Netflix Suing Blockbuster for Patent Infringement 410
grouchomarxist writes "Netflix is suing Blockbuster for Patent Infringement. From the article: 'Netflix holds two U.S. patents for its business methodology, which calls for subscribers to pay a monthly fee to select and rent DVDs from the company's Web site and to maintain a list of titles telling Netflix in which order to ship the films, according to the patents, which were included as exhibits in the lawsuit.
The first patent, granted in 2003, covers the method by which Netflix customers select and receive a certain number of movies at a time, and return them for more titles.
The second patent, issued on Tuesday, "covers a method for subscription-based online rental that allows subscribers to keep the DVDs they rent for as long as they wish without incurring any late fees, to obtain new DVDs without incurring additional charges and to prioritize and reprioritize their own personal dynamic queue -- of DVDs to be rented," the lawsuit said.'"
Worried! (Score:5, Funny)
I am really worried. Any minute now, someone will patent going to work by bus. (Including SCSI and VME)
Re:Worried! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Worried! (Score:2)
Re:Worried! (Score:3, Insightful)
#1 - Caldera SCO - very easy to stop using - no products or services worth using IMNSHO.
#2 - Amazon - a little tougher, but not terribly so.
#3 - NetFlix - never used it, and now, never will.
Re:Worried! (Score:5, Funny)
*Looks in wallet*
Well, I'm not infringing...
Re:Worried! (Score:2)
Now I'm going to go and patent using your wallet to hold air. Its a win/win baby!
Re:Worried! (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think so. I have waaaay too much prior art.
Patents on business methods are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patents on business methods are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past copying products in a different form was alowd. You couldn't patten chicken noodle soup, but you could pattent a specific formula. This form of patenting ideas is going to strangle us as a civilization, and lead to a few companies that control everything.
Just wait until someone patents a pure idea, and if anyone gets caught thinking about it you have to pay them.
Re:Patents on business methods are stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Patents on business methods are stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody that uses patents as their business model wants competition. Just ask Tom Woolston.
Hint. He's a patent attorney, who loves to be his own customer.
Blockbuster: sue the USPTO (Score:4, Interesting)
The advantage of vigorously pursuing full-scale litigation against the patent office is that most of the research for your legal team will be done free of charge. There is a huge community who are already aware of the problem with the USPTO and can point to at least hundreds of similar bogus patents that have or may in the future cause significant financial loss to other companies.
Re:Blockbuster: sue the USPTO (Score:2)
business methods wildly counterproductive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think a company should live or die on thier ability to innovate and, more importantly, provide value and support to
Re:business methods wildly counterproductive... (Score:2)
I don't remember who is generally considered to have invented the automobile, but I think it is usually attributed to Benz.
a sad time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:a sad time (Score:5, Funny)
1) Patent "the process of exchanging goods or services for finiancial reimbursement"
2) Sue the entire world, muahahahaha
3) Profit!
Re:a sad time (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Broken beyond repair (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Broken beyond repair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Broken beyond repair (Score:2)
Do I smell some irony here?
Re:Broken beyond repair (Score:2, Informative)
Not exactly. In their day, the founding fathers only supported individual persons being granted patents. Corporations were not treated as individuals until the late 1870's and thus could not hold patents until that time. So what Jefferson & co. supported was a much more common-sense approach to patents--that they be granted to the individual for actual physical inventions. It was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Broken beyond repair (Score:3, Informative)
See the end of this section [wikipedia.org] for links to recent perpetual motion machine patents.
Re:Broken beyond repair (Score:3, Informative)
Aside from patentability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:5, Insightful)
>they were granted the patent, it's pretty obvious that they had come up with
>a novel process which was straight-up copied.
Please tell what part of it that is novel and non obvious (to people in THAT area)? In addition, it should be something that no one has done before 2003 (or even later since that was the first patent).
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:3, Insightful)
I subscribe to Blockbuster now because of the fact that
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, they can protect it the same way McDonald's, CarMax, Wal-Mart and others have protected their place. To my knowledge neither of these three (or of dozens of other premier companies with 'novel business models' has needed the USPTO to help retain their place of prominence. Being first to market is a huge advantage and that alone will sustain the fellow who 'thought of that first' in many cases.
TANSTAAFL, especially in the business world. Just because I come up with the novel concept of providing a subscription CD service (totally different from DVDs which appears to be what is patented), over the internet, with sprinkles gives me no more claim to royalties than the fellow who figured out that people were dumb enough to pay $1.50 for a bottle of water.
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Netflix could protect its business model by...I don't know...offering the best service/product in the market? If they are the best (in the view of the public), it won't matter how their competitors model their businesses to compete.Netflix is more or less asking the courts for special protection against market competition. I don't think *that* is a very good business model, but then again, I don't run a multi-million-dollar corporation.
If you're so worried about Netflix's business, why don't you support them instead of Blockbuster? And as for Netflix not being able to compete "at that level," well, that's tough shit. They entered a national video rental market, and the have to find a way to compete "at that level."
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:2)
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:2, Informative)
That is certainly a reasonable expectation.
The problem is that the patent office has pretty much stated that they don't really spend much time these days researching whether a given idea is patentable, and instead let the courts sort it all out. In that context, this is really about challenging the validity of the patent.
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:2)
An even bigger problem is that the courts have said that the patent office must know what it's talking about, and consider patents to be valid until proven otherwise.
Re:Aside from patentability (Score:2)
Utter, utter BS (Score:5, Insightful)
This shit has to stop, I mean netflix are just being totally petty about the whole damn thing. I mean, what *other* way is there to organise online DVD rental? Are they going to enforce patents on their *whole* business model.
This has to stop. Gah!
Re:For what it's worth (Score:2)
Netflix should never have been granted patents on something so obvious- online DVD rental is such a simple business model, and the queueing system is such a log
Let me fix it for you (Score:2)
Let me fix it for you:
"OK so what if I go out and patent queueing at a shop WEARING A HAT & or CAP checkout to pay for goods WEARING A HAT &/OR CAP, or paying for magazines to be delivered to your home on a monthly basis WEARING A HAT &/OR CAP, or, or........"
Find me prior art for that in a form the US patent office considers acceptable prior art proof. If you manage it, I'll simply tweak the condition to make it unique.
The core problem here is the US patent office
Prior Art isn't worth the paper it's printed on. (Score:2)
Well, you'd think that, but while I'm sure that people have been playing with cats with flashlights since flashlights were invented, the USPTO issued a famous patent for Method of Exercising a Cat. [uspto.gov]
How about a side-to-side Method of swinging on a swing? [uspto.gov] I don't know about you, but I claim prior art from my childhood.
Personally, if I were Blockbuster, I'd take advantage of the way the patent offic
Library patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this exactly how libraries have worked since
Re:Library patents (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Library patents (Score:2)
Although, I think there may be some trouble defending "with Ranch".
Re:Library patents (Score:2)
vim? VIM????
What about EMACS for gods sake????
Re:Library patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Been to a library lately? My local library has been online since before 2003 http://catalogue.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca/ [halifaxpub...braries.ca] and allows you to add books, CDs and yes DVDs to your personal list, informs you when they are available for pick-up at your local branch, and when you return them they send you the next ones on your list when they're available. Sounds like 'prior art' to me, the only real difference is that the library isn't charging a monthly fee.
Re:Library patents (Score:2)
Except for the cost (free vs
Re:Library patents (Score:2)
I wouldn't say that it is exactly how libraries work. I don't recall ever maintaining a dynamic list at the library of books that they would automatically send me once I returned the old ones. Heck, they never sent me a book at all. Seems like regardless of how many books I had out, there was also a definite date that they wanted each one returned by, too. There may be some parallels to draw with recalling books and renewing du
Re:Library patents (Score:2)
(Not having a go at you, just at the sheer idiocy of anyone even attempting to patent this, let alone succeeding)
Simple solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simple solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
Netflix sues Blockbuster, Users Sue Netflix (Score:3, Insightful)
Netflix needs to stop staggering movies for frequent-renters. Just because someone can take full advantage of their 'all-you-can-rent' policy, doesn't mean they should be penalized for it. Netflix already gains from those who don't return their movies regularly, so why should they care if some rent and watch a new movie every day? Just charge more per month or get rid of the policy.
Re:Netflix sues Blockbuster, Users Sue Netflix (Score:2)
I'll bet the law firm that represented the plaintiffs wasn't paid in free rentals...
Anyone wanting to discuss this intelligently ... (Score:5, Informative)
They are:
US Patent No. 6,966,484 to Calonje, et al.; and
US Patent No. 7,024,381 to Hastings, et al.
As you do so, look at the claim language, not the specification, to find out what the invention actually covers. Discuss.
Re:Anyone wanting to discuss this intelligently .. (Score:2)
U.S. Patent No. 6,584,450 to Hastings, et al.
Re:Anyone wanting to discuss this intelligently .. (Score:5, Interesting)
good point (Score:2)
Before you jump on the "Patents are bad" bandwagon (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the "patents are bad for innovation" argument : if you come up with a way to manufacture widgets that no one else has before, and that innovation has cost you a certain amount in development costs, should you not have the right to protect that investment? If your competition can just steal your methods, then you would have no incentive to innovate.
I am not saying that there isn't a line here, or that the the line hasn't been jumped over by the US. patent office, but by and large patents do in fact encourge business investment into research that would otherwise not happen.
Re:Before you jump on the "Patents are bad" bandwa (Score:2, Insightful)
common sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents *are* bad (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't need incentive to innovate, innovation is in the inner essence of the human race. Problems need to be solved, and someone will solve them first. There are many benefits of being an inventor or pioneer. And innovation is good for business as well, as it gives you a lead over the competition (no need to tie people down). There are ways you can prevent others from just stealing your work, such as copyrigh
Reduce term for business method patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before you jump on the "Patents are bad" bandwa (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe not at all. Rights are granted for the benefit of the whole of society, not single individuals: otherwise you might as well reintroduce slavery, as it was very beneficial to a few guys. Having a monopoly on something that can be reproduced indefinitely such as business or programming methods, and knowledge in general, means unfairly harming everybody else. You are not damaged by someone else who's using your methods (this does not block you from using them), unless you mean by competition, and last time I checked there is quite a load of legislation that actually protects competition, as it is demonstrated to improve product quality for society.
You cannot steal a method or an idea. You can only copy it. The original author still has it.
On the contrary, if you know that the competition is going to figure out your methods and implement them after a while, you know also that you must keep innovating and leveraging your position as first in the market (it takes time to make a Webshop from just an idea: and if you are slow and competition is faster than you to commercialise, it's all your fault). In other words, you have to do actual work, not rest on your laurels because some law forbid everybody else from using your methods.
From the whole society's point of view (that is, our point of view), if Netflix wins we are going to see worse service from Blockbuster and less competition. If Blockbuster wins, competition will be closer between the companies and they will have to find a way to get more customers.
The more I think of the patent system the more I think that the whole concept is flawed. As generally with IP, Beethoven and Mozart died in poverty, Britney Spears is filthy rich.
Re:Before you jump on the "Patents are bad" bandwa (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you insane? All rights are granted to individuals only, never to "society". In your example, for instance, the South benefited greatly as a society from institutionalized slavery - not just "a few guys". I'm not here to say slavery is right (in fact it is very wrong), but that granting rights to "society" means granting rights to
It's About Incentives (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason for granting time-limited exclusivity (patents, copyrights) is not that innovators have a right to protect an investment, as the GP says. The reason is that without time-limited exclusivity, there would be a lot less incentive for innovators to innovate in the first place. This is esp
Re:Before you jump on the "Patents are bad" bandwa (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the "patents are bad for innovation" argument : if you come up with a way to manufacture widgets that no one else has before, and that innovation has cost you a certain amount in development costs, should you not have the right to protect that investment?
If a company comes up with a new way to manufacture widgets -- a new widget-making machine, for instance -- and you're talking about a competitor stealing the construction plans for the machine, then I think this is a different situation, and far
Re:Mod parent up (Score:4, Interesting)
Come to think of it, almost any restaurant or fast food store offers "all you can drink until you leave for a single fee". Many sports teams offer a season pass, which is "all the local games you can attend this season for a single fee".
How does applying this concept to DVD rentals make it unique?
The Double Click (and other stupid patents) (Score:2, Interesting)
My beer shopping patent (Score:3, Funny)
You all owe me.
Re:My beer shopping patent (Score:2)
Man... If I'd ever done that I couldn't count the number of DUI's I would've ended up with...
OH JUST FUCK OFF!!!!! (Score:2)
I suppose we will have to watch the US Economy collapse as they tie themselves in self-imposed legal knots. What an unbelieveable situation.
How much more will it take before the US lawmakers realise that the Intellectual Property balance in the US has hit the end-scale stop.
Re:OH JUST FUCK OFF!!!!! (Score:2)
Truly they are so busy profiteering on this exquisitely fucked situation from their view they'd be crazy to change
patent throttling (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid Blockbuster (Score:2, Troll)
And yes, tha
I hold the Uber-Patent! (Score:2, Funny)
I hereby announce that I hold a patent on suing others for infringing on dubious patents. If you hold a patent of dubious nature, and you sue someone else over it, you owe me royalties.
And if you sue me over my patent, you still owe me royalties.
Intelliflix (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Intelliflix (Score:2)
But I could be wrong.
No. I don't think so.
My friend at Netflix (Score:5, Interesting)
Blockbuster has been getting their asses kicked in regards to marketshare vs. netflix for about the last year or so
When blockbuster initially tried to compete with Nflix, the Nflix folks were a bit scared, including my buddy who was worried about the future of the company he helped develop - however, after Nflix's somewhat recent resurgence & increased user subscription, which in turn boosted the stock prices from all time lows, blockbuster has become a non-issue to Nflix (well at least to my buddy and most of the staff)
--
Re:My friend at Netflix (Score:2)
Re:My friend at Netflix (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course you are going to get your ass kicked entering a market that a sole company dominated for 3-4 years. Just because your buddy can't see 5 years into the future doesn't mean the company execs cannot. I'm not saying that Blockbuster is going to run over Netflix in 5 years or ever...but they sure as heck can see the Amazon monster coming over the horizon into their market and have to d
Re:My friend at Netflix (Score:4, Funny)
You got something against E.T.?
Eeeeeliiiiooooot...
I hereby claim the patent! (Score:2)
EVERYONE building pants that ca
Re:I hereby claim the patent! (Score:2)
Re:I hereby claim the patent! (Score:3, Funny)
Y'know, I really get tired of this right-wing bashing of Al Gore. Of course he didn't invent pants, but he was instrumental in getting funding for the original ARPANTS which is what our modern high-speed pants derived from. So, while he of course doesn't know the technical underpinnings of interfacing, serging, hemming, and button-holing needed to make pants, he can, in some sense, take credit for our modern pants.
Re:I hereby claim the patent! (Score:2)
It's not how the customer finally uses it. It's how it is "intended" to be used. And how it's intended is up to the one holding the patent.
Re:I hereby claim the patent! (Score:2)
Users sue netflix?? (Score:2)
This reminds me of when "all you can eat" salad bars where waitresses complain about the few annoying slobs that try to push things to the limit.
Netflix has a good business model. The people who are complaining are the ones who get three DVD's, watch them or rip them, and send them back first thing in the morning only to repeat the cycle over and over again.
Those people should get a life and stop watching so much television. How many DVD's can a normal household watch in a week, anyway?
Just add internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Time limits are the issue here I think? (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, a time limit is needed for business model patents. I won't argue here how long they should be valid, just that they should have a reasonable expiration date. That way, the innovative company can cash in on their research and development for the time limit of their patent while still allowing competition in the market.
Naturally, companies (and I assume politicians as well) won't like the idea of time limited business model patents but I think that is what would be best for the consumer.
PRIOR ART in 1700s "Subscription Library" (Score:5, Interesting)
In-town, one could stroll to the lending library (or send one's maid or footman) to return a book and pick up the next one on the list. It was a social occasion as well as a literary one. Subscription price varied depending on how many books you wanted to have in your posession at a time.
Out of town patrons paid a subscription fee (higher to cover the cost of shipping) that depended on how many books they wanted to posess at a time (a few, up to dozens of them if you were going to India), handed over or mailed in their list and waited for the postman to deliver the books. When they were finished with the book/s, they sent it/them back and got the next batch on the list that was in stock.
While patenting (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, Unlimited isn't really unlimited with netflix.
I'm leaving netflix To go to blockbuster - I guess people like me defecting is what really prompted the lawsuit. Instead of living up to the "Unlimited Rentals" they are going to sue everyone else out of existance.
Is throttling part of that patent? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would actually make it 'novel' and potentially patentable... I mean, who actually would think of a system of Unlimited rentals that was in fact Limited depending on whether or not the customer actually tried to use the service as if it were unlimited.
Who here can show prior art where the word Unlimited actually means Limited.
That actually sounds pretty novel to me.
HOW CAN YOU PATENT *NOT* DOING SOMETHING? (Score:3, Interesting)
Brilliant.
Although, since I'm not charging late fees right now I suppose I'm violating netflix patent.
What a disappointing post, BadAnalogyGuy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Score another one... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Score another one... (Score:2)
I actually wondered if people will de
Re:Government sanctioned monopoly (Score:2)
Err... That's what a patent is, and is supposed to be.
TWW
Re:You guys are so screwed.. (Score:2)