Slashdot Mirror
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."
Great example, wrong company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red's_Giant_Hamburgs
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
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.
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.)