm glad a relatively large company (Netflix) finally pulled this patent crap against a company that's actually going to challenge the patent, as opposed to a mom-and-pop who can't fight back.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Well, I have to say that it is a non-obvious business practice. Otherwise video stores would have tried it years ago. I'm not sure they should have patented it, but it is definitely a useful implementation. Of course the mailorder/internet thing makes it functional...
I don't think there is anything resembling prior art, and for most of us, it was kindof a WOW! epiphany/paradigm shift thing.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
You're showing your ignorance to basic capitalism.
BS patent or not, Netflix having a patent on this method of DVD rentals kills the competition--whether it comes from a Big Corporation or otherwise. A lack of competition is ALWAYS bad for the consumer. In the end, it's not WalMart who's getting screwed, it's you.
If we're going to allow Business Methods to be patentable (and that's a seperate conversation) then this is definitely an example of something that ought to be.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So you're OK with a WalMart coming along with all their resources and wiping out NetFlix as soon as they see that a market is there worth taking? Yeesh, so much for innovation!
I can understand giving somebody an 18 year monopoly on a product that required lots of money spent on R&D, but allowing any bright idea to be patented is just idiotic.
Well, that pretty much writes off any small inventor. If you have to pour $X into R&D to get a patent, you've basically walled off a class of innovators from ever bringing their ideas to market.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
+5? Good god. What are the mods smoking? Even though NetFlix is sort of cool- I used to be a member, but have moved on to "greener" pastures- and they did have a good idea, why should this be patentable? Being able to patent "Do X, only on the internet" is about as stupid as can be. What if it had been possible to patent "Do X"? Would you all be happy if Blockbuster had a patent on movie rentals? Alamo on car rentals? Or, perhaps, Expedia on "Buying airline tickets... on the internet!" As others have said, unlimited-time-out rentals are not a new idea, either, so they really are doing this based of off "... on the internet".
Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.
Except, of course, that it's not. Rental clubs are nothing new. Growing up, we had a video rental store nearby that offered a subscription model. You take that and add round-trip shipping and that's suddenly something new? I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find an earlier identical business model based around something other than DVDs. The closest thing to being revolutionary here is the notion that it might actually make any money.
bance.net
I had a few titles on my rental list that started "Playboy's...", but after not looking for a month or so, I couldn't even find the category any more.
suddenly head down the Blockbuster path of "extra special no-naked-people" versions of movies.
That annoys the shit out of me. What the fuck is it with people here in the States that makes them so afraid of seeing naked people? BUT THE CHILDREN MIGHT SEE. It's the soccer moms doing it, I'm telling you...
It's not so much that they cut the naked people out. It cutting ANYTHING out of the movie without telling me. I want to see the movie the way the director intended it. Which is why I'm a big fan of director's cuts that have more footage, a lot of times extra scenes that add a LOT to the movie. I hate it when someone high up cuts this and this out to get the pg-13 rating which means bigger sales.
Screw that. Movies are an art form. I don't go to a museum and expect to see black bars on all the naked statues and paintings, do I? I fail to see the difference.
Unfortunately for you, many people, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, disagree.
Unfortunately, the people who believe that business models should be patentable will find out too late that it was a bad idea.
"Intellectual Property" isn't. Ideas are very different from material goods, and trying to treat them the same is stifling the creativity that has advanced science, technology, and business in the United States up until now.
TTFN