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!)
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!)
I was thinking that exact same thing. Additionally, I'd like to add that a lot of independent labels have been popping up the past few years and have been very successful... If you have been paying attention you have seen that indie bands have been showing up in major magazines and doing pretty well for themselves... not to mention all the music concerts that are doing VERY well... Coachella, Bonnaroo, Austin City Limits Festival, etc. I think shitty popular music will finally start to get drowned out by more worthwhile music as it starts finding itself more mainstream. The internet and, more specifically, mp3s and file sharing sparked a music revolution... a lot more people are exploring different kinds of music than ever before. Its just a matter of time. Kind of like how for a few years there it looked like the predictions of the internet changing our way of life was a joke comparable to the millenium bug but now its happening in a big way. Viva la internet!
This doesn't seem that different from the NY Mass Transit Authority going after the site that was publishing subway/bus route maps for ipods. Basically, the info itself isn't protected by law (ie, you can freely draw someone a map and charge them for it) but the actual map they drew is protected and can only legally be used with their permission on their terms. I would think this would be a similar situation. MLB keeps a database of all the statistics for every game. To reference their compiled data I would think would be protected similarly. To watch the game and jot down the actual statistics will always be fair game. I guess they would have to prove in court that the fantasy leagues are acquiring data from the MLB database and republishing it (which I imagine IS the case) but Im pretty sure they could never win in a case that gives them the rights to the actual facts themselves. It makes sense, though. Plenty of companies compile statistical data and charge for its use and/or regulate its usage. I think it would be considered a creative work in this respect.
Slashdot Mirror
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!)
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!)
I was thinking that exact same thing. Additionally, I'd like to add that a lot of independent labels have been popping up the past few years and have been very successful... If you have been paying attention you have seen that indie bands have been showing up in major magazines and doing pretty well for themselves... not to mention all the music concerts that are doing VERY well... Coachella, Bonnaroo, Austin City Limits Festival, etc. I think shitty popular music will finally start to get drowned out by more worthwhile music as it starts finding itself more mainstream. The internet and, more specifically, mp3s and file sharing sparked a music revolution... a lot more people are exploring different kinds of music than ever before. Its just a matter of time. Kind of like how for a few years there it looked like the predictions of the internet changing our way of life was a joke comparable to the millenium bug but now its happening in a big way. Viva la internet!
This doesn't seem that different from the NY Mass Transit Authority going after the site that was publishing subway/bus route maps for ipods. Basically, the info itself isn't protected by law (ie, you can freely draw someone a map and charge them for it) but the actual map they drew is protected and can only legally be used with their permission on their terms. I would think this would be a similar situation. MLB keeps a database of all the statistics for every game. To reference their compiled data I would think would be protected similarly. To watch the game and jot down the actual statistics will always be fair game. I guess they would have to prove in court that the fantasy leagues are acquiring data from the MLB database and republishing it (which I imagine IS the case) but Im pretty sure they could never win in a case that gives them the rights to the actual facts themselves. It makes sense, though. Plenty of companies compile statistical data and charge for its use and/or regulate its usage. I think it would be considered a creative work in this respect.