Netflix Granted Patent on DVD Subscription Rentals 638
A few folks noted a new patent showing up
from netflix. They apparently now have a patent on their model of subscribing to rentals- where instead of being charged per disc, you are charged a monthly fee and can keep the rentals indefinitely without late fees. You can patent anything! Get on the bus!
Walmart... haha! (Score:3, Interesting)
While it may be a BS patent, it's nice to see a large corporation get screwed by a patent for once.
Absurd (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes I wonder who it is they hire to work at the USPTO.
This appears to amount to patenting an idea, not an invention or method.
Re:Other patents... (Score:2, Interesting)
can that be patented?
Prior Art (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Other patents... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, netflix isn't all good, but they are still a step up from the alternatives.
The Netflix scam is more like it (Score:2, Interesting)
Good or Bad - for what (Score:5, Interesting)
But this gives them a monopoly. If they have the patent on a business, they have the monopoly and can stop everyone else from competeing.
A lot of the eTailers are trying to patent things that in effect would give them a similar monopolistic control over entire ways of doing business (oneClick etc...), these are definatly bad.
So I guess after reasoning this out, it's bad. It gives NetFlix an unfair control over a business model. There will be no competition, and they can raise the price to any level they see fit. So instead of you and me getting a service like this for $5 a month, becuase that's just a little bit more than it costs to make it happen, we will be forced to pay $25 or more becuase no-one is allowed to compete with NetFlix.
BTW: I'm a netflix user and love it. I think the system is great. I'd love some competition to drive the price way down.
M@
Call me ignorant.. (Score:4, Interesting)
but is it even possible / should it even be possible to get a patent for a business model? If so, why hasn't the RIAA patented the process in place for screwing its artist & the general public, while pulling the wool over the eyes of lawmakers? Why hasn't SCO patented the process for going after more-successful companies in order to keep themselves afloat?
Re:How broad is this patent? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about books? Netflix sounds a little like the once-common institution of subscription libraries [google.com]. Someone who knows the history of libraries might be able to dig up some prior art on this. If the only real difference is DVDs instead of books, I don't see how they'd be able to keep the patent.
Re:Patentable (Score:4, Interesting)
Non-obvious... I've seen a few places that use similar models. Usually it's $0.50 rentals with a monthly fee. A lot of import rentals (Taping foreign shows for rental) do things like this.
Otherwise video stores would have tried it years ago. I'm not sure they should have patented it, but it is definitely a useful implementation.
Some video stores do it. And have been doing it for over a decade... Just go to import video stores and check them out. A big part of why they have membership fees is to continue to buy blank tapes to record the television shows on.
Make up your mind (Score:2, Interesting)
A peek at future fees. (Score:4, Interesting)
Get off the bus! (Score:3, Interesting)
For a general overview of what constitutes patentability, see Part II [cornell.edu] of Title 35.
I hereby revoke CmdrTaco's previous statement, "You can patent anything!"
maybe walmart can make change happen? (Score:2, Interesting)
they've got awfully deep pockets and can afford a prolonged fight.
and what if through their public fight, they caused enough outrage through middle (and lower) america to get the politicians to start thinking about PTO change.
maybe everyone should start lobbying their local store manager to get walmart to fight the good fight.
Re:PATENT SOURCE (Score:5, Interesting)
For which they are rewarded when someone joins and pays them money.
What secrets are they keeping that the public will benefit from the exposure of on their patent application?
None. It's bleeding obvious, and the first time you hear of it, it's obvious how to implement it, even by lemonade stand-level businesspeople.
If you're an American, read your Constitution--the justification is written into it. If you're not, well, quick start a Netflix-style business before the EU patent is granted.
Re:Patent will be challenged. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, expect them to go on happily. However, expect Walmart to be the first to inform netflix of any *other* infringements that are indeed sueable.
Infact Netflix may just cut a free deal with walmart so as not to look like they are scared of the Giant. That would certainly be in walmarts interest in case Netflix gets bought out by a sue happy holdings company.
How is this even legally possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
A quote from one of Netflix stockholders mentions:
"For the near term, this provides a way for them to defend against competition."
So now, companies like the ever-wonderful Greencine.com (which I use and love), can no longer legally continue as they have been. Netflix patent will either push them out of business entirely, or they will be dependent on Netflix as a result of the aforementioned patent.
How is this not a monopoly?
Maybe I don't understand something glaringly obvious about the nature of a business monopoly, but it seems to me that this is exactly what Netflix will become. While I think it's obvious to all of us that video rentals have been around for a long time, the 'net is an entirely new medium for distribution. Obviously, charging per-rental via the 'net isn't economical for the consumer *or* the rental company, so a subscription model seems the best route to go. It just seems beyond ridiculous to me to allow a patent like this, though. A subscription model just plays out as common sense, but is it really something that can be patented?
Utterly ridiculous, blatantly obvious, and ultimately pathetic. I'll be especially pissed if it means that Greencine goes away, since it's allowed us to stop patronizing Blockbuster and support a company we actually believe in. I'm not sure what's worse: watching Netflix try to push out the smaller online rental stores or watching Blockbuster essentially decimate mom-n-pop video stores. Looks like i'll have to start trekking out to SE Portland and renting at Movie Madness.
Re:Absurd (Score:3, Interesting)
We'll have to agree to disagree. I understand very clearly what patents are and aren't supposed to protect (even though the -1 Flamebait moderators on the original comment don't seem to
That doesn't make it a unique business method worthy of a patent.
I have to disagree with you - it's not a new method. Netflix has taken a very old and common idea and applied to an industry that lacks any imagination, insight and vision. Netflix has commercialized an idea that has been used for many years on a much smaller scale. It's great that people enjoy using Netflix and they've managed to build a viable business out of it.
But that still doesn't make it worthy of a patent.
Re:What other DVD rental services should I conside (Score:3, Interesting)
They'd damn well better have some method of me getting my card number to them that is not in the clear over email if they want to keep my business.
Re:PATENT SOURCE (Score:2, Interesting)
Business methods are *not* patentable. However, when you put electrons into the mix, for some reason the courts see them as special exceptions. Probably because the judges are people who can't even find the ON switch, so ANYTHING on a computer is revolutionary to them. Frankly, most judges do not reflect the general opinions of the population because they are, well, old. They are out of touch. I am not saying that they should be fired, just that perhaps they should realize this and excuse themselves from such cases.
Threaten a boycott (Score:4, Interesting)
What I am currently doing is writing a nice little email to Netflix...basically saying that if I so much as smell enforcement of this bullshit patent, I will immediately cancel my subscription to their business.
Prior art (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again proving porn guides technology. In this case, predating it by a whopping 20 years.
Re:PATENT SOURCE (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you sure about that? [gigalaw.com]
Prior Art:1700-1900s "subscription libraries" (Score:5, Interesting)
(from the news release)"Netflix allows customers to rent as many DVDs as they want for the monthly fee, with three movies out at a time. Customers can keep the DVDs as long as they like and they are delivered directly to the subscriber's address via first-class mail." Such innovation deserves a patent! Unfortunately, that business method is a couple of centuries old, and still viable today.
In the early days of mass media (books), printing was manual, and books were expensive. And many people of means lived in isolated places. Few could afford to buy as many books as they wanted to read.
To overcome this, "subscription libraries" were developed in the 1700s (one in Newport RI [redwood1747.org] was founded in 1747). They charged an annual subscription fee, which went towards buying books and administrative costs. The city subscriber could stroll over to the library (or send a servant) and get a book to read, keep it for as long as they wanted, and get a new book when they brought back the previous one. Rural subscribers would request books by mail and get the books by mail. Fast readers could read as many as they wanted, with the restriction being that they had to return one to get another. (there may have been a multi-book quota ... I've never had to discuss the administrative details)
How is this different than the NetFlix patent, allowing for advancements in technology allowing online subscribing and electronic payment. Whether it's an annual subscription, or a monthly one, you sign up, you pay, you borrow, you return, you borrow some more.
And subscription libraries still exist today ... The one in Newport is sitll going strong, and I've seen some websites where you can subscribe to get access to their library of books or other non-web information.
Hello? Free Market anyone? (Score:1, Interesting)
Could be a Preemptive/Protective (Score:5, Interesting)
Although we could potentially use the patent to give competitors a hard time, the point would be to protect ourselves and our IP *before* somebody decides to attack us. It's also worth noting that if any of this patent stuff within my company actually looked like it was going to happen I'd be pushing strongly for something in writing basically saying that the patent wouldn't be abused.
It's a shame that anybody would have to go to these extremes just to make sure they can avoid a lawsuit but hey, that's life in the big city.
Re:Walmart? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the same arguments that you are making about stifling creativity and scientific advance were made 20 years ago when the courts ruled that you could patent a living organism. Look what has happened since then- there has been an explosion of scientific advancement in the biotech and pharmaceuticals industries. These patents were an important ingredient in that growth.
Sure, our patent system isn't perfect, but I think our IP laws are partly responsible for our technological advancements this century.
Here is an idea (for
So do you suppose (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Other patents... (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, it sucks that most of the money I've spent on those movies has ended up in the pocket of some slimeball I would probably punch in the face before willingly giving money, but it still seems right, in way. More right than just taking the movies without giving any compensation to anybody, that's for sure.
Or, maybe I just like all those pretty keep cases...
Re:Other patents... (Score:3, Interesting)
Prior art (Score:2, Interesting)
When you joined, you were asigned a librarian who got to know your tastes. Every time you returned a book the librarian would pick out another and ship it to you.
Sounds a lot like Netflix to me.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
work around (Score:3, Interesting)
$20 gets you (up to) 20 movies a month. You can only have 3 out, and you have to mail each one in (like you do w/Netflix), so obviously there's no way you can really watch that many. At the end of each month, your credit *vanishes*. It does NOT roll over to the next month.
Would this model conflict w/the patent? There is no subscription rental, but rather a fixed price per DVD rential. Functionally, however, it would be the same.
Re:Call me ignorant.. (Score:3, Interesting)
See, this is the misconception that makes people miss the boat, if I read you correctly. The rationale isn't that creators need a reason to create, and patent protection gives them that reason. This implies that without patent protection, we would have no innovation. That's certainly not true, because a certain amount of ANY patentable inventions will always be created regardless of the amount of protection an inventor gets. This is true of business processes, compounds, drugs, mechanical things, new life forms, etc. The point of patent protection (and IP protection in general) is to incentivize an incremental amount of innovation over what would exist without it -- economically, up to the point where the marginal cost of added IP protection equals the marginal increase of innovation.
Thus, IP laws try to form a delicate balance to encourage a certain amount of extra innovation. Lately, we've seen this balance completely ignored by certain parties -- see the DMCA, the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, etc. -- who seem to use an entirely different basis to justify the laws' existence (for example, the "sweat of the brow" argument, or even just a misguided attempt to "propertize" further IP). But normally, a balance should exist.
With respect to business method patents, there's certainly an argument to be made that business methods should be allowed. Our economy is increasingly based on more sophisticated revenue generators than making and selling widgets. We have certainly benefited from this fact, and the economy has certainly expanded because of it. Knowing this, and knowing that there was probably a bit of room in IP law to expand protection without destroying the economy, it made sense to extend patent protection to business methods because the incremental benefit probably exceeded the cost to society of the protection. And so it goes.
Look at it this way: there are a LOT of patented business methods out there (it's now the most popular kind of invention to get protected). Yet, notwithstanding the dot-com bubble-burst, do you honestly think that the economy has regressed? No one would argue that; most would argue that the economy has indeed expanded. Sure, there are instances of patent litigation or threats that seem outrageous; they probably are outrageous, and evidence a hole or a rough spot in IP law that needs to be fixed. But on the whole, having patent protection for business methods as a concept has probably helped society.
Now, certainly, with lawmakers and judges out there that seem to think the DMCA and Sonny Bono are good, reasonable things, patent protection for business methods may get out of hand. That would be a very bad thing to happen. But that doesn't mean IP law is bad, or in particular business methods shouldn't get protection.