Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Suing Blockbuster for Patent Infringement
grouchomarxist writes "Netflix is suing Blockbuster for Patent Infringement. From the article: 'Netflix holds two U.S. patents for its business methodology, which calls for subscribers to pay a monthly fee to select and rent DVDs from the company's Web site and to maintain a list of titles telling Netflix in which order to ship the films, according to the patents, which were included as exhibits in the lawsuit.
The first patent, granted in 2003, covers the method by which Netflix customers select and receive a certain number of movies at a time, and return them for more titles.
The second patent, issued on Tuesday, "covers a method for subscription-based online rental that allows subscribers to keep the DVDs they rent for as long as they wish without incurring any late fees, to obtain new DVDs without incurring additional charges and to prioritize and reprioritize their own personal dynamic queue -- of DVDs to be rented," the lawsuit said.'"
My pics.
OK so what if I go out and patent queueing at a shop checkout to pay for goods, or paying for magazines to be delivered to your home on a monthly basis, or, or........
This shit has to stop, I mean netflix are just being totally petty about the whole damn thing. I mean, what *other* way is there to organise online DVD rental? Are they going to enforce patents on their *whole* business model.
This has to stop. Gah!
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
The first patent, granted in 2003, covers the method by which Netflix customers select and receive a certain number of movies at a time, and return them for more titles.
...um, long before 2003?
Isn't this exactly how libraries have worked since
>Aside from whether or not business methods should be patentable... since
>they were granted the patent, it's pretty obvious that they had come up with
>a novel process which was straight-up copied.
Please tell what part of it that is novel and non obvious (to people in THAT area)? In addition, it should be something that no one has done before 2003 (or even later since that was the first patent).
Yes, "common-sense" business models are patentable. Why? Because "common-sense" is not as common as you would think.
As for the "patents are bad for innovation" argument : if you come up with a way to manufacture widgets that no one else has before, and that innovation has cost you a certain amount in development costs, should you not have the right to protect that investment? If your competition can just steal your methods, then you would have no incentive to innovate.
I am not saying that there isn't a line here, or that the the line hasn't been jumped over by the US. patent office, but by and large patents do in fact encourge business investment into research that would otherwise not happen.
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'
How's that for ironic? A comment protesting the patent of common-sense business methods, and a request to read about it by giving us a referral link to Amazon, of all places... Now that's funny stuff!
Well, at the time, NetFlix was new and innovative with their business model. Therefore, the patents were reasonable at the time. Just because something seems obvious now doesn't mean that it has always been obvious.
IMHO, a time limit is needed for business model patents. I won't argue here how long they should be valid, just that they should have a reasonable expiration date. That way, the innovative company can cash in on their research and development for the time limit of their patent while still allowing competition in the market.
Naturally, companies (and I assume politicians as well) won't like the idea of time limited business model patents but I think that is what would be best for the consumer.
Sure, they can protect it the same way McDonald's, CarMax, Wal-Mart and others have protected their place. To my knowledge neither of these three (or of dozens of other premier companies with 'novel business models' has needed the USPTO to help retain their place of prominence. Being first to market is a huge advantage and that alone will sustain the fellow who 'thought of that first' in many cases.
TANSTAAFL, especially in the business world. Just because I come up with the novel concept of providing a subscription CD service (totally different from DVDs which appears to be what is patented), over the internet, with sprinkles gives me no more claim to royalties than the fellow who figured out that people were dumb enough to pay $1.50 for a bottle of water.
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
Did they also include a patent for slowing shipping down because you rent too many movies from them?
After all, Unlimited isn't really unlimited with netflix.
I'm leaving netflix To go to blockbuster - I guess people like me defecting is what really prompted the lawsuit. Instead of living up to the "Unlimited Rentals" they are going to sue everyone else out of existance.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Maybe Netflix could protect its business model by...I don't know...offering the best service/product in the market? If they are the best (in the view of the public), it won't matter how their competitors model their businesses to compete.Netflix is more or less asking the courts for special protection against market competition. I don't think *that* is a very good business model, but then again, I don't run a multi-million-dollar corporation.
If you're so worried about Netflix's business, why don't you support them instead of Blockbuster? And as for Netflix not being able to compete "at that level," well, that's tough shit. They entered a national video rental market, and the have to find a way to compete "at that level."
Transistors and Beer!!