Netflix Sues Blockbuster for Patent Infringement

StrongGlad writes "Is the concept of renting movies over the Internet an original idea that deserves patent protection? Netflix claims it is, and is suing Blockbuster for patent infringement, alleging they are copying its seven-year-old online movie-rental business method. Netflix argues that it has patents covering its many online features, including allowing subscribers to keep DVDs for as long as they want without incurring a late fee, obtaining new DVDs upon return of those already watched, and prioritizing their own personal movie list. Blockbuster, for its part, has counterclaimed, insisting that Netflix is trying to monopolize the online movie-rental industry and stifle competition. Blockbuster also alleges that Netflix obtained its patents fraudulently by failing to disclose pertinent information to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and further contends there is nothing original about renting videos online in the first place."

Comments

Business models?

[daeg]

Since when are business models subject to patent rights? Products, yes, but business models?

Re:Business models?

[kimvette]

Ever since it has become possible to buy a judge and/or jury.

Re:Business models?

[Apocalypse111]

[to ask] Microsoft. They might [to know]. They seem [to patent] everything anyways.

Re:Business models?

[jimfinity]

i would agree with you if i didn't just hate blockbuster so dang much.

four bucks to rent a movie? screw you, blockbuster.

Re:Business models?

[daeg]

Four?! Where the hell are you living? It's close to $7 here...

Re:Business models?

[jimfinity]

....wow i guess sometimes it's good to live in wisconsin

Re:Business models?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Right egg, wrong chicken. The patent has to have been granted before it gets to a jury. This is either on the USPTO and the powers who run it (executive branch? Congress?)

Re:Business models?

[jonwil]

Do a patent search for "amazon.com" "1-click"...

Re:Business models?

[RovingSlug]

This is getting so out of hand. People think technology and the internet make these things special somehow. For instance

• Imagine if McDonalds had patented drive through food.

We'd all agree that's stupid, right? Why do people think business models on the internet is any different?

Re:Business models?

[daeg]

USPTO is funded almost entirely by patent fees and is run under the Department of Commerce. The DoC is run from a cabinet position, thus placing it under the Executive Branch. The USPTO is run by an appointee of the President.

Re:Business models?

[truthsearch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_paten t

Re:Business models?

[Josh Hiles]

This really is all the court's fault. It was some case called Diamond v. Chakrabarty which defined a patentable item as, "anything under the sun that is made by man." This has opened the door (far wider anyway than it was) to all kinds of ridiculous lawsuits. Witness, a company called Knight and Associates attempting to claim that it's perfectly legal to file patents on plots (for books, movies, etc) and attempting to file said plot. It's just an attempt to set up a monopoly of ideas and eliminate all competition. Truly we live in a wonderfully capitalist society. Our business owners believe in free markets completely and totally, until someone bigger and better comes along and the market dictates their destruction. Then they squawk louder than any socialist I ever heard.

Re:Business models?

[91degrees]

Since 1998 according to this article

Re:Business models?

[mTor]

Since when? Well... since 1998, I think. Here's more:

The patentable assets of the e-commerce business may also include the "business model" of the e-commerce enterprise -- that is, the systems and methods constituting the unique operational structure of the business. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently has sanctioned such business model patenting (State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As a consequence, business system/business method patents are now being filed and issued in large numbers. --Steven J. Hultquist, "Maximizing the Value of Proprietary Rights in E-Commerce," IPTL Notes, Winter 1999

And then this:

Juno patented an offline ad-delivery process, and Netcentives did the same with its ClickRewards scheme. Cybergold, Priceline, and Open Market have also rushed to patent biz models. Business-model patenting appears to be the lastest, greatest way to gain cred. --Jess Freund, "Hype List," Wired, February 1999

Re:Business models?

[no_pets]

Great example, wrong company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red's_Giant_Hamburgs

Re:Business models?

[schon]

Since when are business models subject to patent rights?

Since July 1998.

Re:Business models?

[IAmTheDave]

[to ask] Microsoft. They might [to know]. They seem [to patent] everything anyways.

What a big fat giant troll.

First, MS had nothing to do with business practices becoming patentable. Blame the federal court of appeals for State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. in 1998.

This decision, along with a few others that helped solidify the idea of patenting ideas has unleashed an unprecidented number of patent applications and infringement suits in the US.

Microsoft, while patenting every business idea under the sun, has yet to file a patent infringement suit. MS picks up patents as a precautionary and quite wise premptive defensive strategy against anyone looking to profit from MS (Eolas, for example).

Bringing up MS is uninformed and just a grab at mod points. Business process patents are not an MS invention, and in fact actually HURT MS more then they help, because MS not only has to patent everything it can think of to stay off lawsuits, it must also pay for the applications and the lawyers, and still gets sued on a regular basis for infringement of business process patents.

Do a little reading before blurting out a post next time.

Re:Business models?

[rednip]

Great example, wrong company.

Actually that would make Mcdonald's patent example a better real world example, as many of these granted business model patents are just as disputable, as prior art seems to be often overlooked. Many claim that they often violate the novelty, and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law as well.

Re:Business models?

[jo_ham]

I think you missed the point of the joke. This was an obvious nod to the (erronously summarised) story earlier this week about MS patenting verb conjugation, adding more fuel to the "patent obvious stuff: profit" model that has been emerging over the past few decades.

Re:Business models?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drive Thru Internet?

Re:Business models?

[geoffspear]

The 1-click patent is problematic, sure, but it's not really in the same category as this one. This is more like is Amazon tried to patent selling books on the Internet.

Re:Business models?

[letxa2000]

Blockbuster is right, Netflix is wrong. I think this will be a useful case that could actually highlight just how messed up the patent system is. There is absolutely nothing novel about letting people keep a DVD as long as they want, there's nothing novel about letting them rank the order in which they want to watch them, and there's nothing novel about doing it online.

Re:Business models?

[hey!]

Since when are business models subject to patent rights?

Since July 23, 1998. That was when the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down the decision in State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.

Products, yes, but business models?

Products are not patentable; it's inventions that are patentable. Prior to the ruling, business methods were often asserted to be abstract ideas, like mathematical algorithms. You can't patent laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas including mathematical algorithms. You can only patent useful, applications of these. By analogy, you can't patent the consumer procrastination, but you can patent exploiting this by creating a subscription service where your competitors are creating rental services.

I think business method patents are a completely unintended result of the constitutional authority to grant patents from article 1 section 8. However, the court's reasoning in State Street v. Signature is impeccable. Congress has been granted the right to patent inventions without any stipulation as to the kind or nature of the invention. Given that this is so, it's hard to argue that novel business methods ar not inventions. Furthermore, the SC has pretty much ruled that the Congress may use the powers it is granted in the Article 1, section 8 in any manner they see fit, even if the results contradict the intent of the framers.

So, if Congress uses those powers in a way that expressly retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences, what matters is the extent of the powers used, not the use to which the powers are put.

So, even if buisness and software patents are manifestly a bad thing, Congress may create them.

In his Second Treatise on Government, John Locke, who was the primary philosophical influence on the framers, described the conditions under which things which are common property can be privatized. The fundamental principle is that any appropriation of the commons as private property requires that "enough and as good" be left for others. Claiming the idea of a business strategy by creating a business method around it seems to fail this test. But then again, if abstract ideas are in the commons (as patent theory says they are) claiming almost any invention as your personal property probably fails this test. Which is why patents are a time limited form of property, if it indeed is proper to call them property at all. They are a deal between the state and the inventor, which the state undertakes for the public good. If the state undertakes such deals against the public good, then the proper response in a democracy is to change the people running the state.

Re:Business models?

[Apocalypse111]

Thank you for getting my joke. I hope your parent poster remembers that getting modded funny doesn't help karma.

Re:Business models?

[wgaryhas]

So, if it wasn't novel, why were they the first to do it? (Or if they weren't the first, who was?)

Re:Business models?

[Anonymous Coward]

Owned, IMO.

Re:Business models?

[FuzzyDaddy]

I love Netflix - but boy would I love to see them lose this suit bigtime.

Re:Business models?

[dslauson]

I don't want to reward Blockbuster for completely ripping off a very original and innovative business model. Also, I hate blockbuster and their drakonian repressive late fees. They once tried to take me to collections over a three-dollar late fee. I'm now an extremely happy Netflix customer, and never again will I have anything to do with Blockbuster.

Still, this is just stupid. Just because you innovated in a field doesn't mean you should get an automatic and total monopoly on it. This is America, for christ's sake. Competition is healthy and vital to the way our economy rolls, homies.

I'll vote with my dollars and stick with Netflix because of their awesome web interface and great service, but I'm not going to applaud them for being patent trolls. Not cool.

Re:Business models?

[fullmetal55]

Wow, reading that made me wonder why the hell that is acceptable... It's basically using the Patent office to generate monopolies. as long as you can create a new business process you can hold a monopoly on it. This is not a fair use of the patent laws. I for one am glad that it's not possible in Canada. Anti competitive behaviour should not be patentable. Maybe someone should have patented the process for making money off of patenting processes to establish a monopoly.

Re:Business models?

[maxwell demon]

Hey, that gives me a great idea: I'll apply for a patent on marketing by sending unsolicited emails to millions of people, and then I'll collect big pay from all the spammers out there ;-)

Re:Business models?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. I really hope this will get out of hand.
And not just a little out of hand but seriously out of hand.
Like maybe companies in the USA will not be able to invent
anything anymore in the USA because of the expenses and will
head over to Europe where crazy patents are (not yet) the norm.

Nothing will change until something really bad happens.
Big companies like the status quo for now and small companies don't
have enough money to bribe...uh, I mean persuade the necessary
people.

Re:Business models?

[kimvette]

How the hell is this flamebait? It was a court decision which made business practices patentable. See post (#16067282) elsewhere in this thread.

Don't throw mod points away modding posts down. Sheesh.

Re:Business models?

[pluther]

I'm not sure who the first was, but up to 30 years ago, you could rent books on tape the same way. They were mainly marketed to the blind, and you ordered from a paper catalog, not the internet, but the keep them as long as you like, get the next one when you return them ideas were the same.

Also, my local library (Multnomah County, downtown Portland Oregon) did the same thing: for one dollar per book, you could get a book, either from the library or inter-library loan sent to your house. You could only have two out at a time that way, and you could have a queue which, in the mid-80's, you could update online by dialing in (directly, via 300 baud modem!). (You could also update it over the phone, by mail, or in person at the branch, I believe). They would send the next one when you sent one back.

These are the only two I can think of. But any decent patent lawyer should be able to find these and others pretty easily, I would think.

What about other companies doing exactly the same thing? Like DVDBarn, Intelliflix, etc.? Is Netflix suing them, too?

Re:Business models?

[Mister Whirly]

like when you are trying to find a bar or cheese curds...

Re:Business models?

[StarvingSE]

Yes, they can send the internets to you through the tubes, just like at the bank!

Re:Business models?

[aplusjimages]

$7! Damn are they gold plated DVD's. It's $4 in florida. I sure do miss MegaVideo. 99 cent movies.

Re:Business models?

[Erickaj]

I have a blockbuster online memebership and I love it. My roomate has Netflix and he is always complaining. Just a single case but I wish Netflix luck, they are gonna need it.

Re:Business models?

[rTough]

Well, it has been patentable for quite a wile, denpending on where you live. If it matters in a court of law is another question. But who cares. I don't care anymore. The only thing i care about is that the futher it goes the closer it get to total collapse. What makes me wonder is why the hell nobody else can see that.

Let's hope I'm crazy

<Ranting Mode>
 
It annoyes the hell out of me that people doesn't know the rules. In this case patent rules.
 
It doesn't matter how you look at it. The patent rules does not match a modern world.
 
Trademark and Copytright rules are to some extend equailly unmodern (fucked up).
 
</Ranting Mode>
</code>

Disclaimer.
----------------

This post should be read AS IS and any spelling or formatting mistakes should be considered a mistake by the reader

Re:Business models?

[greed]

Grandparent should be picking on the "obviousness" criteria. Lots of things are novel--the first time, of course--but that's not enough to be patentable. It has to be non-obvious to someone skilled in the art.

And I don't really see how Netflix is not obvious to someone skilled in the arts of mail-order subscriptions and rentals.

(I know that mail-order and rental has been combined before; the video store I worked at in the late 80s had a mail-order sales and rental business for customers in Northern Ontario. It was very expensive, but there wasn't anything else those people could use at the time. Some corporate libraries do a similar thing, using inter-office mail and the mainframe. So it's been a few years since I used one of those....)

Re:Business models?

[CastrTroy]

However, I used to use Zip.ca (canadian netflix) but ended up quitting because movies that they said they send out didn't end up in my mail box. Mind you they never held me responsible, or made me pay for the movie, but it often took over 3 weeks for them to clear up that spot in my account. Also, in their terms of service, it said they could hold me responsible and charge me for a movie which got lost in the mail or "stolen" as they call it. I quit because they refused to admit that sometimes movies just get lost in the mail, or put in the wrong mail box. Now I just use a small local movie rental shop that rents out 3 movies for $5 for 5 days. Mind you that's just on older movies, but I couldn't get new releases on zip.ca anyway. I had to wait at least a couple of months. New releases are $5 at the place I rent them. But at least I don't have to worry about getting charged for a movie that was never in my possession.

Re:Business models?

[DeathFlame]

Well in the US (and in Canada too) creating monoploies is what Patents are for! I mean what did you think a patent was? It's basically an agreement between the inventor and the goverment that they can have a time limited monoply on something, and in return at the end of the time limit, anyone can make it.

Re:Business models?

[slocan]

In the US? At the most since March 9, 1993, if you consider the date that business method patent was issued.

In the US it seems that if something complies with the minimum prerequisites, almost anything made by man can be patented.

And here is a Netflix patent:

Patent number: 6584450

Abstract: According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.

Re:Business models?

[timeOday]

Your comment resonates with Blockbuster: "Netflix is trying to monopolize the online movie-rental industry and stifle competition."

But I ask you, what is the point of a patent at all, if not to create a monopoly and stifle competition? Patents are an open admission that pure supply and demand capitalism is not workable (or at least not equitable). I guess the only question is how high the bar must be for an innovation to be deserving of a government-imposed monopoly. Or at least, how long that monopoly should be upheld.

Re:Business models?

[Tod DeBie]

Since when are business models subject to patent rights?

Up until 1998, business methods were thought to be so called unstatutory subject matter, meaning that the laws governing patents did not allow for business methods to be patented. However, in State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the court found:

Since the 1952 Patent Act, business methods have been, and should have been, subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method.

Since then business method patents have become very common in the US and around the world.

Re:Business models?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Imagine if McDonalds had patented drive through food.

The world's population would be less fat today, fewer medical problems due to obesity and diabeties. Sounds like the world would have been a better place.

Re:Business models?

[Tod DeBie]

Imagine if McDonalds had patented drive through food.

Provided that no one else had done it before, I believe that it would be patentable. You could have apparatus claims for the menu display with speaker and mic for ordering and maybe for the drive up window itself and method claims for taking the order and delivering the food, etc. There may be a point where if everyone patented everything that was patentable that something bad might result, but I don't see that it would be an overall long term bad thing because people would be really motivated to come up with great ideas and patent them for all the world to see with the USPTO. After 20 years, then everyone can use the ideas for free. I think this is why the American system is best; inventors get rewarded and everyone can benefit.

Re:Business models?

[0xdeadbeef]

I have a blockbuster online memebership and I love it. My roomate has Netflix and he is always complaining. Just a single case but I wish Netflix luck, they are gonna need it.

Oh yeah? I have Netflix and it's totally awesome! My cousin had Blockbuster and it gave him cancer.

Re:Business models?

[Richard Steiner]

The USPTO seems to think that if a patent application involves technology, it must be completely new.

Re:Business models?

[BakaHoushi]

That modding baffles me, too. If I had some, I'd reverse it. It would only be flamebait if you had said "Ever since those goddamn conservatives/liberal/queers/rednecks/Mexicans came here and started to fuck everything over."

Corruption and incompetence are real problems in situations like this. I mean, I'm not an expert on patents, but if a business model is able to have a patent, then let me be the first to make a patent for the idea of offering goods and services in exchange for currency. I'll be rich overnight!

This lawsuit, like most that end up on /. should be thrown out and have the initiator fined for wasting time.

Re:Business models?

[TheRecklessWanderer]

I think I am going to copyright taking a crap. Everybody start sending me cash$$$$

Re:Business models?

[rabbit994]

They are not suing DVDBarn and Intelliflix because they figure as soon as they get Blockbuster the other small time companies will fold as soon as Netflix lawyers look at them wrong.

Re:Business models?

[mattaholic]

I think the problem with this entire thread is that people are talking about three different things 1. Whether or not patenting business methods is ridiculous (and yes you can patent business methods in the U.S.) 2. Whether or not this specific claim by netflix is ridiculous (ie. is their business method patent so obvious that it shouldnt have been granted in the first place or should there be a limit to how long such patents stay in effect) 3. Whether or not we'd like to see blockbuster go down in flames (I know I do) That being said, I think emerging technologies (ie. anything internet/computer/media related) have really exposed weaknesses in current U.S. patent law. There is a delicate balance between fair competition and protecting/rewarding innovation. If Blockbuster had reacted faster and was well within their rights to copy the Netflix business model then Netflix might just be a passing blip on the timeline. The idea behind patents is that you are protecting innovation, in many cases from large organizations that could easily take over your idea with advantages like capital, brand name recognition, distributuion, cross-marketing, etc. However, with the growth in all these markets (mainly media, software, and internet) it seems ridiculous to allow patents that seem like an obvious and inevitable integration of two or more existing concepts and grant any one entity control over that model for twenty years. In this case is Netflix concept innovative enough to patent? I think it was at the time. They would be stupid to not file a patent for a new distrubition model they rely on and I do think companies like blockbuster should compensate them for the idea, but I also think patents like these should grant rights for a smaller window of time. 2-5 years seems fair. Regardless... The intent of the laws are really all that ultimately matter since they are decided by judges and juries. I have been continually impressed by the understanding and decisions of a lot of judges in IP cases. If you actually follow up on a lot of these cases that get people worked up about you will see that judges generally make intelligent and informed decisions. For the record, I'd like to see Blockbuster fail. Though I did love them once for their music stores with the listening stations, I've always hated their video rental fees, their crappy selection of older movies, and how they'd put smaller stores out of business (stores that had a more knowledgable staff and carried adult titles!)

Re:Business models?

[Intron]

I think your sig got modded. It is flamebait...

Re:Business models?

[Macka]

You took the words right out of my mouth. The fact that Netflix was allowed to patent Business Model's just goes to show that the patent system in the USA is little more than a revenue generating exercise by corrupt bureaucrats.

Re:Business models?

[fullmetal55]

Alright, I agree patents do by default create a monopoly. but not necessarily stifle competition... say Bob invents a widget which can cut keys one per second,. Joe makes a widget that can cut keys 60 at a time but takes a minute to do. they're both patented, they both do the same job, cutting keys at the rate of 60/minute (I'm not creative today so that's my funky invention for the day... :P) Now they are different products producing the same thing, and both can be patented. the patent only covers the widget. not the process of cutting keys. That being said. a patent here is useful, Joe can't steal Bob's device, but he can try to improve upon it, (and in this case fail but produce an equally good device which can compete with Bob's) Patents were designed not to create monopolies, but to protect inventors for a limited time to encourage innovation and to reward innovation. Without patents, there is no incentive for Bob or Joe to invent a widget. Since Megacorp can see this widget that Bob invented, mass produce it, sell them for cheaper than Bob can ever hope to build them for. and Bob gets nothing for his invention. and relying on Megacorp to innovate... you get Microsoft's "innovation". I don't believe that patents are an admission that supply and demand capitalism doesn't work... It started as a means to protect the little guy. and to enhance innovation. Personally I think Patents should have a strict SHORT term. say 10 years. 10 years should be enough to earn your investment back in an invention. if not, you haven't marketed it well enough. and that's nobody's fault but your own. Now for a process which really requires little innovation, (renting movies has been done for years, all that's new is doing it online and no late fees) isn't really an innovation and shouldn't be patentable. it would be similar to a grocery store patenting the idea of groceries on shelves that are easy to grab for customers. it's such an obvious idea now that it's out there, that it shouldn't be able to be patented. and you're right, the only question is how high to set the bar, and how long should the protection last. and that's for much larger brains than mine. heck you could do patent reform this way. The patent holder isn't able to have a monopoly but is able to set the price of their widget or process. That way they'd be able to compete on a level playing field with megacorp, and megacorp would be less able to pummel bob or joe into the ground.

Re:Business models?

[kimvette]

Interesting, signatures are not what is supposed to be moderated. My signature links to one of many articles covering Bush's "the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper" outburst. IMHO, quoting the President is not flamebait.

Re:Business models?

[Intron]

It could be rogue moderation, but then again, it could be because you
spelled constitution wrong...

"Boys, I may not know much, but I know chicken shit from chicken salad."
    -- Lyndon Johnson

Re:Business models?

[DragonWriter]

I'm not sure who the first was, but up to 30 years ago, you could rent books on tape the same way.

Did they use the Netflix style mailer? Did they use the Netflix-style preference lists, or strict this-one-next queues or some other method of selecting what you get? Because those seem to be the two specific patents at issue, and doing something similar in outline but outside of the specific innovation claimed in the patent isn't clearly prior art relevant to the patent.

What about other companies doing exactly the same thing? Like DVDBarn, Intelliflix, etc.? Is Netflix suing them, too?

It may be more efficient to pursue such lawsuits in series rather than parallel, its also possible that the details of some of the similar operations avoid the specific patented processes. It may be that they've C&D'ed some of the others, and are negotiating and haven't gotten to the point of filing a lawsuit yet. It's hard to tell.

Re:Business models?

[DM9290]

"Our business owners believe in free markets completely and totally, until someone bigger and better comes along and the market dictates their destruction. Then they squawk louder than any socialist I ever heard."

Adam Smith actually pointed out that business owners do NOT believe in free markets at all.

" ...The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations - Book 1, chapter 11

Re:Business models?

[back_pages]

Many claim that they often violate the novelty, and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law as well.

Many people claim, few of them know. Ignorance is in abundance, especially at Slashdot.

~One who is paid to know.

Re:Business models?

[eastbayted]

Not to pimp Blockbuster too much, because their movie selection isn't that super, but they do offer a monthly where you can rent an unlimited number of movies from the store for a flat monthly fee ($20 or so?). They should have started doing that a long time ago -- like as soon as NetFlix started to gain popularity. I prefer that approach to NetFlix (or other online DVD rental sites). When I was a NetFlix subscriber, I found that I'd sometimes get DVDs in the mail that I wasn't in the mood to watch. There's something to be said for going to the store and picking out what you want to watch, when you want to watch it. Then again, I also live in walking distance of Blockbuster.

Re:Business models?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

These days, patents are granted for things that don't even exist. IIRC, Sony has a patent for a neural computer interface.

Re:Business models?

[phoenixwade]

Hmmmmm 200 or so years, eh?

Re:Business models?

[Josh Hiles]

Apologies, correction accepted. However, what my remarks were meant to imply is that business owners sure do talk up capitalism, at least until they start to get squeezed by the free market. I guarantee you that Blockbuster is going to appeal to the "sacred" free market in this case. Then, if there business is ever seriously threatened, they'll use the exact same tactics that they deride in this case. Apologies if my remarks were unclear or confusing in any way.

Re:Business models?

[Josh Hiles]

What I was attempting to imply is that our business owners talk up capitalism until the market starts to squeeze them. That they are in fact all hypocrites interested not in some lofty "free market" but just in the bottom line. Taking the current example, I guarantee you that Blockbuster will appeal to the "sacred" free market and the "neccesity" of competition in said free market during their defense. Then, if a similar case arises where their business is threatened, turn around and use the exact same tactics and arguments Netflix is currently employing. Apologies if my arguments were confusing or misleading.

Re:Business models?

[Euler]

Agreed.

"Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

It's not for the sake of creating a monopoly. The purpose is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts.." Exclusive rights to their discoveries is all that is promised, that's not quite the same thing as a guaranteeing a monopoly. Competitors still need to exist, which is why patents need to have specific claims that are not overly broad and obvious.

Re:Business models?

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness, a company called Knight and Associates attempting to claim that it's perfectly legal to file patents on plots (for books, movies, etc) and attempting to file said plot

Isn't it already a proposition of literature in general that there are currently only 7 to 12 basic plots and all plots can be sorted into those containers? Like, how do you not consider the Odyssey (some prior art there) as just another road movie?

Re:Business models?

[zackrentwood]

Since July 23, 1998. In State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., (47 USPQ 2d 1596 (CAFC 1998)), the US Supreme Court ruled that an invention is patentable under 35 USC section 101 if it produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result." Under that and subsequent rulings, the Court has rejected almost all limitations on the scope of patentable subject matter. As it stands today, the only real limitation is that laws of nature and pure mathematical formulas are unpatentable unless they are claimed in the specific context of a method or apparatus that produces a tangible result.

Re:Business models?

[epee1221]

Yep, and we all know the USPTO puts every patent application it receives through a rigorous screening process. Right.

Re:Business models?

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be rogue moderation, but then again, it could be because you
spelled constitution wrong...

A mispelled word in a quote of G.W. Bush means it is probably accurate.

Re:Business models?

[rednip]

Many people claim, few of them know...~One who is paid to know

, unless of course one 'claims to know', in that case, you're 'special', just like every one else.

Ignorance is in abundance, especially at Slashdot.

Q.E.D.

Re:Business models?

[back_pages]

unless of course one 'claims to know', in that case, you're 'special', just like every one else.
Ignorance is in abundance, especially at Slashdot.
Q.E.D.

If that passes for a zinger in your household, be careful with your sharp wit. I wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.

Re:Business models?

[rednip]

If that passes for a zinger in your household, be careful with your sharp wit. I wouldn't want you to fall and hurt yourself.

Again, you show a complete lack of kindness, intelligence, and relevance to the discussion. On some levels you have again proven your assertion that 'Ignorance is in abundance', however, I suspect that it is an unintended consequence.

Re:Business models?

[back_pages]

Again, you show a complete lack of kindness, intelligence, and relevance to the discussion.

I don't think you could be any further from the issue.

Your previous post presented nothing but a kindergarten taunt a la "I'm rubber and you're glue."

It deserved far less acknowledgement than the mild mocking I gave it.

Your current post is nothing but allegation.

I think it's extremely rude for a person to start a conversation with me and thereby force me into the conclusion that the person is a dumb tool. I'm not interested. It's a waste of my time. In order to convince myself that you're not a dumb tool, I'm going to presume that you've skimmed my posting history (it is a mere two clicks away to any of my recent posts) and recognize that I consistently post links to the manual of patent examining procedure and title 35 USC. When other Slashdotters have honest questions or criticisms about the patent system, I do my best to respond informatively. Being both a computer scientist and an IP professional, that's my humble contribution to the Slashdot community.

But I'm under no burden to show kindness. If you miss your mama, give her a call.

And while you're at it, tell her about your witty "I'm rubber and you're glue" post, and THEN how you TOTALLY BURNED me by accusing me of straying from the subject of conversation.

And tell her I say Hello.

Re:Business models?

[rednip]

Again a new low, what's next physical threats? Seriously, see a therapist, no better yet, see a doctor, you need pills. Look as far as I can tell you are some guy who works destop support for an IP firm. You are no expert, yet you try to carry yourself off as one, IP professional my ass, you don't even claim to be a patent clerk, and even if you were you have at best 2 years experience in the industry.

I'm sure in life you've found that tone and attitude gets you a certain amount of respect from those who are naturally submissive, but that's not me. For the record you replied to me with with a rude, thoughtless statement, and unlike you I was never forced to respond; Fools like you are a toy to be played with, a weed to be cut down, or a child to be scolded, but not a compelling force in my life. I make the choice to relpy to you. but you claim differently. Perhaps the reason why you were 'forced to reply' was that 'you yearn for direction from a stronger will'. Well, here is some direction: leave the adult conversations to those who are capable of carrying on a civil discussion. As you might have guessed I also have no need to be kind to you.

Re:Business models?

[back_pages]

Again a new low, what's next physical threats? Seriously, see a therapist, no better yet, see a doctor, you need pills. Look as far as I can tell you are some guy who works destop support for an IP firm. You are no expert, yet you try to carry yourself off as one, IP professional my ass, you don't even claim to be a patent clerk, and even if you were you have at best 2 years experience in the industry.

You're wrong on all counts there, Killer. While you're on a streak, what on Earth is a patent clerk? They don't have those at the USPTO, so you must be talking about something else.

This is off topic, but have you ever realized that where your expertise stops, somebody else can usually step in? For example, if you're not an expert in thermodynamics, somewhere, somebody is an expert in thermodynamics? If you're not a medical practitioner, but you fall ill, you probably seek medical attention from somebody who is a doctor. If he gives you a diagnosis that you don't like, do you launch into this tirade about how he's probably a pharmacist's assistant?

Because that's exactly what you're doing here. Here's your original statement:

Many claim that they often violate the novelty, and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law as well.

I remarked that "many" are demonstrably ignorant of even the most basic concepts of patent law. Many of the loudest voices on Slashdot that rail against the patent system would be amazed at the universe of knowledge they never knew existed if they sat through the 1st day of a patent law class or patent examiner training. (As an aside, the manual of patent examining procedure is written for an audience of patent examiners - people who are hired for a technical degree but are not lawyers, who must then become competent in patent prosecution. Why is it SO RARE that anybody on Slashdot ever thinks of referencing that manual? It is online in its entirety. My hypothesis is that this is deliberate ignorance, but that's another topic.) On the subject of patents, Slashdot is nothing but a magnet for ignorant, baseless ego-stroking for those who scream the groupthink.

And I don't toss around the word "demonstrably" lightly. The next time a patent story is posted, take note of how many people imply that "obvious" means "simple" in the patent system. That idea is completely and entirely ignorant of 54 years of judicial precedent regarding 35 USC 103. An explanation can be found in MPEP 2143 and subsequent sections, as well as by research the famous Graham v. Deere decision. It is irrefutable. People who act like "obvious" equals "simple" are demonstrably ignorant of the US patent system.

And often times, those people "claim that patents violate the novelty and non-obvious requirements stipulated by patent law."

They claim, but they don't have a f'n clue.

So why didn't you simply ask what I was talking about? Instead, I'm inclined to just lump you in with the deliberately ignorant on Slashdot who prefer to hate the system about which they don't have the slightest understanding. It's not a pretty place to be, in my opinion, but you can do what you like. I'm a "fool to be toyed with"? Quit kidding yourself. You're WAY out of your element when talking about the patent system and any third party who reads this thread will immediately recognize how you've let yourself be manipulated by your anger.

Have a nice weekend. In the future, if you think we'd disagree about the patent system, why don't you ASK for some clarification instead of some bullshit "I'm rubber and you're glue" nonsense?

Re:Business models?

[rednip]

why don't you ASK for some clarification instead of some bullshit "I'm rubber and you're glue" nonsense?

You 'sir' started the insults, hell, you even brought my mother into it.
Besides, am I supposed to just sit back and take your bullshit? Are you the "BACK_PAGES", man-god, expecting to throw out insults into the ether without reply?

You're wrong on all counts there, Killer. While you're on a streak, what on Earth is a patent clerk? They don't have those at the USPTO, so you must be talking about something else.

Well then you better get wikipedia to remove Patent Clerk entry, as you believe it doesn't exist (and that's all that really counts right?). Perhaps you should look-over this entry as well.

On the subject of patents, Slashdot is nothing but a magnet for ignorant, baseless ego-stroking for those who scream the groupthink.

It's nice that you are finally getting around to calmly discussing patents on this thread, so I'll answer.

Just today, I heard a neo-con talking head say something like 'the liberal majority court ruled that so it doesn't count'. While he was wrong (and in so many ways), he was right about one thing, our legal system is adaptable, full of opinion, and not always right. Simply quoting the existing laws, and selected cases to defend your position, may be proper in a court of law. However it is not germane to the discussion of whether or not those laws are correct, and only loosely related to the discussion over poor implementation of those laws, as a often maligned court decision created business method patents in the first place. I believe that I am channeling Slashdot's 'dreaded' group think when I say that 'we believe the patent system is currently faulty'. You seem to believe that it is perfect, most of us don't, but you don't give anything more than 'because they say it is', well, that is not good enough for me; I've heard enough good arguments otherwise. If you do work for the USPTO (which I doubt), your arrogance alone is a clear indication of it's problems, and it will eventually be fixed. The question is 'how much damage will be done first?'

Groupthink isn't always right, but just slamming it as such, isn't much of an argument in itself. Unlike you I never claimed to be an EXPERT on patents, but I am entitled to my opinion, and you have given me nothing to change it, besides a couple of vague references.

It is irrefutable. People who act like "obvious" equals "simple" are demonstrably ignorant of the US patent system.

And people who act like the discussion is over once they spout out their opinion, are really not a good fit for a democracy (like the current administration).

You're WAY out of your element when talking about the patent system and any third party who reads this thread will immediately recognize how you've let yourself be manipulated by your anger.

Really?
Someone who doesn't even know what a Patent Clerk is, telling me that a third party would think you're intelligent and I'm the fool.
Someone who spouts out insults as a way to introduce themselves to a thread, is supposed to be the calm one?
Priceless.

Pompous claims of expertise may make you a 'winner' in the chat rooms, but in forums such as this, those efforts eventually end with scorn. However I fear that you have already learned this and I won't have the opportunity to follow you to another patent discussion to 'add' the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A PATENT CLERK IS !!!!. And I was SO looking forward to it.

How's this for a mind-fuck, you are so arrogant that you would attempt to spite me any way you ca

Re:Business models?

[back_pages]

What in God's name are you babbling about?

First, you'll be shocked to discover that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The manual of patent examining procedure is the official government document that defines how the USPTO operates, and makes roughly 9,000,000 references to "patent examiners" and approximately 0 references to "patent clerks". "Patent clerk" is not a paid position in the United States Government. "Patent Examiner" is a paid position.

Here is a link to Patent Examiner Salaries from 1998. This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".

If Wikipedia attempts to define "patent clerk" as synonymous with "patent examiner," that's your and Wikipedia's problem.

It's nice that you are finally getting around to calmly discussing patents on this thread, so I'll answer.

You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?

Your next paragraph is one of the most inane things I have ever skimmed past. What in hell are you babbling about? I gave you an extremely focused and coherent point: Most people on Slashdot abuse the definition of "obvious" in the patent system. Your response is apparently directed to neo-con vs. liberal political ideology with what appears to be an allegation that I cannot cite laws just because I like them (I implicitly cited the 1952 Patent Act which codified the entire modern patent system, so there's no subtle way to express how dumb you're making yourself look). Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?

Groupthink isn't always right, but just slamming it as such, isn't much of an argument in itself.

Consider for a moment where that word originates.

Someone who doesn't even know what a Patent Clerk is, telling me that a third party would think you're intelligent and I'm the fool.

I'm being dead serious here. Think for a moment what it means when you call someone a tool. It means that they are easily manipulated by other people. When I said that I don't know what a patent clerk is, I knew full well that 1) the USPTO does not employ anybody with a job title "patent clerk", 2) the US government does not have a salary position called "patent clerk", 3) the manual of patent examining procedure makes no reference to a "patent clerk", and 4) lots of misinformed people think a "patent clerk" exists in the United States. I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.

Honestly, I didn't expect that you would be THIS easy to manipulate.

Your response indicates that you believe you've latched onto some kryptonite with this "patent clerk" silliness. You put the words "patent clerk" in bold font no fewer than 4 times to, heh heh, draw my attention to what a fool I must be. But of course, this was all in vain. You probably had no idea about points 1-3 I listed above, which generally point to a lack of experience with the patent system, but Wikipedia rode to your false rescue with point 4.

Seriously, contemplate what it means to be a tool.

Do you want to go for another round before this article closes? I suspect that I won't see another thread from 'back_pages', so we better get it in while we can. BTW, if I don't see another patent thread from this profile then I 'win', and you will have poisoned the account you're posting under (and I suspect it's not the first time).

Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a

Re:Business models?

[rednip]

Your 'looking glass self' is so distorted a fun house mirror would be clearer.

It'll be like a presidential town hall meeting - I'll have a tool following me around lobbing softball comments my way. This is going to be great.

Actually, the administration doesn't allow people like me into their events. A 'softball' comment doesn't take many paragraphs to answer. They are just like you, they think that they are always right, and unwilling to entertain any discussion. They lambaste critics, and dismiss discussion they are not winning. They seem to believe that they can control reality by controlling the discussion of what is really happening. How is that different from you? Seriously, you should feel a kinship with the President and his staff.

Are you literally mentally handicapped? You can click on my profile and read at least my most recent 25 posts, almost all of which are on the topic of patents or the observation that Slashdot is filled with a bunch of people who don't know anything about patents.

But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.

I tossed out that comment at the very top of a post and left it hanging. Then I offered lots of factual information that provide some insight into the topic at hand.

Yes, but only if 'the topic at hand' is about calling me a tool and other insults. The only thing you 'hung' is your 'reputation', but I suspect that you're a long standing troll on this site, and likely 'well known' by other handles.

You were not responding to a question. Those end with little curly things like this: ?

So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.

Here is a link to Patent Examiner Salaries from 1998

thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.

This exists because there is such a thing as a "patent examiner". The US Government does not publish a "Patent Clerk" salary table because the US Government does not pay "patent clerks".

I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.

Then a link to State Street? Are you attempting the Chewbacca Defense? How in hell does State Street have anything to do with my argument about obviousness?

Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here to impress 'others', I'm here to l

Re:Business models?

[back_pages]

Alright, you've won. I've given you the benefit of the doubt in our discussion, but you have forced me to conclude that you're mentally deficient.

Here is why.

But you 'sir' are the expert? You seem to say "everybody is stupid but me", and I believe that's what you really think. Well, you haven't posted to any new threads on that otherwise very active account in over a week, and I have seen patent stories. So I am still 'winning'.

This is purely incoherent babbling. First, you have yet to bring up any points that are factually relevant or accurate. Therefore, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to refute the straw-man you have created, that I suggest that everyone but myself is stupid. Any middle school debate team would recognize that I've never made such an argument, of course, but even BAD middle school debate teams know you should defeat the straw man you create. Instead, your attention span inexplicably flits over to how many posts I've made on "an otherwise very active account" and then concludes victory. You're either poorly attempting to confuse me or else you're simply mentally deficient. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt any longer.

So now one can only respond to the 'man-god Back_pages' direct questions? Is that what you are now commanding? Classic. Just in case you missed the pattern our questions are all rhetorical, and generally only given in an effort to make the other look foolish. WOW, I said before that you need pills, but now I'm starting to think that you need a long-sleeved jacket with lots of heavy buckles.

This one is a prime example of how you have convinced me of your mental incompetence. You quoted me making a declarative statement. Then you said, "...I'll answer." Since there was no question posed, what in the fuck are you rambling about? And now this response cements the situation. You can't be illiterate, yet even an elementary school-aged child would recognize that you can't provide the answer before the question. I have no alternative explanations for your behavior - you have convinced me that you are mentally deficient.

thanks for the link to the Bust Patents website, perhaps you should read it. The page you linked comes to the conclusion that Patent examiners are too poorly paid to attract quality candidates. Perhaps that's why someone with such an obvious personality flaw actually got a job.

Here is more evidence that you're simply a moron. That was a link to a salary table from 9 years ago. I don't know how to explain this at your level except to say that 9 years is a pretty long time, during which many things have changed. For example, that salary table is way out of date. The salaries listed there are not the current salaries. They are the salaries from 9 years ago. As in, "the past". Your entire conclusion is based on an analysis of nearly-decade old data. I cannot spell it out any more simply: You are forcing me to conclude that you are mentally deficient.

I said that you would try to defend your ignorance with a weak technically, however those of us who have studied business law, know the term 'patent clerk'. Is that what you are a frustrated government employee who gets worked up about job titles? (you see, rhetorical question, I expect a vague answer, if at all). That is if you are actually a USPTO patent examiner, like you seem to claim.

Aw, is that what you think? Business law is how we frame the discussion of the patent system? Aw, that's adorable. And then we can use Singapore's fire code to discuss the merits of mandatory sentencing guidelines in the United States! This is sheer genius, or you are a dumb person.

Weeeellll, the State Street decision created business method patents, and the name of the thread is "Business Models" (aka Business Methods, in the future I'll endeavor to use the correct term). You might not see the relevance, but I'm fairly certain that that 'others' would. Unlike you appear to be, I am not here

Re:Business models?

[rednip]

You're either poorly attempting to confuse me or else you're simply mentally deficient. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt any longer.,

When exactly did you 'give me the benefit of the doubt' in the first place? always rude, always arrogant, always imperious, nothing has changed.

The problem is that you DID get into this conversation with a person who DOES have a wealth of knowledge about the patent system so the only person present available to be embarrassed is yourself.

Once again you present yourself as the end all expert on patents. Frankly, I don't see it. Besides a couple of vague references to case law, which you present without any real discussion about it's merits, most of your posts are just a collection of insults. You have lots of bravado, but very little substance, just like the Bush administration.

That was a link to a salary table from 9 years ago

That was your link, not mine. I found that it was particularly funny that you didn't even read it at all. I don't know how much they pay you, and I don't care. It was far more about showing that you didn't even read the page which you linked. VERY poor research, perhaps you are a patent examiner as you seem to claim.

You quoted me making a declarative statement. Then you said, "...I'll answer." Since there was no question posed, what in the fuck are you rambling about?

Again, with that 'point'; As you are still asking for clarification, I'll spell it out clearly, in words simple enough even you might understand; I was ribbing you, baiting you, and fucking with you in general. You are a graceless, witless, inurbane loon, who cannot carry on a decent conversation, that in the end is my point. I think that I've made that point time and time again, but I've got to thank you for being so helpful in my efforts.

Re:Business models?

[back_pages]

When exactly did you 'give me the benefit of the doubt' in the first place? always rude, always arrogant, always imperious, nothing has changed.

Like I said before, if you miss your mama, give her a call. Or walk upstairs. Whatever fits your situation.

Once again you present yourself as the end all expert on patents. Frankly, I don't see it.

Yeah, actually, I present myself as knowing a hell of a lot more than you about patents. As I said in the first place, I'm paid a lot of money to know a heck of a lot about patents. How you perceive that is your business and your problem.

Besides a couple of vague references to case law, which you present without any real discussion about it's merits, most of your posts are just a collection of insults. You have lots of bravado, but very little substance, just like the Bush administration.

What infected your head and convinced you that it's MY responsibility to spell out every last nuance of this topic to you? I made raised an extremely basic point about the patent system, specifically regarding the concept of obviousness, and your response was a link to State Street, which is completely non sequitur. Your response to that was some tangent about business law and hypothetical something-or-other, which was completely off the original topic. How could I possibly have any discussion about the merits of the issue with you? You won't even stick to your OWN points for more than a paragraph.

That was your link, not mine. I found that it was particularly funny that you didn't even read it at all. I don't know how much they pay you, and I don't care. It was far more about showing that you didn't even read the page which you linked. VERY poor research, perhaps you are a patent examiner as you seem to claim.

Wow. I mean seriously, wow. I linked to a patent examiner salary table as evidence that "patent examiner" is a paid position in the US government. It isn't my fault that you latched onto that 8 year old data as some sort of silver bullet for your argument. That's your fault. You're the one who thought that 8 year old data was somehow relevant to the topic at hand. I merely pointed to the fact that the government pays patent examiners, not patent clerks.

And I'll PayPal you $5 if you can put together anything resembling a coherent argument that supports this notion you have that I claim to be a patent examiner.

Again, with that 'point'; As you are still asking for clarification, I'll spell it out clearly, in words simple enough even you might understand; I was ribbing you, baiting you, and fucking with you in general.

That's what I would say if I were and have been completely exposed as a twit. "Oh I'm not REALLY so stupid that I'd argue with somebody about a topic that entirely escapes me - I was only TROLLING!" Sure you were.

Hey man, you win. You used State Street to respond to a point about 35 USC 103. You used 8 year old salary data to conclude that patent examiners are underpaid (and I have no f'n clue what point you were trying to make with that gem). You refer to "business law" to prove that "patent clerks" exist in the US patent system despite there being no such position. You declare that "victory" in this flame-fest hinges upon whether or not I post messages in other, unrelated Slashdot stories. You possess unmitigated genius. Victory is clearly yours.

But I have marked you as a "friend". I wouldn't want to miss your future posts in the patent-related stories here on Slashdot. I hope you'll do the same because I look forward to reading your insights in the future.

It could have been the shortest patent ever

[MikeRT]

"You can't compete with me. I was here first. Go away!"

Busted, but maybe not...

[Six Nines]

Some of those patent claims sound a little fishy, but IANAL. However, it's interesting that my main squeeze signed up for Blockbuster's service about the same time I got Netflix, and the first comment out of her mouth when describing it to me was: "It's just like Netflix!" Curiouser and curiouser...

Re:Busted, but maybe not...

[Deadstick]

They certainly developed a silver bullet of a model. I had an interesting experience recently: dropped a fistful of mail into the box at the Post Office, then came to the sickly realization that I had put neither postage nor return-address stamps on. The postmistress sent a helpful clerk -- yes, I said helpful P.O. clerk -- to open the box and stand watch while I rooted out my envelopes.

That bin was almost a sea of red. Netflix envelopes by the TON. I commented on that, and the clerk said yes, the P.O. was proud of the special handling deal they have.

Netflix is now the fifth largest user of first-class mail. At the cities where they have processing centers a Netflix truck drops a load of outbound envelopes bagged by ZIP code and pre-sorted down to carrier route, and picks up the incoming directly off the dock.

rj

Re:Busted, but maybe not...

[Anonymous Coward]

"my main squeeze "
A Slashdot reader/poster has a main squeeze? You don't belong here! :-)

I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[xannik]

How exactly is renting movies online an original or novel idea? I think Netflix is feeling the pinch in their pockets from Blockbuster and is resorting to some desperate measures. I really hope the courts send a message to businesses that patent lawsuits are not just another source of income.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[kaizokunami]

I agree. The fact that they are focusing on Blockbuster seems proof that they are only interested in their wallets here. It's even mentioned in the article that they haven't sued other smaller niche competitors who operate in a similar way.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Zenaku]

Maybe it doesn't seem original now that everyone is getting in on the act, but original and novel is exactly what it was. Know of any companies that were using that business model before Netflix? I sure don't. The fact is, it was a brilliant idea that seems obvious in retrospect, as most good ideas do. And they had to overcome several hurdles and solve a lot of problems before it became workable and profitable -- such as finding a way to send dvds through the mail without incurring overly frequent breakage, or paying too much in shipping costs to offer the service at a reasonable price.

I don't know if any of that is patentable, and I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be, (which is too bad, because I fscking hate Blockbuster), but it might be. I'm pretty sure I've heard of other cases involving patented business methods.

For the record, I use Netflix, I like Netflix, and I hope they remain successful. It seems to me that whenever someone comes up with a great new service, some other company barges into the market, undercuts them out of existence, then jacks their prices, cuts their quality of service, and starts finding ways to force additional product down your throat that you don't want. Or ads.

That being said, I hope Blockbuster and the others remain successful too. Somebody has to keep Netflix honest and give me somewhere to turn if Netflix starts mistreating me. ;)

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[russ1337]

they haven't sued other smaller niche competitors who operate in a similar way

Because it would send the little guys to the cleaners and totally eliminating the little guys one by one will be expensive and also seen as anti-competitive. (i.e trying to gain a monopoly). Suing the 'other big kid on the street' is one lawsuit, probably less total legal cost compared to 100 small suits, and the chances of cashing in big with a 'plug to Blockbusters jugular' are far greater.

Netflix probably has a pretty solid case. The courts arent going to trash their Patent now that they have it. Their job is to determine if the patent (no matter how rediculous or obvious) has been infringed.

Once you have a patent approved for something obvious its a golden ticket to Wonka land. - all the more reason for an overhaul of the patent system.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[rolfwind]

Imagine if Blockbuster patented renting out movies. Where would netflix be?

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[kthejoker]

Yes!

Many of those hurdles could no doubt be covered by patents (such as "A Package To Mail A DVD without Breaking It") and good old fashioned business acumen ("We cut an exclusive deal with Fed Ex, and pass the savings on to you") in a way that encourages competition.

Being first matters a lot. It instills loyalty. But it's not a guarantee. And you know what? If some guy can come along and beat you at your own game, that's not inherently a bad thing. And if Blockbuster jacks up the price, someone else will just come along and compete with them, undercut them, and the cycle continues. There's no free pass in the market.

The *real* problem with NetFlix's model is that it's impersonal. It's just a DVD in the mail. Nobody cares about the color of the envelope. In fact, the NetFlix business model is the IDEAL "faceless corporation" business, because it's a

a) middle man service
b) driven by economies of scale
c) for a product everyone wants.

It's not a lemonade stand or a piano lesson. It's hegemony waiting to happen.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[0xABADC0DA]

Bug#: 821866
Product: Captitalism
Reported Agains: 2.0
Severity: Critical
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: WONTFIX

Report describes proper operation of Capitalism 2.0 (see spec at Constitution/1_8#commerce). Please read project documentation before submitting further bug reports.

It seems to me that whenever someone comes up with a great new service, some other company barges into the market, undercuts them out of existence, then jacks their prices, cuts their quality of service, and starts finding ways to force additional product down your throat that you don't want. Or ads.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[thaerin]

Maybe it doesn't seem original now that everyone is getting in on the act, but original and novel is exactly what it was. Know of any companies that were using that business model before Netflix? I sure don't. The fact is, it was a brilliant idea that seems obvious in retrospect, as most good ideas do.

Uhm, maybe I'm missing the obvious, but all they did was take Blockbuster and throw it online. It's the same business model, i.e. rent movies, ergo the fact that you have the added setp of having to ship the product back and forth from the customer to your warehouse. Seems more like a natural progression of the business model than anything truly unique. They just eliminated the need to spend money on real-estate. *shrug*

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[hurfy]

"such as finding a way to send dvds through the mail without incurring overly frequent breakage, "

They seem to have a seperate patent on their envelopes. I see no problem with that.

The whole business model thing is too much tho. Why can more than one company use advertising to pay for a website, or like someone else said serve drive-thru food, maybe only one company should have been allowed to use telemarketers (ok, not the best example...)

Maybe patent number one would have been for growing food to sell to others as a business method...

At what point does it (well, did it) get too absurd ?

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[BalanceOfJudgement]

or paying too much in shipping costs to offer the service at a reasonable price.

Netflix overcame that "hurdle" by the very, very fraudulent practice of throttling. I wouldn't call that an innovation.

I was a Netflix user when it first came out, and cancelled the service only because I didn't rent enough discs for it to be useful. Now I use Blockbuster because their delivery is faster (there's a distribution center next town over so I get my DVDs in 1 day, sometimes less if I time it right).

That said, I never really thought of the service as 'novel' - I considered it the logical extension of video rental stores in the real world. It's not what I would consider 'non-obvious' which is one of the conditions of a patentable innovation.

What Netflix DID do was bring together a lot of good ideas and put them in one place (internet, a list of movies you want to rent, not having to leave the house). Sort of like MySpace did and why it has far surpassed all other social networking sites. Yet, in neither case does that seem to me to be the development of a novel idea - it is simply good business practice.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Uhm, maybe I'm missing the obvious, but all they did was take Blockbuster and throw it online. It's the same business model, i.e. rent movies, ergo the fact that you have the added setp of having to ship the product back and forth from the customer to your warehouse. Seems more like a natural progression of the business model than anything truly unique. They just eliminated the need to spend money on real-estate. *shrug*

Thank you. I said the same thing in an above post - online DVD rentals never seemed novel to me in any way, merely the extension of an existing business model to the internet (sort of like.. gosh.. buying books online, or buying stock online, or looking up research online).

There's nothing novel about it.

What was novel was the idea of renting something, but that idea is hundreds of years old by now.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[popeye44]

I think the problem lies in one of non-competition. What method will someone else be able to use AND stay profitable to do roughly the same thing? Netflix can bend us over and bugger us with pricing if no one else exists in the field. I tend to root for blockbuster even though I've been a netflix member for 2 years.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[BalanceOfJudgement]

At what point does it (well, did it) get too absurd ?

I have a patent on that particular arrangement of words.

I'm taking you to court.

Oh, wait...

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Pollardito]

you're saying that you would have figured it was possible to repeatedly mail DVDs to random customers without losing all of your income to breakage during delivery and the costs of shipping and handling, or turn off their customers with slow delivery or low availability? it certainly doesn't seem obvious to me, it's still not clear how they do it all. but they do, and they've reduced the cost of renting by a lot. i probably rent more than the average 3-at-a-time customers, but i'm going through 4 or 5 movies a week (i.e. 18-22 a month) for $18 a month when that same volume from Blockbuster used to run more than $60? all i ever hear about Netflix is people sharing anecdotes about how their renting may or may not be throttled, when the real news is that they've reduced the cost of renting movies by at least 50% for most people.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Zenaku]

Netflix overcame that "hurdle" by the very, very fraudulent practice of throttling. I wouldn't call that an innovation.

No, I was referring to the fact that it took several attempts to find a means of packaging the dvd itself that didn't cost too much to make, didn't weigh too much to mail cheaply, could be processed by all of the post offices machines (mail that can't be handled by the machines gets sorted by hand and thus takes longer to reach the destination), and wouldn't be broken by those same machines. Oh, and for the same package to be reusable as a return envelope.

As someone else pointed out, the patent on their packaging is one of the 2 patents in question, and I happen to agree with that one.

I don't agree with the fact that they can patent the business method itself (unlimited rentals, no late fees, prioritizing your list of movies, blah, blah, blah) but legally, they can. The patent could maybe be thrown out, if there were prior art, but the underlying concept of "renting movies out" wouldn't be enough, and neither would similar services from other countries or services that don't involve exchanges via the mail.

Again, just to make my personal opinion clear -- I don't think business practices should be patentable. The packaging, yes, but the business model, NO. But to say the Netflix model was unoriginal or obvious is just wrong. And so, under the current law as I understand it (IANAL), they certainly have standing to bring the case.

Throttling is another issue entirely, and is a perfect example of why I would like Blockbuster and the others to survive as well, so I can bail on Netflix if they get cocky.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[BalanceOfJudgement]

As someone else pointed out, the patent on their packaging is one of the 2 patents in question, and I happen to agree with that one.

I agree. The packaging was definitely an original work.

Again, just to make my personal opinion clear -- I don't think business practices should be patentable.

Me neither.

But to say the Netflix model was unoriginal or obvious is just wrong.

It may have been original (as in, the first ones doing it online instead of in a store) but to me it was perfectly obvious. In fact that's how I found Netflix to begin with - I merely assumed someone would be renting DVDs online, since they were doing everything else online, so I went looking for a way to do so.

Even still, it is irrelevant to me whether it was 'novel' or 'original' or 'obvious' - the consequence of a judge ruling in Netflix' favor would be disastrous. It would be an open invitation for every "first entrant" under the sun to have a defacto monopoly, you'd begin to see patent filings left and right by all sorts of past first entrants under "prior art" and I hesitate to even wonder where that would send us.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Kevin DeGraaf]

the consequence of a judge ruling in Netflix' favor would be disastrous. It would be an open invitation for every "first entrant" under the sun to have a defacto monopoly, you'd begin to see patent filings left and right by all sorts of past first entrants under "prior art" and I hesitate to even wonder where that would send us.

It wouldn't be disastrous -- it would be awesome.

Think strategically, not tactically. The more blatantly obvious patent bullshit that's brought to the attention of the public, the better the chance that the awful mess that is the patent system can be reformed or even thrown out altogether before all innovation is completely choked off.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Zenaku]

Even still, it is irrelevant to me whether it was 'novel' or 'original' or 'obvious' - the consequence of a judge ruling in Netflix' favor would be disastrous. It would be an open invitation for every "first entrant" under the sun to have a defacto monopoly, you'd begin to see patent filings left and right by all sorts of past first entrants under "prior art" and I hesitate to even wonder where that would send us.

I can't disagree with you here, except to point out that a ruling for Netflix in this case would not be setting the precedent you fear -- it would be in keeping with the precedent which has already been set. Bad precedent, sure, but let's not make the mistake of thinking this case is the first one to raise the issue.

The barn door is open, and the horses are long gone.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Sebastopol]

If some guy can come along and beat you at your own game, that's not inherently a bad thing. And if Blockbuster jacks up the price, someone else will just come along and compete with them, undercut them, and the cycle continues. There's no free pass in the market.

Well, you're assuming a free-market exists, which is true for sub-$100-million dollar industries, but changes dramatically above that.

It depends on who has the most money to pay for lawyers, courts, and lawmakers.

Furthermore: sometimes when companies get VERY big they begin to influence other areas of the market to support their monopoly. For example: Blockbuster could establlish top-tier distribution rights, driving up the cost of entry for competitors by locking in deals with disti channels. Think RIAA's "monopoly" on record distribution and magical laws that appear before congress thanks to RIAA lobbyists. Or perhaps strike a deal with the post office for faster shipping of their product by streamlining a subset of the USPS to specifically handle DVD shipments, then lock that out from anyone else. Think of phone companies trying to dominate ISPs because they own the copper.

I'm not defending the patent system here, gawd knows they have become more corporate $$$ friendly over the past two decades; I simply think the laws written to eliminate a free market need even more laws to balance that offset. Result? So... many... laws...

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[StuBeck]

Netflix isn't feeling any pinch in their pockets. Blockbuster hasn't made a profit in a while, Netflix has been making money for the last two years.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Shadowlore]

Maybe it doesn't seem original now that everyone is getting in on the act, but original and novel is exactly what it was.

No, it wasn't. There is NOTHING novel or orignal about doing the same thing you've been doing over a new channel.

Prior to the Internet I was able to do the same thing with the library for books, VHS/LD, and audio (Cassettes and LPs then laters CDs). Yes, this applies becuase the patent is NOT about DVDs. It is about "items". So *any* item done this way prior to 1998 counts. The library had a maximum number of items you could have at one time, would only send you items that were available, sent them via mail, had no-charge return containers (or you could return to your local library. You could do it via phone, person, or *gasp* a telnet based system you dialed into.

There is nothing non-obvious about taking an existing business method and using the internet. Hell I bet you can find the concept in several Science Fiction books that predate even the Internet's existence. If you look at Star Trek you'll even find "one-click" ordering there. Ten bucks says the "Adult Movie" industry beat Netflix to it by at least two years. The Library of Congress has had this for a long time, no idea when it started. You'll probably find in in sci-fi based RPG games dating back a decade or more. At least.

It was thus neither original, nor novel.

And they had to overcome several hurdles and solve a lot of problems before it became workable and profitable -- such as finding a way to send dvds through the mail without incurring overly frequent breakage, or paying too much in shipping costs to offer the service at a reasonable price.

Yup, and it's called software an non-patentable "trade secrets". Their internal processes are essentially Trade Secrets unless they make them publically available. Their software is also protected.

For businesses the Internet is *only* a distribution/sales/communication channel and nothing more.

Simple rule #1: If it was not patentable when it did not involve the Internet, it is not patentable because it involves the Internet.
Simple Rule #2: If you "method" or "process" relies on others that are not patentable, yours is not patentable.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[DragonWriter]

How exactly is renting movies online an original or novel idea?

Its possible to do online movie rental without violating either of the patents at issue here; describing the patents as covering "renting moviews online" is sloppy. They cover two specific aspects of the way Netflix handles its movie rental system. Whether those specific aspects are novel, not whether "renting moviews online" is novel, ought to be the question.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[DragonWriter]

Uhm, maybe I'm missing the obvious, but all they did was take Blockbuster and throw it online.

No, they didn't.

I mean, yes, if they had you pick out movies, and then they sent you exactly those movies for a limited period of time, and then you sent them back and could get new ones, that would be the unpatented model of almost everyone b&m movie rental store (and Netflix original model, before they came up with the new and innovative one.)

But that's not what Netflix started doing that made it a break out hit and actually threatened Blockbusters business.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[Zenaku]

Okay, first of all, you have some good points. But you're tearing into me over points I haven't really raised. AGAIN, I AM AGAINST THE PATENTING OF BUSINESS PROCESSES.

But when you claim that their business methods are just trade secrets and not patentable, hey -- you're just wrong. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE, but under existing law, since 1998, they are. Bummer for everybody.

On the issue of whether it's novel or non-obvious, we just have a legitimate difference of opinion. I personally consider it to be acceptably "novel" when someone takes an existing concept like a rentals or a lending library, and solves the problems associated with applying it in a different direction, or on a much larger scale. Novel enough to be patented? Under the law, maybe -- we'll see. I don't know, and I don't think business methods should ever be patentable. But since they are, and using similar standards of novelty as would apply to a real invention, it doesn't seem out of the question. It is important to realize that just thinking something up, doesn't constitute prior art, and neither do things that achieve a similar purpose in a different way. You have to be able to make it work for it to be new. All your examples of "prior art" in science fiction works are not relevant. Are you suggesting that when someone invents the transporter, the holodeck, a jump gate, or a time machine that they won't be patentable because somebody wrote about them in a work of fiction once?

One can apply the definition of originality or novelty very strictly or very loosely, and under yours nothing is ever novel. Jet engine airplane? Just another flying machine, we had them with propellers already and someone just applied a new technology to it. The light bulb? Big deal, we already had oil lamps, it's basically the same thing. Now, granted, Netflix's business method patents are worded in a ridiculously general way, so as to make them apply to just about anything -- because that's how ALL patents are written. The lawyers draw them up to cover everything they can possibly get past the approval board, and your right, worded the way they are they are ridiculous. But I am not advocating them. The question of whether what they've done is novel is separate from the question of whether their claims are valid.

I hope the court upholds their patent on the shipping envelope, and throws out the one on their business method. I want competition in the online rental market. But that won't stop me from being impressed with Netflix for creating that market.

Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster

[joeyteel]

Blockbuster doesn't use a warehouse. The DVDs are shipped to and from the individual stores that are closest (USPS-wise) to the customer.

My uncle and I have both done that job so have first hand experience in it :)

In other news

[rolfwind]

SCO is suing Netflix for stealing its business method....

Re:In other news

[Zenaku]

Nice! If only I had mod points for you!

Re:In other news

[idesofmarch]

Genius!

Re:In other news

[onecheapgeek]

Predictable and contrived!

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Predictable and contrived!

Shut up, Darl.

I for one...

[mr.newt]

I for one am rooting for the little guy.

Oh, wait...

If it leads to lower prices...

[Thrymm]

Im all for it! Eventhough the pricing isnt bad to begin with!

Re:If it leads to lower prices...

[truthsearch]

How would eliminating a competitor lead to lower prices??

Re:If it leads to lower prices...

[maxwell demon]

You'll get the stock of that competitor cheaper than ever.

Re:If it leads to lower prices...

[orasio]

Cheaper than ever before

Business Model Patent

[Deathlizard]

Whoa! You can patent a Business model! Hot Damn!!

I guess I should patent my idea of "Method of High Speed Beef and Bread Preparation, Processing and Procurement" and go after a certain clown I know!

(Sarcasm lever high on this post folks)

Re:Business Model Patent

[rinkjustice]

I'd mod you up bro, if I had any points. Unfortunately, all I can offer you is moral support.

Re:Business Model Patent

[LoP_XTC]

The only problem being that since your business model makes specific mention of cooking beef, McD's is now off the hook since they are clearly not violating that model :)

Aaron

Blockbuster may have a case

[w33t]

Maybe blockbuster could countersue for the business model of renting movies on a recorded meduim and then returning them to rent of others.

What a let down....

[Himring]

I'm a big netflix fan. I got into it in order to re-watch the entire xfiles series last year. I also like the story of its origins: someone finally got sick of ridiculous late-fee charges, and in answer, blockbuster lost mega business. Blockbuster countered with its own service which I thought was not doing well against netflix. This latest news seems to indicate otherwise.

But netflix using patent laws this way is crazy. Blockbuster should counter with the charge that they own the ability to perform the action of receiving monetary units for analogue and digital copies of light and audio produced theatrical and documentary events....

Re:What a let down....

[yincrash]

the difference is that blockbuster didn't come up with the movie rental brick and mortar model, while netflix did come up with the mailing dvds and keep as long as you want model.

Re:What a let down....

[bmalia]

I was a big netflix fan. But when all of this started, I terminated my service and sent customer service an e-mail explaining why. I had hoped netflix was a decent company, but these tactics to monopolize are pissing longtime customers off.

Re:What a let down....

[hhawk]

They didn't do away with the late fee, they just figured out it's better for you and them (mostly them) to get a regular monthly fee out of you. There is a finate # of discs you can rent (if youw watched them as fast as you can).

In many ways its better for them if you get three disc from them and never send them back. They buy 3 new ones and you keep paying and paying for them...

Re:What a let down....

[CastrTroy]

While netflix may have been the first to implement it, or patent it, I can assure you they weren't the first ones to think of it. I thought of it when DVDs first came out, way before netflix was popular. I'm sure lots of others thought of it too. It's not that hard of an idea to come up with.

Re:What a let down....

[yincrash]

That is very very easy to say once an idea has already been implemented. There are always patentable ideas that show up that make people say, "That's so simple, why didn't I think of that?"

Re:What a let down....

[CastrTroy]

It's not "Why didn't I think of that", it's "I thought of that years ago". There is a difference.

Re:What a let down....

[Dausha]

Sorry, I left my clue-by-four at work. You're the second poster to make a similar silly statement. The current state of U.S. Patent law allows any innovation that ever-so-slightly increments the prior art to be useful. Sure, there were methods of shipping books to library patrons or casettes to blind people, but that is not Netflix's patent. Netflix came up with the novel idea of using the Internet to let you rent movies. Sure, it's close to other technology, and most of what they do was possible with pre-existing technology.

The point is, dare I say it, synergy. They took several existing technologies and put them together in a novel way. Poof! A patentable idea. They filed the patent, which takes a few years to fit through the pipes. Once granted, they can go tell others who have since tried to hop on the bandwagon to cease-and-desist or pay-up. Any infringement between filing and granting is moot.

Conversely, Blockbuster cannot sue for renting VCR or DVDs. Others were doing it before they were. They also did not file a patent. Even if they did, that patent would have expired by now. I mean, I rented videos in 1981, so if the patent existed then, it would have expired a few years ago. Then again, the business-process patent was not legal then, so they couldn't. You can't sue when you don't have a patent.

So, you're entire "oh yeah?! Well, then counter sue based on a stupid premise" argument fails.

If you don't like the business patent, then why don't you and several million of your friends lobby your Congressman and Senator to change the flipping law?! Stop whining about it. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Re:What a let down....

[prockcore]

I thought of it when DVDs first came out, way before netflix was popular.

You sound like those people on TV who bitch and moan because they thought of making a pot with a built-in strainer... "but I didn't get a patent".

Well, I implemented it before netflix was popular. The local family-owned video store was next to pizza hut. We set up a system where you could order movies *and* a pizza over the phone. They were delivered to your door, and you were given a fedex envelope to mail the movies back when you were done.

If you'd care to read the patent, neither my actual implementation, nor your "idea" are what the actual patents are about.

Ben Franklin said it best...

[sugapablo]

In his autobiography, he recounts that he was offered a patent on a new
kind of stove he invented that was a tremendous improvement in terms of
heating a building and in reducing the amount of wood needed.

He declined this patent, stating that from "Principle which has ever
weigh'd with me on such Occasions, viz."...

"That as we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others, we
should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of
ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

But screw that, right?

Re:Ben Franklin said it best...

[Anonymous Coward]

Franklin? I heard that guy was a communist.

Re:Ben Franklin said it best...

[HoboMaster]

Unfortunately, not everyone's as cool as Ben Franklin. Especially with his use of 'd instead of ed. I love that.

Re:Ben Franklin said it best...

[Tony]

I have lov'd his style. Surthermore, I admire the use of 'S' in place of 'f'. It just Looks Cool.

Also, he's the guy who wrote, "Fart Proudly." He is a man to be admired, and emulated. Live lustily and long, that's my motto.

Sit in front of a computer eating Cheetos, that's my life.

Re:Ben Franklin said it best...

[Sloppy]

But screw that, right?

Nobody's screwing that, here. Franklin implies that the decision about whether or not he gets the patent, is his decision. So in this case, Netflix is taking the same position as Franklin regarding that right; they're just deciding in the other direction. ;-)

But seriously, the founders' views on patents are important. So important, that instead of blindly granting Congress the authority to grant exclusive rights to authors and inventors, they added a some qualifications to it. And it's encoded right there in the law. Many of the powers granted in Article 1 Section 8 are brief and don't specify limits or say why the power is granted, but that one does.

Reading the constitition, it looks to me like Congress does not have the authority to grant business method patents. A judge can look at whatever legislation Congress passed and try to measure a patent against that legislation, but if they don't also look at the constitution (in order to understand the implicit scope and limits of that legislation) then their decision is ill-informed.

Re:Ben Franklin said it best...

[Gulik]

But screw that, right?

Damn right, screw that. I don't know who this Franklin guy was, but he sounds like one of those whiny socialist hippies who doesn't have any idea how America works.

Re:Ben Franklin said it best...

[pthisis]

Surthermore, I admire the use of 'S' in place of 'f'. It just Looks Cool.

Also, he's the guy who wrote, "Fart Proudly." He is a man to be admired, and emulated.

Actually, he wrote "Sart Proudly".

Re:Ben Franklin said it best...

[kidcharles]

Sounds like he would have been a fan of the open source / free software movement.

Go blockbuster!!

[ConsumerOfMany]

I for one hope Blockbuster wins this hands down. I use Netflix, love the service (6 at a time, one day turnaround and haven't noticed any throttling yet ~35-40 movies month) I tried Blockbusters service and was not thrilled with the selection and turnaround, although not significantly worse just my preference. The shear fact that blockbuster is in the market though is what will keep me happy with Netflix. If Netflix sat as the only one for too long, they would inevitably succumb to greed.

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How can anyone possibly watch 35+ movies a month?! Even a large families with varied tastes should go outside.

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[Red Flayer]

I use Netflix, love the service (6 at a time, one day turnaround and haven't noticed any throttling yet ~35-40 movies month)

Holy crap, your slashnick is appropriate, ConsumerOfMany.

You're a marketer's wet dream!

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[pdhenry]

How can anyone possibly watch 35+ movies a month?

Who said anything about watching them?

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Point well taken.

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[soft_guy]

I balance him out. I got rid of cable tv - stopped watching TV at all, quit seeing movies, quit buying records except directly from independent artists. I'm fed up with MPAA/RIAA and I'm not going to take it anymore - they can't DRM me if I don't have any media to DRM.

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[ConsumerOfMany]

I er, loan them to people, each person in the fam watches a different one, I commute in NYC on the subway which is 2 hours a day with a portable DVD player and I like to let my dog use them as toys which is why they all look like they do when you get them...

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[AK Marc]

I for one hope Blockbuster wins this hands down.

And I hope it goes the other way. I want the patents to be upheld for the most absurd ones possible. It won't personally affect me, and it will cause more and more businesses (with lots of money) to get pissed off at the system. They'll realize that patents aren't protecting them as much as restricting them. Then, the businesses (the ones that actually own the US government) will start pressuring the lawmakers to do something about it.

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[ConsumerOfMany]

Yes, maybe half the companies will be pissed that they are being restricted, but the other half of the companies with the restrictive patents will be living it up and lobbying in their favor. If these patents are struck down in court, companies will not waste the time and money to seek them if the first place.

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[Shadowlore]

If Netflix sat as the only one for too long, they would inevitably succumb to greed.

They already had. Prices for their accounts had risen until BB entered the field. Then they both got into a pricing war. End price was several bucks/month lower than Netflix had been charging just prior to BB's arrival.

Re:Go blockbuster!!

[AK Marc]

If these patents are struck down in court, companies will not waste the time and money to seek them if the first place.

I'm not quite that optmiistic. I think they would get all the same patents and enforce them the same as now. That would mean that the small companies would be hit harder than all the others. I'd rather the big corporations duke it out than have the big ones give up on messing with each other and take it out on the small companies.

Classic...

[MudButt]

It was only a matter of time. Porter's model proven again. Blockbuster (like Microsoft) let its guard down and let a critical external force overtake its market-share: Substitutes.

Go ahead Netflix, kick 'em while they're down! You're the new guerrilla in the DVD rental business, and rightly so. On behalf of every poor college kid that ever got a collections notice for $4.38 for late fees that weren't paid in 4 weeks or less, I say thank you. Bury the bastards.

Re:Classic...

[iPodUser]

Blockbuster doesn't charge late fees anymore, Or didn't you notice? (Not to mention if you don't want late fees, take it back on time)
And besides, this discussion is not about late fees, its about ridiculous patents causing problems for legitimate businesses.

Re:Classic...

[tommy]

I agree with some of the sentiment expressed in the parent. Gorillas period are generally not nice though. It's insane that those things were granted patents in the first place, so in this case I am firmly behind Blockbuster.

Re:Classic...

[truthsearch]

I'd rather see them buried by the market than the legal system.

Re:Classic...

[Zenaku]

Yes, they do. They just renamed them "restocking fees" and made them flat instead of scaled to the amount of time by which the return was late.

Re:your sig

[operagost]

That story is false.

Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

"..on the internet"

Re:Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

"using interweb tubes"

Re:Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

"..in bed"

Counter-suit?

[RyoShin]

If you can patent business models, and Netflix can sue Blockbuster for renting movies by mail/internet, can't Blockbuster sue Netflix for renting movies period? (I suppose if they had a business model patent that expressly stated brick & mortar businesses, they couldn't.)

Re:Counter-suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't Blockbuster sue Netflix for renting movies period?

No, because Video Station was the first rental chain in America, not Blockbuster. They started in 1977, 8 years before Blockbuster existed. Prior art, my friend...

Re:Counter-suit?

[Tod DeBie]

can't Blockbuster sue Netflix for renting movies period?

Even if Blockbuster had invented the general concept of movie rentals, unless they actually patented it, then the answer is no. If they did not patent it, then they have no rights. On the other hand, business methods are patentable and, provided that the Netflix patent holds up, which I suspect it will, Netflix is likely to prevail.

Why are people surprised by this?

[rsilvergun]

businesses have been using the gov't to give them an edge for hundreds of years. Agribuisness corps were founded by gov't irrigation, car companies by gov't road projects, Pharmaceuticals get the gov't to do all the difficult/expensive research, etc, etc. There is a long and illustrious history of using your tax dollars to screw you over. It's like Gore Vidal said: capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

Re:Why are people surprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

businesses have been using the gov't to give them an edge for hundreds of years.

Let's not forget California agribusiness. The farmers get water at extravagantly low rates, likely below the cost of delivery, on contract. Then they piss it away using primitive, wateful means of irrigation. Like spraying it a hundred feet into the air in huge arcs. Much of the water evaporates and doesn't reach the ground again.

Then, in drought years, they generously offer to sell the water to the cities "at market rates".

Screw these jerks. The water is given to them cheaply for the common good -- i.e. low-priced food.

Since they're not doing exactly that with the water, if there were any sanity left in this state, they'd immediately be stripped of their "rights" and turned loose to either produce food or sit around looking at their baked fields while others put the water to good use.

Patenting business models?

[Niten]

If we're lucky, this might be the case to finally set a precedent against the old formula

traditional business model + online = patent

If Blockbuster doesn't settle out of court, that is...

Re:Patenting business models?

[prockcore]

traditional business model + online = patent

People keep saying this, but really, what video rental place do you know of that charges a monthly fee instead of a per-rental fee?

Even if netflix were a brick and morter store down the street, their business model is vastly different from any of their competitors.

The patents

[truthsearch]

For further reference, here are the patents:

6,966,484

Mailing and response envelope

Abstract
A mailing and response envelope for conveying an item from a sender to a recipient and back is disclosed. The envelope comprises a base panel, a sender address panel, and a recipient address panel. The sender address panel is affixed to the base panel by an adhesive region. The sender address panel and adhesive region define a pocket sized to accept an item. The adhesive region extends laterally on the base panel in an amount selected to ensure that a postal cancellation is not applied to an area overlying the item. The recipient address panel is joined to the base panel by a detachable joint. In this configuration, a fragile item may be conveyed from the sender to the recipient and from the recipient back to the sender without damage to the item.

7,024,381

Approach for renting items to customers

Abstract
According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.

Re:The patents

[dthomas731]

How could the USPO have given a patent for a "Mailing and response envelope"? By any other name isn't that called a return envelope? Companies have been using that for many years. The only difference is this patent explicitly mentions DVDs (claims 7 & 14). Is that really enough of a difference to prior art to be granted a patent?

Re:The patents

[Andrew Kismet]

The model you describe is usually a non-returnable envelope CONTAINING a reply envelope. This model specifically patents an envelope used for DVDs that the DVD is both sent and returned in via resealable sections. It's the exact design that was copied by LoveFilm, Blockbuster, and ScreenSelect. And more!

Re:The patents

[Gr8Apes]

You know, if the patent office had to pay a fee, say $25K for every patent overturned in court because it is obvious or invalid, perhaps the USPTO would be a little more diligent in their research before granting a patent. Said fee would be paid to the successful defender.

Re:The patents

[aesiamun]

Gamefly has the same concept, it's an envelope that has a cardboard sleeve that your paper sleeve for the dvd sits in. The envelope has your name printed on a sticker that's attached to a flap of paper that's taped over the information on the envelope. You remove that flap of paper (perforated), put the game back in, the perforated end has a strip of paper covering glue, seal it, and mail it back.

I'm not sure if gamefly is going to be a target now too...but it doesn't encroach on netflix's business...yet :)

Re:The patents

[pudro]

But isn't this obvious enough to deny the patent? The Netflix envelope is essentially the same as taping the two envelopes together, and removing one of them before sending it back. I would consider the business method here to be what the two methods have in common. What Netflix patented was the implementation of a business method, and allowing that is a slippery slope leading to a mess of ridiculous patent lawsuits.

Re:The patents

[duerra]

I can undertand the patent case for the envelopes that Netflix uses. That is a pretty novel invention, and one that I have not seen before. They may have a case on that one. I'd also like to hear if anybody has a good rebutall as to why that patent would not be valid.

As for the other patent, I stopped reading at "a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers". That patent is just lunacy, and as the abstract explains it, I have no idea how it could get through the patent office. That's just plain wrong.

Re:The patents

[back_pages]

Abstracts of patents are meaningless. Any discussion promoted by these abstracts is literally irrelevant.

Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.

Re:The patents

[GWBasic]

Actually, their envelope isn't very obvious. Initially, Netflix used heavy cardboard mailers. This article was on slashdot a few months ago: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/21/216213

Another argument to make is that, given that plastic 5" disks have been around since 1983, if such an envelope were obvious, we'd have seen it used in the 80s and 90s for CDs. If these envelopes are so obvious, why did Blockbuster invest so much money (and shelf space) for bulky DVD cases when they could have just used pre-paid return envelopes back in the late 90s?

Re:The patents

[pudro]

"why did Blockbuster invest so much money (and shelf space) for bulky DVD cases when they could have just used pre-paid return envelopes back in the late 90s?"

Is that a serious question? If it made sense to do that, why haven't they started using the envelopes in stores now , since it would make even more sense now that they already use them for their Netflix "ripoff". DVDs come from the factory in those "bulky cases". They weren't repeatedly shipping these things all over the country, so it didn't make sense to get rid of the cases. And as far as rental stores were concerned, that case was perfect for displaying the movies, and the clear cases many stores used for actually containing the DVDs were also used for anti-theft devices. How many reasons do you need for them not using envelopes in the store?

And your CD comment is even more ridiculous. You are comparing selling a CD to renting a DVD. If people didn't get the case for the CD, they would either just buy it at the store or want it for cheaper, and I doubt they would've gotten that. It's not like your average consumer in the 80s and 90s had GBs on their computer to backup their music to for when their CDs got damaged due to being stored in envelopes. My roommate had Netflix for 4-5 months, and twice we received a DVD that had been cracked. This worked fine for Netflix, they just sent another one out. What if that had been a CD you had spent $15 for?

Re:The patents

[Euler]

Using the same packaging to return an item is pretty obvious in many industries. Has been for decades. Parts service exchanges, advance unit replacements, evaluation units, etc. are all sent out with return waybills included inside the box so that the box can be re-used for the return trip. And I'm not buying this argument that the netflix mailer is so unique, they are just applying incremental changes as the obvious need arises. There is NOTHING novel about using a tried and true 'business method' by simply applying it to a new market. The equivalent is being able to re-patent the cash register everytime a retailer sells an emerging product line.

One possible way to sue

[Anonymous Coward]

How about infringing on their patent for bumping heavy users to the back of the line? If they can stop Blockbuster from doing that it'd benefit everyone.

Im sorry I cant hold this any longer.

[ihatewinXP]

Fuck Blockbuster.

I know that has been a popular sentiment ont his board for some time and that im not in particularly new....... But, I still have a bad taste in my mouth from YEARS of Blockbuster / Viacom screwing me (and everyone else) royally.

  The late fees. The bad selection. The late fees. Changing the rental system to somehow appease a lawsuit they lost and at the same time still trick people into paying more late fees.....

And then Netflix came along, and the first few times you saw it in print was wondering if they could ever even get the attention of the Blockbuster juggernaught (anyone besides me remember the college football Blockbuster Bowl?). Well yeah, I guess they got Viacoms attention finally. After their entire business had been decimated. How long was this in the making?

After Blockbuster ran EVERY Mom and Pop video rental store off the planet they want to somehow play the underdog? They didnt have a chance to see what Netflix saw and ditch the brick and ortar stores? Yeah I know thats expensive, but the real estate they built those stores on would have recouped most of the money, and firing everyone else would have them squarely in the black, a place they havent been for a hot minute now...

So to recap, screw Blockbuster, but only because in their hubris they screwed (and are actively screwing) themselves.

Re:Im sorry I cant hold this any longer.

[gstoddart]

So to recap, screw Blockbuster, but only because in their hubris they screwed (and are actively screwing) themselves.

This, unforunately has to be a case where you come down on the side of 'right', not fuck 'em. And, if Blockbuster loses this, it's a horribly bad precedent.

I don't like Blockbuster either. I don't give them my business. But I would hope that a patent for renting a movie on the internet gets shot down. But, similarly I've rooted for Microsoft in past cases because, by fluke, they were on a side of the argument I agreed with.

I mean, people were selling things online back then, and nobody has a patent covering that broadly. Renting things is just "selling for a little while". :-P

This patent really needs to be shot down. And allowing bad precedents because we don't like one of the principals is a lousy way to work out a legal system.

Cheers

Re:Im sorry I cant hold this any longer.

[Bieeanda]

While I agree with the anti-Blockbuster sentiment, they're not "playing the underdog" here. Netflix has proven that there is a definite market for mail-order video rentals and Blockbuster is trying to get a slice of that pie by providing a comparable experience. That's simple and entirely legal business sense, the kind that makes stockholders very happy because the proposition has already been proven to work.

The problem here is Netflix trying to leverage what looks for all the world like another patently ludicrous patent claim to protect its income, rather than adapting to a changing market and competition. This is the kind of thing that Slashdot posters regularly rail about... at least, when it's a big outfit like Microsoft.

Re:Im sorry I cant hold this any longer.

[e_armadillo]

I can understand your dislike of Blockbuster. I am no fan of Blockbuster myself. But does that help the Netflix case hold water? In my opinion, no.

Patenting the "keep the DVD as long as you like" feature, or the "Swap for a new DVD" on the return of the previous is ludicrous, and just because we don't like one player in this game doesn't mean they are wrong in this particular situation.

Re:Im sorry I cant hold this any longer.

[Red Flayer]

Yeah I know thats expensive, but the real estate they built those stores on would have recouped most of the money, and firing everyone else would have them squarely in the black, a place they havent been for a hot minute now...

Speaking of business models, maybe you're unaware of Blockbuster's? It's a franchise model. The parent company didn't lay out the cash for those b&m shops -- they may have helped the franchisees obtain financing, but that's a different story. Yes, the parent corporation has its own issues -- but keep in mind that 90% of the Blockbusters out there are owned by small businesspeople. Sure, they were/are complicit, but when your choice to own a video store becomes a choice between failing and assimilating, what do you think most people will do?

Re:Im sorry I cant hold this any longer.

[idobi]

You know Viacom hasn't owned blockbuster since 2004, right?

Re:Im sorry I cant hold this any longer.

[Just Some Guy]

The late fees. The bad selection. The late fees. Changing the rental system to somehow appease a lawsuit they lost and at the same time still trick people into paying more late fees.....

You forgot the enormous advantage Blockbuster's brick-and-mortar stores have over Netflix: there's no charge when you don't use them. I rent a movie maybe 2, 3 times a year. As Netflix doesn't have a $15/year plan, they can't compete for my business on price.

Injunction

[necro81]

FTFA:

If Netflix is able to obtain an injunction, then that means that people who rent through Blockbuster's online service have to find some other way or go down to the local store to rent their movies.

If the judge in the case grants an injunction against Blockbuster's online service, there will indeed be many pissed customers out there. Thankfully, Blockbuster has at least one way to mollify them in the meantime: give their customers the same X-rentals-at-a-time access to their brick and mortar stores as they do through online rental queues. Blockbuster's online rental service already includes vouchers for a fixed number of store rentals per month (in parallel with the online queue rentals). This would just make it entirely brick-and-mortar based. The store on the corner doesn't have nearly the selection, but it might hold over some customers that would otherwise quit Blockbuster. There should be some way to craft it that doesn't encroach on the patents in question.

Note to self

[Anon-Admin]

Note to self,

Time to patent new business model that increases customer satisfaction through the extension of services at prices the customer can afford while providing support and an extended "Customer is right" attitude.

Then I can sue all the companies that have happy customers, hmmm It may be hard to find them now.

The BEST movies are free and online

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as these: http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/videos.html

Just in Time for my Meeting

[DeanFox]

Netflix is doing a marketing research thing in my area. I've agreed to meet with them in person for 30 minutes next week in exchange for 4 months free service. Now along with their throttling I'll have something else to hit them with.

Any suggestions of other stuff you'd want them to know or have your complaints heard through me? I'd be glad to bring it forward.

-[d]-

Re:Just in Time for my Meeting

[Sabaki]

Tell them to call me -- I want that deal.

Short of that, I'd like them to stock more rare videos. I have a long queue, and I've noticed and increasingly long list of movies that are getting pulled from my main queue and put in an Unavailable list. Can that many movies really be out of print and completely unavailable? Also, I wonder if they ever do a qulaity check on their DVDs before sending them out -- I've received several that were too damaged to fully watch. (Granted, this is a problem with rental in general.) I'd like to see more foreign imports, evne if they're better at that than other places.

Positive things -- I liked how they added a feature to allow me to add all DVDs from a given series at once.

I'm personally kind of pulling for them in this battle. Even if the patent case is found silly and dismissed, I hope they eat Blockbuster's lunch. Letting the little guy build a good business model, then grow up and challenge the big guy encourages innovation.

Re:Just in Time for my Meeting

[thorkyl]

YES!!!!

Why do I only get 3 per week?

I did a test run
Got my 3
ran to the post office and mailed them back, did not watch them
1 week later got my next 3

Re:Just in Time for my Meeting

[jugglerjon]

I'd like to see more titles. I've suggested them, but my impression is that they don't really listen to user suggestions. I just get the generic, thank you we'll consider it, email. Even a more personalized response would be better then how they currently treat suggestions.

personal reasons give me 2 sides of this

[tehwebguy]

while this is completely insane, part of me wants them to win and put the final nail in blockbuster's coffin.

Greencine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they don't sue Greencine, cause I'm about to dump Netflix in favor of them and they seem like everything Netflix could have been.

It's not new

[wbean]

When I lived in London in the 50's Harrods had a lending library. You paid a monthly fee and they assigned a librarian to you. He/she (mostly she) picked out books for you - or you could request specific titles. The books were delivered in Harrods green electric vans. When you'd finished a book Harrods would pick it up and ship you another one. Sound like a familiar business model? It even involved technology (the electric vans).

(I've posted this information before, but it seems to bear repeating.)

Re:It's not new

[Professor_UNIX]

What does ANY of that have to do with renting DVDs over the Internet? Completely different concept entirely.

Re:It's not new

[KarmaMB84]

God, I hope that was a joke because adding DVD and internet to it shouldn't make it original.

Re:It's not new

[truthsearch]

Harrods used green vans. Netflix uses red envelopes. That's not at all the same business model.

Re:It's not new

[Overzeetop]

Well, of course adding DVD doesn't make it original. That's why it has to involve the internet to be both unique and non-obvious. ;-)

Re:It's not new

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you communicate your book preference to the librarian through a series of interconnected tubes?

Re:It's not new

[Anonymous Coward]

When I lived in London in the 50's Harrods had a lending library. You paid a monthly fee and they assigned a librarian to you. He/she (mostly she) picked out books for you - or you could request specific titles. The books were delivered in Harrods green electric vans. When you'd finished a book Harrods would pick it up and ship you another one. Sound like a familiar business model? It even involved technology (the electric vans).

(I've posted this information before, but it seems to bear repeating.)
but last time it was the 30s and it was woolworths and it wasn't london, it was georgia, and no green vans, it was a boy on a mule, and it wasn't books, it was jars, glass jars, fer picklin' eggs...
keep it straight

Re:It's not new

[Shadowlore]

More specifically:

http://web.archive.org/web/19961106001006/www.home filmfestival.com/infopack.html

I knew I had seen it done prior to Netflix.

Note this was in 1996.

This is not a new business model

[ldapboy]

I used a CD rental service in England back when CD's came on to the market (1986 or so?). It worked in essentially the exact same way as Netflix.

Re:This is not a new business model

[Anonymous Coward]

except for the extrememly important internet part?

Re:This is not a new business model

[happyfrogcow]

except for the extrememly important internet part?

If the patents say "network" or "electronically", there are ways to look at it yet. The mail system is a network. The phone system is a network and electronic.

Patent infringement

[rice_burners_suck]

The process of trolling for karma on /. is original, innovative, not obvious to an expert in the field, and has no prior art. Therefore, this process deserves patent protection.

This post is patent pending. All rights reserved. Do not make illegal copies of this post.

I am going to sue both of them....

[Procrastin8er]

....for violating my patent for using a business model to try and make a profit.

Which Benjamin Franklin?

[Anonymous Coward]

The people involved in such lawsuits are only familiar with Benjamin Franklin, not Benjamin Franklin.

Good luck to Netflix on this one....

[Churla]

I have an ex who worked for Blockbuster for quite some time.

They were developing methods for on-line rentals and even on-demend video distribution back in about 1999 IIRC. Netflix was actually copying Blockbusters model , only doing it on line, until then. (Having late fees, etc, making people pay for postage).

They will be deperately hard pressed to prove they innovated many , if any, of these business practices, and I believe some of their patents could actually be thrown out because of being brought to the light of day like this.

I despise with a passion "business model patents" which basically say "we figured out how to do business, don't you dare try to compete with us!"

Re:Good luck to Netflix on this one....

[DragonWriter]

They will be deperately hard pressed to prove they innovated many , if any, of these business practices, and I believe some of their patents could actually be thrown out because of being brought to the light of day like this.

They have, as far as I can tell, precisely two patents, one covering their process, and the other covering their mailing envelope.

It doesn't really matter if Blockbuster was working on developing a similar online rental program first, anymore than in a patent for a more traditional invention it would matter if someone else had thought of the same general idea and was in the process of developing it into a patentable invention.

Re:Good luck to Netflix on this one....

[Dausha]

"I despise with a passion 'business model patents' which basically say 'we figured out how to do business, don't you dare try to compete with us!'"

Then, lobby your Congressman and Senator and change the law. SCOTUS has spoken, and now only Congress can change it. Be part of the solution.

needs more patents

[srchestnut]

Blockbuster should just patent the business of renting videos and dvd's then sue netflix and everyone else while they're at it. Then RIM could patent a 'Method and system for patenting overreaching and obvious patents' and sue both of them. First to concieve baby!

Re:needs more patents

[Overzeetop]

First to concieve baby!

So...wouldn't that just result in everyone screwing everyone else as often as possible?

Oh, right. Sorry.

why don't you show us then...

[Anonymous Coward]

...where they are actively lobbying congress to get the laws changed to eliminate business process patents, if they are against it? A few links is fine...

Re:your sig

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

Eh? Did you even read that? That Capitol Hill Blue retraction you cite is dated Jul 9, 2003. The Constitution story you're objecting to is two and a half years *after* he stopped using the bogus source Dec 9, 2005

Well, I guess I'm busted...

[Amalas]

The process of trolling for karma on /. is original, innovative, not obvious to an expert in the field, and has no prior art. Therefore, this process deserves patent protection. This post is patent pending. All rights reserved. Do not make illegal copies of this post.

Blockbuster is just copycatting

[ronalfy]

C'mon. Do you remember what you first thought when you saw those first Netflix commercials? DVD by mail? How absurd! That'll never work. But it did work. It caught on through word of mouth and very intense advertising. It has made irrelevant the brick-and-mortar business model that Blockbuster survives on. Blockbuster just had an epiphany and said, "Wow.. we better get on this before it's too late." Netflix was smart to patent its business model and process. It took many iterations to get the current mail system down the way Netflix has. Blockbuster simply copied the Netflix model and is now claiming that Netflix never had a right to it in the first place.

Re:Blockbuster is just copycatting

[Twanfox]

But it hasn't made irrelivent the brick-and-mortar stores. At those stores, I can rent more than 3 movies at a time and I'm only charged for movies I actually have in my posession at a given time. If I went with netflix (or even Blockbuster's online service), I'd be getting a steady monthly charge, even if they didn't have any movies that I wanted to watch right now. It's wasted money if you're an 'occasional' renter. That, compounded with the whole "Unlimited, but not really unlimited" hype that Netflix puts on their service makes such an online service a real turnoff.

My brain is a patent

[thorkyl]

I think therefor it has a patent

Family Video is a nice alternative!

[gozar]

For those complaining about Blockbuster, if you have a Family Video store near you, check them out. New movies are $2.59 for a day, but anything old is $1 for 5 days. I've looked into Netflix, but it's more expensive for my viewing habits (a couple of movies a week).

Re:Family Video is a nice alternative!

[Anonymous Coward]

"neighborhood video" is even better. In fact, neighbourhood ANYTHING is better. Tired of crappy, snotty service? Go visit you friendly neighborhood laundromat/restaurant/cafe/video store/ whatever. Do you really think that Netflix gives a rat's arse? Do they fsk! I've had two neighborhood video stores close down recently; why? Netflix. Do you think that Netflix has anything like the quirkly selection these two stores had? Does Netflix push the envelope on what they offer you to rent? 'Seedy' porn, obscure foreign films, film with 'non-family values'?-- forget it.

Re:Family Video is a nice alternative!

[Just Some Guy]

For those complaining about Blockbuster, if you have a Family Video store near you, check them out. New movies are $2.59 for a day, but anything old is $1 for 5 days.

Of course, the late charge is $200.00, and is collected by your "cousin" Vincent.

i've been wondering when this was going to happen

[tralfamador]

i signed up with blockbuster online a year ago and i love it. the fact that i get 2 free movies in-store a month is the kicker. it gets rid of the "crap i want to see this movie NOW" effect. well, at least twice a month. and i can use it for games as well.

anyway, i don't really have any opinion on the litigation, but i'd been wondering how long it would take for this to occur and what the effects would be.

interesting

[zogger]

Commercially viable electric vehicles in the 50s, in common useage? Do you recall the model/name of them to go look it up?

Re:interesting

[grahamwest]

I'm not familiar with the Harrod's vans but electric vehicles have been used for milk delivery for many, many years in Britain. Milk floats don't go fast (there are multiple TV sitcom sketches involving milk float chases making light of this fact) or have much range but they are quiet and thus preferable for pre-dawn driving in residential areas.

Re:interesting

[zogger]

Thanks for the reply and the link! I like to find out about electric vehicles. In the US, the first president ro ride in an automobile rode in an electric car, T. Roosevelt in a Columbia Victoria.

My account has just been canceled.

[DAldredge]

I have just canceled my account and have netflix to let them know why.

Re:My account has just been canceled.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody really cares what your pathetic ass does.

All about potential alternatives

[csorice7]

These cases are all about the claims, how they are applied and possible work-arounds. Of what I can see, there are two patents at stake here.

For patent US 7,024,381:
44. A computer system for renting movies to customers, comprising:
a computer that is coupled to a digital telecommunications network by a digital telecommunications link;
an electronic digital memory in the computer;
one or more sequences of computer program instructions stored in the electronic digital memory which, when executed, cause the computer to perform the steps of:
providing electronic digital information that causes one or more attributes of movies to be displayed;
establishing, in electronic digital form, from electronic digital information received over the Internet, a movie rental queue associated with a customer comprising an ordered list indicating two or more movies for renting to the customer;
causing to be delivered to the customer up to a specified number of movies based upon the order of the list;
in response to one or more delivery criteria being satisfied, selecting another movie based upon the order of the list and causing the selected movie to be delivered to the customer; and
in response to other electronic digital information received from the customer over the Internet, electronically updating the movie rental queue.

For patent US 6,584,450:
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.

So, perhaps (not stating this for sure), Blockbuster could continue to have an online business with a movie service and avoid these patents by...
1. Not maintaining or sending movies based on an "ordered list" from customers
2. Not allow customers to change such a preference lists online, but through some other method.

Of the two options, using a method of delivering the movies you prefer when you return previous ones (and not before) could be a possible alternative - no ordered lists or predetermined selection criteria, perhaps just a 'preference list' that you could save on their site that is not an automatic trigger for the next movie. How could this be applied? Perhaps by using text message, email or rss feed to request you to make a choice prior to shipping from that total preference list.

Of course, we're all trained to think about ordered lists (by Netflix), but Blockbuster could market the other option that you choose what movies you want to see, when you want to see them (if its not available, you get X for free). Netflix patented a good way to do it, but not the only way.

Disc 3 - 1 of null

[DAE51D]

How timely...

"What makes this next -- erm popInTheMail-up? -- even more fun is that this is the twelfth time that Avesh Jain has received a "1 of null" DVD. Wonder if his bill will be $NULL ... "

http://thedailywtf.com/forums/thread/90530.aspx

Off Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

The night before driving a couple states home from university for the summer, a bunch of my friends and i stayed up all night, rented movies and ordered pizza. On the way out of town that morning, i drop off all the movies and went home. I get a collection agency notice at my perm. address saying i had late fees of $2.67 and they were wanting to collect. Since the credit card i signed up to blockbuster with had expired over the summer, they didn't get anything and the collection agency didn't do anything either, and i don't have an account with them. I find it ridiculous that i dropped them off and somehow they didn't 'recieve' them for another 2 days... WHEN I WAS NOT EVEN NEAR THE STATE.

This is like sh*t suing v0mit.....

[theneb]

both fcuking suck if u dont live near a big city. Can hardly get 3 movies in a week....

Patent needed for incentive to develop

[Sloppy]

It's a good thing that the founders decided to write something into the constitution to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for Netflix to have a business model! ;-)

A few points to ponder...

[BSonline]

Companies with too many lawyers on hand may try to turn that expense into profit. Why pay them to sit around and push papers when you can send them off to court?

In one way or another, people want to own ideas. Thoughts themselves, for sale. No longer are people building better mouse traps, they are trying to build a case for owning devices that kill and or trap mice, possibly with adhesive labels.

The most successful poeple try to open any door, where oppurtunity may be knocking. With the massive amounts of money being used, people just want to "do" as much as possible. Something silly to me or you is just another scheme to someone who may possibly pull it off. If netflix wins, they get to roll around in cash. If they lose? Well, I imagine the cost of this lawsuit is a drop in the bucket of marketing expenses.

I hate blockbuster

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate blockbuster so more power to Netflixs!

Side Note: This "confirm image word" I can't even read it to type in the right letters! And no I'm not visually imparied :p

"You failed to confirm you are a human. Please double-check the image and make sure you typed in what it says"

lol this is my 4th time, I obviously can't make out the letters. Those 1's l's?

Netflix vs Blockbuster

[iviagnus]

As Systems Manager for a family owned and operated video store in Maine competing directly with Blockbuster, I have personal experience with Blockbuster utilizing immoral and/or illegal practices, to the detriment of both its' competition and customers, so I don't feel sorry for them in the least, and hope they burn in retail hell.

Ummm....

[mr1337]

Isn't this old news? I swear I saw this Slashdotted a long time ago.

library books by mail

[Athenais]

More than ten years ago, the Multnomah County Library in Oregon used to let you check out books and movies via their online library catalog, and they'd mail them to you in special envelopes, which you would just drop in the mailbox to return when they were due. Cost: $2 per item. Ten years earlier than that, the Seaside library a hundred miles west did the same thing. It looks like a lot of people came up with the idea independently--almost the definition of obvious.

"First to make a successful for-profit company using this business model" is not an acceptable metric for determining what is non-obvious.

Can you...?

[one_red_eye]

Can you patent a business model?

Re:Can you...?

[Tod DeBie]

Can you patent a business model?

The short answer is yes. For the long answer, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_paten t

It's not what you do it's how you do it

[OldSoldier]

IANAL but I have this belief that patents protect how you do things, not what you do. Can I patent the concept of a car that gets 200 miles per gallon or am I patenting the particular means by which my engine gets 200 mpg? Wouldn't a reasonable patent be one which allows someone else to come up with a different means of accomplishing the same thing?

Why is it that every popular article I read on USPTO missteps seem to indicate that the USPTO is allowing people to patent the sheer concept of doing things? Amazon's one-click patent... if I come up with a differnt way of allowing people to buy things with one click that should be allowed.

Netflix's online dvd rental patent seems to be a similar "concept patent" which seeks to block any and all other means of accomplishing the same thing. This has truly gone too far.

Re:It's not what you do it's how you do it

[Tod DeBie]

Can I patent the concept of a car that gets 200 miles per gallon or am I patenting the particular means by which my engine gets 200 mpg?

In general, it is the latter. In most cases, you are patenting the particular novel, useful and non-obvious elements of the engine that enables it to get good gas mileage. There is however a type of claim that you can put in a patent called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)#Means- plus-function_claim>means plus function claim, where the claim is based on the function of a device rather than its actual structure. In the Netflix context, they might have a claim: "means for mailing a DVD to a person", this is probably a bit overbroad, but the idea is that in the specification, they might talk about all the different types of ways that it can be mailed and then just claim that their process uses any means for mailing. You could probably get something like that through the http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm>USPTO, because the means for mailing are fairly well understood and known. However, in your high MPG engine concept, just because you have one particular way to achieve it, you could not simply claim "means for getting a 200mpg engine" you may have one way to do it, but there may be others. There is no hard rule about when a means plus function claim will be allowed and when it will be denied.

For Amazon's one click, they are probably claiming the process where the user just click's on a button once, and the system goes and gets their default credit card, mailing address and other preferences without confirming anything with the user. If this is what Amazon has patented, then it would be very difficult for you to find a way around it.

For Netflix, it appears they have patented a computer based video system movie rental method. Unless someone can come up with some good prior art, like renting other things via computer, then their http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=netflix&OS =netflix&RS=netflix>patent will likely stand.

Re:It's not what you do it's how you do it

[OldSoldier]

Thanks! Great response. Clears up a lot of things I was confused about.

Can you...?

[mattaholic]

I think the problem with this entire thread is that people are talking about three different things

1. Whether or not patenting business methods is ridiculous (and yes you can patent business methods in the U.S.)
2. Whether or not this specific claim by netflix is ridiculous (ie. is their business method patent so obvious that it shouldnt have been granted in the first place or should there be a limit to how long such patents stay in effect)
3. Whether or not we'd like to see blockbuster go down in flames (I know I do)

That being said, I think emerging technologies (ie. anything internet/computer/media related) have really exposed weaknesses in current U.S. patent law. There is a delicate balance between fair competition and protecting/rewarding innovation. If Blockbuster had reacted faster and was well within their rights to copy the Netflix business model then Netflix might just be a passing blip on the timeline. The idea behind patents is that you are protecting innovation, in many cases from large organizations that could easily take over your idea with advantages like capital, brand name recognition, distributuion, cross-marketing, etc.

However, with the growth in all these markets (mainly media, software, and internet) it seems ridiculous to allow patents that seem like an obvious and inevitable integration of two or more existing concepts and grant any one entity control over that model for twenty years. In this case is Netflix concept innovative enough to patent? I think it was at the time. They would be stupid to not file a patent for a new distrubition model they rely on and I do think companies like blockbuster should compensate them for the idea, but I also think patents like these should grant rights for a smaller window of time. 2-5 years seems fair.

Regardless... The intent of the laws are really all that ultimately matter since they are decided by judges and juries. I have been continually impressed by the understanding and decisions of a lot of judges in IP cases. If you actually follow up on a lot of these cases that get people worked up about you will see that judges generally make intelligent and informed decisions.

For the record, I'd like to see Blockbuster fail. Though I did love them once for their music stores with the listening stations, I've always hated their video rental fees, their crappy selection of older movies, and how they'd put smaller stores out of business (stores that had a more knowledgable staff and carried adult titles!)

Exactly!

[loqi]

Since when do politicians nip problems in the bud? Folks, this has to get worse before it gets better. Our patent system will receive the overhaul it desparately needs when:
A) There's a concrete enough financial interest that it generates a lobby.
B) Joe Sixpack is displeased with the situation.

We can all make B) appear to come a little faster by bitching to our Congress-critters every time we see an abuse like this. Remember net2phone's "method of establishing a communication channel by exchanging IP addresses" patent? Don't let this shit slide!

Please, please, please....

[JD-1027]

FREAKING SCRATCHED DISCS. Yes, that was a yell. Nothing is more infuriating to my wife and I.

Must get better lawyers

[psydeshow]

Man, I patented "Be kind, rewind" stickers back in 1983, and do you think I've ever seen a dime from it?

Patent Nonsense Business

[Doc Ruby]

Business patents are by definition monopolies. No patent should be awarded on anything that isn't a working mechanical device, at least a prototype. Descriptions of ideas, whether human readable or machine readable, are subject only to copyright. Identifying marks, like logos and slogans, are only trademarks.

These principles are obvious. Not only are they politically obvious to anyone who understands that artificial government monopolies must merely balance freedom of expression against investment protection. They are obvious to anyone in business. It's obvious to people patenting how much advantage they gain. And it's obvious to people excluded how much competition it prohibits.

Maybe now that American business is becoming at least as much a consumer of IP as a producer, these corporations will battle away the IP law imbalances that crimp their economy. Then we'll also see how obvious it is that corporations are the only "persons" which matter to the government.

Re:Patent Nonsense Business

[DragonWriter]

Business patents are by definition monopolies. No patent should be awarded on anything that isn't a working mechanical device, at least a prototype.

Working mechanical device patents (and, for that matter, all copyrights) are also, by definition, monopolies.

Descriptions of ideas, whether human readable or machine readable, are subject only to copyright.

Descriptions are subject to copyright. Processes, business or otherwise, are subject to patent.

Identifying marks, like logos and slogans, are only trademarks.

Identifying marks used in trade are subject to trademark protection, but they are also quite often subject to copyright protection as well.

These principles are obvious.

These "principles" aren't "obvious", there statements of either your misguided opinion of what the law is, or your personal opinion of what is should be, not some universal self-evident statements of truth.

Re:Patent Nonsense Business

[Doc Ruby]

Monopolies on individual specific devices are not the same kind of restraint on business as a business monopoly.

No process, business or otherwise, should be subject to patent, though we are discussing a problematic case of exactly that kind of inappropriate patent.

You have a point about identifying marks being subject to copyright, but it's irrelevant.

These principles are obvious to anyone who looks at them sensibly. "Obvious" is obviously a subjective quality. It requires reasonable people to agree, not just hairsplitters, poser lawyers (or wannabes), or blather about "universal self-evident statements of truth".

You are obviously seeking an argument with straw men, about what is the law. While I am talking about making sense.

Re:Patent Nonsense Business

[DragonWriter]

Monopolies on individual specific devices are not the same kind of restraint on business as a business monopoly.

Well, sure a "business process" is a different thing than a widget, and widget-patents impose different real restrictions than "business process"-patents and vice versa (similarly, say, an encryption algorithm patent is a different thing than either, and imposes yet a different set of restrictions.)

There are different things subject to patent, and they impose different practical restrictions. This is clear.

No process, business or otherwise, should be subject to patent, though we are discussing a problematic case of exactly that kind of inappropriate patent.

Its not enough merely to assert that this should not be the case, and further to assert that it is "obvious" (as you previously did) that this is the case, or to simply state that it is "different" than other patents. If you want to convince everyone of this, rather than show off for those people that already agree with you, you ought to make an argument as to why not rather than simply saying that it shouldn't be done and making vague noises about freedom.

As far as I can see, the rationale for business process patents is the same as for other patents, to protect and those who take the risks inherent in developing a new useful process so as too encourage risk-taking in that area and promote progress. I don't see why business process patents are categorically bad.

I can certainly see arguments that the patent system we have now is bad in a lot of more general ways, or that certain classes of patents should have more limited duration, etc. but I don't see that business process patents are, as a category, bad where others are good.

Re:Patent Nonsense Business

[Doc Ruby]

I also originally said

"artificial government monopolies must merely balance freedom of expression against investment protection. They are obvious to anyone in business. It's obvious to people patenting how much advantage they gain. And it's obvious to people excluded how much competition it prohibits.

Maybe now that American business is becoming at least as much a consumer of IP as a producer, these corporations will battle away the IP law imbalances that crimp their economy."

I can be more explicit.

Business patents create business monopolies, which overbalances freedom of expression against capitalism by excluding any competition. Mere monopolies on devices don't work so hard against competition. The already unacceptable extreme business process patent would reach its ultimate expression in a patent on segmenting a market. Patents on devices already go too far for freedom, and must be carefully awarded to ensure they don't destroy other freedoms than just expression. Modern business cycles already mean that the duration of the "temporary" monopoly on a device should be reduced (rather than the consistent trend to extend them indefinitely). The whole business is going in the wrong direction, long ago having left behind its arguable basis in protecting investment, towards guaranteeing profit. Which is exactly against both capitalism's essential competition, and freedom. So it has nothing to do with that "compromise", and everything to do with profit at any cost.

I'm really torn here.

[BlueDreaux]

I don't like that Blockbuster participates in corporate censorship of films, but I also think Netflix shouldn't be so damned greedy in its patenting practices. I'd cancel my Netflix account over this but then they might have just gotten the patent so that they could sue Blockbuster. Anything to kill Blockbuster is ok with me but there's a legitimate line to draw somewhere. Hrmm... burn in Hell Blockbuster, you un-American bunch of fascists.

Re:I'm really torn here.

[91degrees]

Blockbuster's censorship is a totally different issue. If you don't like it then simply avoid Blockbuster. They're perfectly entitled to their censorship policy and you're perfectly entitled to tell them where to stick it. It's all about the free market. Not quite sure how Blockbuster, non-government censorship, or even fascism are un-American per se.

Re:Misunderstanding

[symbolic]

I think people often mistake "not having been done before" with something that is original. The question I'd like to explore is, "How many considered it as a possible business model?" Best case, what we may very well have here is a model that has been considered by many, but popularized by a one. That's not exactly what I would consider "original". It's tantamount to trying out a musical style that doesn't go over so well during one time period, only to have it resurrected down the road at some point when it becomes wildly successful.

Business Practices

[wildtech]

Being simplistic, this sounds like one company decided to not charge late fees, so another company adopted the same practice. Pretty much everything they do is not new or unique, just expensive for a start-up. An established business like BlockBuster can and will compete by offering the same services.

Do you need to patent your business methods and operating procedures, or copyright your fancy return mail envelope to compete effectively? I think that if NetFlix is not able to compete with an established company in a similar market, that they are no different than a mom and pop grocery trying to compete with WalMart SuperCenters. It may not be the best thing for the community or the market, but it is the community or market that will make or break them, not their copyright or patent portfolio.

A business that survives by blocking other companies from using obvious methods, is no better than a parasite. They provide no benefit to society, and only serve to promote the proliferation of lawyers.

Where is Schlock Mernenary company when you need them. ;)
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20021110.html

Ask and you shall receive - thank's Google

[wbean]

Here's the link to the ghost of the vans. Sadly, the real thing are gone. The color was much nicer than it looks in the photo.

Re:Ask and you shall receive - thank's Google

[zogger]

Thanks, cool stuff! I went looking and googling some more on the electric floats, some of them look still practical. Hopefully at least *some* of the big car companies will start offering pure electric vehicles. I bet if they don't the chinese will, they are already heavy into electric bikes and scooters.

  I think one of those, with the "generator trailer" concept for long hauls, would be quite nice and practical. I know I'd like to be topping off a little truck off my solar panels all the time, if I could get one. I know you can build one from a kit, but I would prefer to just buy one already built (used and cheaper and finance-able once they have been on the market for awhile, like I get all my vehicles), because I have more than enough projects right now.

I'm still gonna get a horse though one of these days....

Lending Library?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a few lending libraries used to do something similar back to the 1800's. Remote students or school districts would receive the books they requested via the mail. When finished, they sent them back. To ensure turnover and prompt returns, many had a policy of "only x books at a time".

Do you think "I'll charge money for that service" passes the test of "too obvious"? How about "I'll send DVDs instead of books"?

Milk Floats

[wbean]

Our milkman in London had an electric vehicle that looked like a cart. He walked in front of it and steered with a handle. We still had a gaslighter too, when I first got there in '55, but he was soon made redundant by advanced automated gas lighting technology. There's nothing quite like the atmosphere from a gaslight.

geezer ranking!

[zogger]

OK, this is fun, I'm still just a baby neogeezer but see what I can do here... I'll try to do some more geezer things the young kids here won't believe...that gas lighter was a good one, never seen that one..

Ok, my grandma still had an icebox and the iceman used a horse and wagon, came down the alley to make the ice deliveries. This was similar, mid 50s in Detroit. Hmmm...I've made nickle phone calls, got gasoline at 12 cents a gallon, and used a phone that was bolted to the wall and had the separate earphone and mouth piece, one of those old wooden jobs (my other granny's phone actually). Oh! Here's a cool one, when I was in school it was common for some of us who were hunters or target shooters to take our rifles to school with us so we could all go shooting after school let out in the afternoon. I can see the helicopters and SWAT teams now....pretty funny, and we had no massacres that I recall...

Your turn! I hope some young guys are reading this...

Re:geezer ranking!

[wbean]

Well, you certainly win. I do remember radios powered by lead-acid batteries (called 'accumulators'). I worked in a radio/tv store in Notting Hill and we used to charge people's accumulators on shelves in the basement. We had big caraffes of sulphuric acid to top up the cells. There wasn't much ventilation so it's a wonder the hydrogen given off by the cells didn't blow the place to kingdom come.

This was also a time when houshold appliances were still considered repairable. (London was still pretty poor that soon after WW II - otherwise know as 'The War'.) I still know how to repair an iron (usually the failure was in the bimetal strip that functioned as the thermostat rather than the in heating coils). And I'd be sent out to neighboring apartments to repair old ladies fuses when they blew. The fuses were ceramic holders and the fuseable element was an open piece of wire. You just took a new piece of fuse wire off the spool and fastened it onto the holder.

The other really cool place was Lisle Street. It was the center for war surplus electronics. There were probably 15 stores each with untold treasures: Signaling lamps, Radar consoles, radios, servo controls, all sorts of stuff that you might or might not be able to figure out. These stores alternated with bordellos. The ladies would stand in the doorways and accost passers by. Every once in a while one would try me and then realize that I was only 13 and say "Sorry Luv."

Oh dear, now I'm feeling old. Back to .NET!

Re:Error

[Josh Hiles]

Well to go ahead and triple my mistake I apologize for the dueling responses to your post. I was informed that there had been an error and that my comment wouldn't be posted and then it was. Again sorry.