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!
Very interesting considering Walmart just setup a similar program.
While it may be a BS patent, it's nice to see a large corporation get screwed by a patent for once.
"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
Why don't I enter a patent for renting or leasing a car for a month?
Sometimes I wonder who it is they hire to work at the USPTO.
This appears to amount to patenting an idea, not an invention or method.
your right actually. what if someone were to come along and "improve on the patent" by supplying the same service without delays!
can that be patented?
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Heck, my old Anime club used to do that with Fansubs to get around the "no sale or rent" clause. You paid a fee each semester that allowed you to rent N tapes (the N was based off which membership you got), you could keep the tapes as long as you wanted, although you did have to turn them back in at the end of the semester and you could not have more than N tapes out at once. The fees went into blank tapes and shipping from Japan, the fansubbers did the actual translating and timing for free though.
I read the internet for the articles.
There's a quick solution for that... Start reporting them as stollen. Once I did that, the delays magically disappeared for a while. After reporting 3 or 4 stollen, the delays stopped permanently.
Yeah, netflix isn't all good, but they are still a step up from the alternatives.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Take the yearly fee you pay to Netflix and divide it by number of videos you actually watch. Most people are probably paying $15 to rent a movie. What a great scam! Oh, but you can keep it sitting on your shelf for a month!
I'm not sure if this is good or bad. On the one hand, I applaud netflix for protecting a buisness model they invented, or at least they were the first to implement and sink a lot of capital into.
But this gives them a monopoly. If they have the patent on a business, they have the monopoly and can stop everyone else from competeing.
A lot of the eTailers are trying to patent things that in effect would give them a similar monopolistic control over entire ways of doing business (oneClick etc...), these are definatly bad.
So I guess after reasoning this out, it's bad. It gives NetFlix an unfair control over a business model. There will be no competition, and they can raise the price to any level they see fit. So instead of you and me getting a service like this for $5 a month, becuase that's just a little bit more than it costs to make it happen, we will be forced to pay $25 or more becuase no-one is allowed to compete with NetFlix.
BTW: I'm a netflix user and love it. I think the system is great. I'd love some competition to drive the price way down.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
... (waits for everyone to respond calling me ingnorant...)
but is it even possible / should it even be possible to get a patent for a business model? If so, why hasn't the RIAA patented the process in place for screwing its artist & the general public, while pulling the wool over the eyes of lawmakers? Why hasn't SCO patented the process for going after more-successful companies in order to keep themselves afloat?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
if the patent is broad enough to include all media rentals with the same scheme.
How about books? Netflix sounds a little like the once-common institution of subscription libraries. Someone who knows the history of libraries might be able to dig up some prior art on this. If the only real difference is DVDs instead of books, I don't see how they'd be able to keep the patent.
--
Freeper Logic
Well, I have to say that it is a non-obvious business practice.
Non-obvious... I've seen a few places that use similar models. Usually it's $0.50 rentals with a monthly fee. A lot of import rentals (Taping foreign shows for rental) do things like this.
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.
Some video stores do it. And have been doing it for over a decade... Just go to import video stores and check them out. A big part of why they have membership fees is to continue to buy blank tapes to record the television shows on.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Why do half the posts support Netflix, because this gives them the chance to oppose Walmart and Blockbuster? Patenting a business model is a Bad Thing, but it's okay if it could potentially hurt a company you don't like or deem too powerful? The hypocrisy in this offends me. Make up your damn minds -- do you want fair and judicious patents, or do you want to continue to have them used as weapons, as long as you support the one holding them?
Notice in the flowchart on the first page of the pdf that a bunch of people linked to there is a box for surcharges if you turn over too many vids.
For a general overview of what constitutes patentability, see Part II of Title 35.
I hereby revoke CmdrTaco's previous statement, "You can patent anything!"
they've got awfully deep pockets and can afford a prolonged fight.
and what if through their public fight, they caused enough outrage through middle (and lower) america to get the politicians to start thinking about PTO change.
maybe everyone should start lobbying their local store manager to get walmart to fight the good fight.
Netflix came up with a genuinely new business model, for which they should be rewarded
For which they are rewarded when someone joins and pays them money.
What secrets are they keeping that the public will benefit from the exposure of on their patent application?
None. It's bleeding obvious, and the first time you hear of it, it's obvious how to implement it, even by lemonade stand-level businesspeople.
If you're an American, read your Constitution--the justification is written into it. If you're not, well, quick start a Netflix-style business before the EU patent is granted.
Sorry, wrong answer. Expect Wal-mart to go on about its business gladly ignoring the patent. Why should they care? It's not like netflix wants to waste years of their life and tons of money trying to enforce against *Walmart*.
No, expect them to go on happily. However, expect Walmart to be the first to inform netflix of any *other* infringements that are indeed sueable.
Infact Netflix may just cut a free deal with walmart so as not to look like they are scared of the Giant. That would certainly be in walmarts interest in case Netflix gets bought out by a sue happy holdings company.
I find this *really* disappointing...and rather questionable.
A quote from one of Netflix stockholders mentions:
"For the near term, this provides a way for them to defend against competition."
So now, companies like the ever-wonderful Greencine.com (which I use and love), can no longer legally continue as they have been. Netflix patent will either push them out of business entirely, or they will be dependent on Netflix as a result of the aforementioned patent.
How is this not a monopoly?
Maybe I don't understand something glaringly obvious about the nature of a business monopoly, but it seems to me that this is exactly what Netflix will become. While I think it's obvious to all of us that video rentals have been around for a long time, the 'net is an entirely new medium for distribution. Obviously, charging per-rental via the 'net isn't economical for the consumer *or* the rental company, so a subscription model seems the best route to go. It just seems beyond ridiculous to me to allow a patent like this, though. A subscription model just plays out as common sense, but is it really something that can be patented?
Utterly ridiculous, blatantly obvious, and ultimately pathetic. I'll be especially pissed if it means that Greencine goes away, since it's allowed us to stop patronizing Blockbuster and support a company we actually believe in. I'm not sure what's worse: watching Netflix try to push out the smaller online rental stores or watching Blockbuster essentially decimate mom-n-pop video stores. Looks like i'll have to start trekking out to SE Portland and renting at Movie Madness.
I just signed up for Greencine and found something annoying. Apparently I must have made an error in my credit card information when I signed up, because I got an email notice that it rejected...and now I'm expected to contact them via email to correct that information--and until I do, I'm locked out of the greencine.com website so I can't get in and correct it there.
They'd damn well better have some method of me getting my card number to them that is not in the clear over email if they want to keep my business.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Where's the problem here? Netflix came up with a genuinely new business model
Business methods are *not* patentable. However, when you put electrons into the mix, for some reason the courts see them as special exceptions. Probably because the judges are people who can't even find the ON switch, so ANYTHING on a computer is revolutionary to them. Frankly, most judges do not reflect the general opinions of the population because they are, well, old. They are out of touch. I am not saying that they should be fired, just that perhaps they should realize this and excuse themselves from such cases.
Table-ized A.I.
It's all fine and good for Netflix to have spent money on this patent if the idea is to keep litigation at bay. You don't want Blockbuster doing the same thing to you...a defensive patent, Bezos called it, I believe.
What I am currently doing is writing a nice little email to Netflix...basically saying that if I so much as smell enforcement of this bullshit patent, I will immediately cancel my subscription to their business.
Once again proving porn guides technology. In this case, predating it by a whopping 20 years.
Business methods are *not* patentable.
Are you sure about that?
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
(from the news release)"Netflix allows customers to rent as many DVDs as they want for the monthly fee, with three movies out at a time. Customers can keep the DVDs as long as they like and they are delivered directly to the subscriber's address via first-class mail." Such innovation deserves a patent! Unfortunately, that business method is a couple of centuries old, and still viable today.
In the early days of mass media (books), printing was manual, and books were expensive. And many people of means lived in isolated places. Few could afford to buy as many books as they wanted to read.
To overcome this, "subscription libraries" were developed in the 1700s (one in Newport RI was founded in 1747). They charged an annual subscription fee, which went towards buying books and administrative costs. The city subscriber could stroll over to the library (or send a servant) and get a book to read, keep it for as long as they wanted, and get a new book when they brought back the previous one. Rural subscribers would request books by mail and get the books by mail. Fast readers could read as many as they wanted, with the restriction being that they had to return one to get another. (there may have been a multi-book quota ... I've never had to discuss the administrative details)
How is this different than the NetFlix patent, allowing for advancements in technology allowing online subscribing and electronic payment. Whether it's an annual subscription, or a monthly one, you sign up, you pay, you borrow, you return, you borrow some more.
And subscription libraries still exist today ... The one in Newport is sitll going strong, and I've seen some websites where you can subscribe to get access to their library of books or other non-web information.
The whole thing is egregious. Coming up with a novel business only gives you the right to run with it and pull far enough ahead so that you've captured the market share before your competetion comes online. You should be able to patent the idea to crush all competetion. When that happens we the customers lose. What incentive does NetFlix have to refine there service to our advantage if they have absolutely no competition?
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
I was recently told by my boss that our company's legal dept. wants us to try to patent *anything* that we've created. BTW, I'm a web developer/SA building tools for internal use. The idea is that by patenting stuff that we've written, we protect ourselves from somebody else patenting it and then suing us. We'd win (well, hopefully) because we'd be able to show prior art but it would still be an ugly legal battle. By spending the money up front, we protect ourselves and ensure that if somebody *does* try to sue us, we can show the judge the patent and hopefully wrap things up simply, cheaply, and quickly.
Although we could potentially use the patent to give competitors a hard time, the point would be to protect ourselves and our IP *before* somebody decides to attack us. It's also worth noting that if any of this patent stuff within my company actually looked like it was going to happen I'd be pushing strongly for something in writing basically saying that the patent wouldn't be abused.
It's a shame that anybody would have to go to these extremes just to make sure they can avoid a lawsuit but hey, that's life in the big city.
Rob
If you disagree with the entire concept of IP, then we are really coming at this from two different directions.
/. in general, not just for you). Instead of just complaining about how horrible the USPTO is, why don't you make some efforts to change it? There are Patent Examiner jobs open, including jobs in Computer Science and engineering. For an unemployed /.-er that is convinced he could do a better job examining patents, thats a win-win situation.
However, the same arguments that you are making about stifling creativity and scientific advance were made 20 years ago when the courts ruled that you could patent a living organism. Look what has happened since then- there has been an explosion of scientific advancement in the biotech and pharmaceuticals industries. These patents were an important ingredient in that growth.
Sure, our patent system isn't perfect, but I think our IP laws are partly responsible for our technological advancements this century.
Here is an idea (for
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Walmart has licensed the "technology" from NetFlix?
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Amazingly, some people actually like purchasing their movies. Yeah, I know!
Granted, it sucks that most of the money I've spent on those movies has ended up in the pocket of some slimeball I would probably punch in the face before willingly giving money, but it still seems right, in way. More right than just taking the movies without giving any compensation to anybody, that's for sure.
Or, maybe I just like all those pretty keep cases...
Nothing to see here.
Yea. I feel sorry for those that rented Requiem For A Dream" from Blockbuster.
Netflix business method isn't really original. In the 50's I lived in London and belonged to Harrod's lending library. For a monthly fee you could have three books out at a time. The boooks were delivered by the Harrods Van. They came in reusable pasteboard boxes.
When you joined, you were asigned a librarian who got to know your tastes. Every time you returned a book the librarian would pick out another and ship it to you.
Sounds a lot like Netflix to me.
Any further than this and we get into a discussion about the ethics of Business Model patents, and I'm sorry but I made it absolutely clear in my original comment that my comments were in the context of BMs being legal. If you want to discuss how developing a business concept, trialing it, risking revenues, etc, to prove it can be done and made workable is less deserving of patentability than the equivalent technological-cum-business acts, then that's a seperate issue and worthy of discussion. But saying Netflix has done nothing, invented nothing, and that Wal*Mart is not gaining from their investments by cloning the model is clearly wrong and, dare I say it, a deliberately blinked exaggeration to try and justify something strongly felt.
At the end of the day, this is neither the "Nothing new was invented" situation slashdotters have generally characterized it as - if Netflix hadn't done what it's done to make the model viable, do you think Wal*Mart would be doing this? - and nor is it an example of how bad patents have become - a business model is just that. There are many, many, ways to get a product to market most of which are methods that have been in place for centuries and will never be patentable. Wal*Mart should have no problem providing new and interesting ways of distributing DVDs, many of which will compete directly with Netflix without stealing their ideas. Meanwhile, consumers have little to be concerned about, 100 identical DVD rental services will never be better than 100 different ways of getting DVDs (or whatever.)
Wal*Mart doesn't have to be a leech.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
$20 gets you (up to) 20 movies a month. You can only have 3 out, and you have to mail each one in (like you do w/Netflix), so obviously there's no way you can really watch that many. At the end of each month, your credit *vanishes*. It does NOT roll over to the next month.
Would this model conflict w/the patent? There is no subscription rental, but rather a fixed price per DVD rential. Functionally, however, it would be the same.