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.
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.
Walmart To Buy NetFlix.
They've succeeded in making themselves worth buying, kudos.
-R
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.
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.
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.
Umm, actually he never said that
Technoli
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
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!
"A lack of competition is ALWAYS bad for the consumer. In the end, it's not WalMart who's getting screwed, it's you."
;)
Oh Not so! I can't imagine anyone would have thought of this particular method of renting DVDs unless someone at Netflix had shown us the way. That is precisely the intent of patent law, to bring innovation to the light of day so that we may all benefit in the future when the patent expires. Imagine if Netflix hadn't been able to patent this novel business method... they probably would have just decided to sell cabbages by the side of the road or something rather than share their secret. So none of us would have benefited from this "innovation" and we might have spent thousands of years before someone of similar intellect discovered this unique way to rent DVDs!
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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
$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.
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.