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!
They've also got a patent on not being able to find my DVDs for at least a week and a half after I send them back.
Mike.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
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
This canâ(TM)t be good for Walmart. I wonder if Netflix will use this patent to shut down their competing service or if theyâ(TM)ll be âoeniceâ and license it for an obscene amount. People need to start pushing this issue with their representatives before e-mailing, calling, faxing, and talking are all patented.
See the patent PDF here.
/pant pant pant
Imagine if McDonalds had patented the "drive-thru" method of selling. THE PTO FARKING SUCKS I AM GETTING SO TIRED OF THIS CRAP
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.
I claim the patent on short articles devoid of detail, royalties must commence immediately.
You can patent anything! Get on the bus!
Better do it fast, before someone patents 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.
"In 1899, Charles Duell, the director of the US Patent Office, suggested that the government close the office because everything that could be invented had been invented."
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
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.
I'm a little surprised /. has yet to report on my patent of the knife, fork and spoon, as used in human food delivery.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Walmart To Buy NetFlix.
They've succeeded in making themselves worth buying, kudos.
-R
Seriously, fuck Wal-Mart for trying to copy someone else's idea and expect to get rich off of it again. I feel about as bad about this as when I was told AOL/Time-Warner lost 90 Billion last year.
I love Netflix for the way they revolutionized my DVD viewing, and will hence-forth be very protective of them.
The USPO become a US legal work creation scheme, there can be no benefit to mankind by granting some of these patents with obvios prior art unless of course the part of mankind you want to benfit happens to be called lawyers.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
somebody actually beat amazon.com to a patent?!
I bet there's an earthquake occuring somewhere.
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
I'm going to patent the idea of letting someone I know and trust use something for a short time for no cost, and if they don't give it back in that time, giving them some more time if like them or beating them up if I don't.
I'll call it "lending" or "borrowing"
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
So, I guess that means Netflix is crossed off my list. Does anyone have another DVD rental service to recommend? (assuming that this other company can survive despite the patent.)
I recently heard about GreenCine and they seem interesting. It's $21.95/month, but they have "over 10,000 titles, with an accent on indie, art house, classics, foreign, documentary, anime and Asian cinema."
I sought a second opinion and found this extensive review of DVD rental services at Stark Raving Normal. The guy seemed to like them: "GreenCine is my current favorite DVD rental service. The customer service people have been great, they have the best selection of anime that I have seen from a DVD rental place, lots of cult movies, sci-fi, horror, indie films, foreign cinema, and even a cool little online community of San Francisco movie geeks."
I don't work for GreenCine, but they're probably towards the top of my list at the moment. And, it doesn't hurt either that some of their profits go to film arts organizations.
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Here's some more info: Netflix Issued Patent on Subscription Rental Service and complete copy of the patent (PDF). You can also search for patent # 6584450 on the US Patent office website.
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 rent an item for a set amount of time with a set price.
If you return the item in the time alotted then everything is great. If not you're given a late fee.
It's BRILLIANT!!!!!
Libraries, Movies, Equipment, you all owe me royalties now!!!
I don't get how you can patent a management style or business action. It would be nice if Uncle Sam would start to realize that them there computers on the desk ain't too hard to use. Maybe even somebody can connect one to the internet (of course by paying royalties to Al Gore) and cruise around.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Umm, actually he never said that
Technoli
Sure, Netflix provides a new and rather unique system of DVD Rentals, but it isn't really a NEW Idea. There has been years upon years of renting things for a period of time...
Such as Home or Apartment Rentals. Anyone ever rent an apartment before? How about rent (lease) and automobile from a car dealership?
This patent should be destroyed as quickly as possible and whoever passed this patent in the USPTO needs to be hung up by their toes for a few weeks.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
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
...of the absurd U.S. patent system. And now we here in EU are gonna get something similar. Great indeed.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
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.
In New York City a company called "Fetch-a-flick" allows you to order DVDs online. They deliver within an hour, you keep the movie for 3-5 days, put it in the supplied envelope and drop it in a mailbox (or leave it with your doorman). All for 4 bucks each. I'd love to do business with netflix but the last thing I need is another monthly charge, and fetchaflick quenches the impulse renting urge. If you live in Manhattan check 'em out - I highly recommend them. (Caveat: their delivery area isn't huge) Fetchaflick.
No, I don't work for them, I'm just really happy with their services.
... (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!
That patent's already taken. Too late.
SCO has the rights to that one.
Just a thought: if Netflix successfully defends this patent, you will still be paying them if you rent from anyone using their business method.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
NetFlix thought of something that no one else (at least that I am aware of) thought of. They invested a lot of capital in to making this idea work, and just as it starts to get a critical mass, Wal-Mart comes in and tries to run them out of business.
This is precisely why we have patents! To reward innovation.
My other sig is extremely clever...
IMO, there really are no alternatives to the service Netflix can provide. Specfically their ratings and recommendations model. While there are cheaper services, like Wal-Mart and DVD Avenue, Netflix's recommendation system makes them work the extra few dollars a month.
They claim over 13,000 titles (though I suspect disc sets are broken up to get this figure), and I have only personally rated about 1,100. Thats a heck of a lot of titles I haven't been exposed to, and Netflix makes it easier to find stuff that would interest me.
Unless Amazon.com gets into the DVD Rental business, Netflix simply has no competition, in my book.
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.
Dear Mr. Taco,
I represent the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and I must insist that you immediately cease and desist your use of the phrase "Get on the bus!", which is patented by my client under US Patent #2032987. I will expect all references to such phrase to be removed from your site by 12:00 AM GMT on June 25, 2003.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
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.
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.
Start reporting them as stollen. ..........How is german bread going to help?
If you start telling people that their DVDs have turned into german bread, they'll think you're mad.
Damn, you're a snide little shit. Actually, I wouldn't expect Walmart to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a business that can be shut down quickly with a court order. They may license the patent or they may fight it, but ignoring it isn't likely. Especially with the treble damages that would potentially exist for a patent of this profile, as claiming to have not seen the patent isn't an option.
For the exact reasons you claim, netflix is likely to cave, since they DONT want to fight walmart. But once Walmart has large amounts of cash invested in this, they can't walk away from a settlement without committing financial suicide, giving strong leverage to netflix. So expect any action to occur before walmart rolls their operation.
Get it?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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
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.
I vaguely recall something like this in the past. It was called a...libation? No, library. That's it, a LIBRARY. Allthough I think it was cheaper per month, but they did charge late fees. I guess this is why they disappeared:)
Come on, guys. Netflix are competing with a very large and not-so-gentle adversary, Walmart. They (Netflix) have built up a good business providing their clients with exactly what they want. But their business model has turned into a commodity. Patent protection is an unusual way of protecting business processes but if it works, all power to them.
This is one of the better patents I've seen recently - it actually describes true innovation that has been implemented, and actually protects the innovator against competitors who would copy the idea and the model.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Once again proving porn guides technology. In this case, predating it by a whopping 20 years.
Soooo... does this mean Blockbuster has to stop its movie rental pass things?
As I recall, they came out with that after Netflix.
No, the price tag was actually invented by members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers.) Quaker businessmen disapproved of negotiated pricing, which they saw as in some ways akin to gambling. The price ticket was invented to make a statement about honest business practices. And they would not have patented it, not only because it would be contrary to their beliefs but because, in Europe and the UK, you cannot patent a business method.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
(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 mailing of movies aside, Netflix business model is different from my public library how?
Check out Largest recipe database on the web.
That is the funniest thing i have seen on here all day
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
I believe that it's important to hear all sides to any issue, so here are two Ogg Vorbis encoded recordings of Richard M. Stallman speaking about software patents and a percieved danger that they pose to software development. I know that this story isn't specifically about software patents, but you may find his ideas informative and extensible. (Disclaimer: Verbatim copying and distribution of the entire speech recording are permitted provided this notice is preserved.)
i dgeuni-england2002.ogg Transcript t s-lse2002.ogg
http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-cambr
http://audio-video.gnu.org/audio/rms-speech-paten
Here is a transcript of a non-recorded speech given by RMS in India also on the issue of software patents.
I hope some of you find these links useful. If anyone knows of any good links taking differing position on the issue of patent law, etc... than I would definitly encourage you to post those.
>You can patent anything! Get on the bus!
I have a patent on getting on the bus.
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
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.
Netflix.com's patent (6,584,450) is surprisingly broad and the claims are NOT limited to DVDs or movies (although some dependant claims provide those limitation).
Hopefully they'll simply use it as a defensive mechanism to prevent others from suing them for patent infringement. But one never knows.
The independent claims read:
1. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total current number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number.
and
16. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total number of items provided to the customer within a specified period of time does not exceed a specified limit.
Stop undressing me with your eyes. I'm ugly naked.
The Constitution gives patents to encurage inventors by giving them a monopoly on whatever they invent for a period of time, meaning that nobody can copy their idea to compete against them with it. Yes, this means that monopoly pricing power goes to the inventor's company... and that's their reward, but at least it comes with an expiration date.
Netflix says they've built something that nobody has built before. If that claim is true, then they've won the right to a limited-time monopoly fair and square.
Walmart is coming along and trying to duplicate them exactly while undercutting their prices, which would be perfectly legal to do if Netflix's distribution model isn't original. That's exactly what a patent monopoly is there to prevent... the inventor gets to soak the market for a few years as the reward, then competitors may jump in and throw him out.
BTW, this wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction to Walmart coming late to the party... Netflix has had their application in since Y2K, it's just now that the PTO finally stamped "Approved" on it...
Most of the discussion and argument about this patent has been focused on the idea that subscription services are not new. If you'll read the patent text, or even just the abstract, you'll see that the essence of the patent deals with how you select movies to rent and the fact that this process is separate from the rental process itself. If you've used Netflix, you know what they are talking about. You select movies and add them to your rental list. When you turn in a movie, they automatically send you the next movie from your list. This differs from most other rental schemes in which you select the next item to rent at the time you are renting it, and really is one of the best features of using Netflix. Maybe some other subscription-based rental services do this, but from what I've read in this thread, I haven't seen anyone point out any that do (in particular, any such services that predate Netflix).
Start reporting them as stollen. ..........How is german bread going to help?
Oh, you silly grammer Nazi, you.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
You can patent anything! Get on the bus!
Sorry but I noticed that, although everything about a bus is patented, actually getting on it wasn't. So my application's in for that. Don't get on the bus if you don't intend to pay royalties.
$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.
Firstly, I am located in Little Rock and the nearest Netflix distribution center was in Houston. Walmart has a distribution center about 4 hours away in Bentonville. Walmart is also the master of distribution and has facilities all over the world. I was finding that even though I would receive a DVD from Netflix and return it the next day, I was only receiving about 3-4 movies a week at most due to shipping delays. I am hoping to improve on that by subscribing to Walmart's service.
Secondly, there is a minimal price difference. For approximately $2.00 a month I could keep out a 4th DVD on loan over the price of a 3 disc Netflix account. Assuming that I will be able to receive them quicker, I should get 5-6 a week from Walmart. So instead of getting 12-15 a month from Netflix, I should get 20-25 a month from Walmart for only $2.00 a month more. Of course, my turn-around time on these must be swift to achieve this goal. In comparing the delivery, Walmart uses the exact same envelopes to mail as Netflix. Where Netflix uses a coated paper sleeve, Walmart is using a clear plastic sleeve. The queue on your account screen is nearly identical and in fact uses the same terms for how long a wait you'll have to get that hot new DVD (now, short wait, long wait). Movie selection is not as good on Walmart's site. For instance I was looking for the movies Alien, Aliens and Aliens3. These are nowhere to be found on Walmart's site. All you get is some cheapo alien movies from their bargain bin.
In reality, the sites, delivery methods, and rental agreements are nearly identical. I believe that Walmart has a problem. And for them to be quoted as saying they were unaware of any patent pending from Netflix, well it is either stupidity on their part not to have checked it out or a case of who cares we will bury them in red tape if they sue.
Really this is not a case of someone coming out of the woodwork like the Ebay case, but rather a first to market, successful firm patenting their business model. Nothing wrong with that and Walmart is probably scrambling in Bentonville trying to figure out what they are going to do.
I'm going to patent the rental process by which users rent a DVD at no charge but must return it within 48 hours from the time they placed their order or face a $3.99 per day late fee. All orders will be shipped out via Pony Express from a warehouse in central Africa. All shipments leaving the continent will go by sail-less raft.
I think it could make money!
Most of these comments are way off-topic. Whether or not this is a good method of distributing DVDs is not the issue, nor is whether anyone should anyone for movies at all, or how good various companies are at delivering on what they promise.
The real issue is that however good this business model is or isn't, there is absolutely nothing that is technically innovative about it. It is a simple billing model -- something that is explicitly not patentable.
This doesnt' even call for congressional action. Firing half of the patent department for technical incompetence and failure to read the laws they are supposed to be enforcing would be more appropriate.
In other industry news, today Santa Cruz Operations (SCO) filed suit against Netflix in Federal Court, claiming NetFlix used SCO's patented business methods. According to one SCO insider, "Those NetFlix bastards think they can just patent any old thing, but we are prepared to demonstrate that we have a patent on patenting stuff, provided that the court, judge, and God himself sign this NDA before reviewing our 'Patent Patent'. We've had NetFlix on double-secret probation for a while now, and we're ready for them."
You can't have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.