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.'"
I am really worried. Any minute now, someone will patent going to work by bus. (Including SCSI and VME)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
My pics.
next 7-11 will sue circle K because they both run the same business.
So a common-sense business method is patentable? The U.S. patent system really is broken, I'd encourage all to read Jaffe & Lerner's Innovation and Its Discontents to see just how broken it is. Personally, I think there's no hope of repair, and innovation would progress better were the entire system thrown out. But patents are seen as such a triumph of early American government, with founding fathers like Jefferson in favor of them. Plus, our legislature is currently enslaved to monetary interests. So, we're stuck in quite a pickle where nothing can really be done.
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
Blockbuster should charge $.01 per year late fees. No longer the same as the patent.
>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).
... should probably take the time to read the patents in controversy assigned to Netflix first.
They are:
US Patent No. 6,966,484 to Calonje, et al.; and
US Patent No. 7,024,381 to Hastings, et al.
As you do so, look at the claim language, not the specification, to find out what the invention actually covers. Discuss.
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'
Blockbuster, if you're listening, you need to lay hard into the US Patent Office and sue them for incompetently issuing bogus patents that will cost you huge penalties in legal fees and possible settlement costs.
The advantage of vigorously pursuing full-scale litigation against the patent office is that most of the research for your legal team will be done free of charge. There is a huge community who are already aware of the problem with the USPTO and can point to at least hundreds of similar bogus patents that have or may in the future cause significant financial loss to other companies.
I use these guys: http://www.intelliflix.com/. It's cheap. Anyways, they too are copying Netflix, must be that they're not big enough to get sued for it yet. Estupido.
nothing
There's a difference between patenting inventions (i.e. what the system was designed for) and patenting commercial actions and methods of organization, which is what business model patents are. Business model patents do NOT promote the Sciences and Arts. They merely ensure a monopoly without encouraging innovation.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
My good friend who has been working at netflix for approximately 5 years says that most of the employees think the lawsuit issue with blockbuster is a waste of time
Blockbuster has been getting their asses kicked in regards to marketshare vs. netflix for about the last year or so
When blockbuster initially tried to compete with Nflix, the Nflix folks were a bit scared, including my buddy who was worried about the future of the company he helped develop - however, after Nflix's somewhat recent resurgence & increased user subscription, which in turn boosted the stock prices from all time lows, blockbuster has become a non-issue to Nflix (well at least to my buddy and most of the staff)
--
I believe not at all. Rights are granted for the benefit of the whole of society, not single individuals: otherwise you might as well reintroduce slavery, as it was very beneficial to a few guys. Having a monopoly on something that can be reproduced indefinitely such as business or programming methods, and knowledge in general, means unfairly harming everybody else. You are not damaged by someone else who's using your methods (this does not block you from using them), unless you mean by competition, and last time I checked there is quite a load of legislation that actually protects competition, as it is demonstrated to improve product quality for society.
You cannot steal a method or an idea. You can only copy it. The original author still has it.
On the contrary, if you know that the competition is going to figure out your methods and implement them after a while, you know also that you must keep innovating and leveraging your position as first in the market (it takes time to make a Webshop from just an idea: and if you are slow and competition is faster than you to commercialise, it's all your fault). In other words, you have to do actual work, not rest on your laurels because some law forbid everybody else from using your methods.
From the whole society's point of view (that is, our point of view), if Netflix wins we are going to see worse service from Blockbuster and less competition. If Blockbuster wins, competition will be closer between the companies and they will have to find a way to get more customers.
The more I think of the patent system the more I think that the whole concept is flawed. As generally with IP, Beethoven and Mozart died in poverty, Britney Spears is filthy rich.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
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.
In-town, one could stroll to the lending library (or send one's maid or footman) to return a book and pick up the next one on the list. It was a social occasion as well as a literary one. Subscription price varied depending on how many books you wanted to have in your posession at a time.
Out of town patrons paid a subscription fee (higher to cover the cost of shipping) that depended on how many books they wanted to posess at a time (a few, up to dozens of them if you were going to India), handed over or mailed in their list and waited for the postman to deliver the books. When they were finished with the book/s, they sent it/them back and got the next batch on the list that was in stock.
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!!