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."

14 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Business models? by daeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Business models? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Business models? by RovingSlug · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?
    3. Re:Business models? by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    4. Re:Business models? by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  2. I'm pulling for Blockbuster by xannik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Go Illini!!!
    1. Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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. ;)

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    2. Re:I'm pulling for Blockbuster by kthejoker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. What a let down.... by Himring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  4. Patenting business models? by Niten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  5. Re:Classic... by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  6. Good luck to Netflix on this one.... by Churla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!"

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  7. Re:Classic... by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
  8. Patent Nonsense Business by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war