# Netflix Sues Blockbuster



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

I just heard about another patent suit on the radio. They said Netflix is suing Blockbuster for their mail rental service. It seems Netflix has a patent on mailing out rental DVDs and another patent for not charging late fees.

Edit: I thought I was posting in the Tivo thread, I don't know if I goofed or if my post was moved. In any case there is an interesting slashdot discussion on it



> Netflix Suing Blockbuster for Patent Infringement
> Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday April 05, @04:59AM
> from the there-can-be-only-one dept.
> Patents The Courts
> 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.'"


----------



## rjruby (Dec 29, 2002)

And now for your enjoyment:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060405/bs_nm/media_netflix_blockbuster_dc_5


----------



## lifterguy (Dec 22, 2003)

Does anyone remember the Kodak Instant Camera? It was Kodak's answer to the Polaroid camera and Kodak insisted their technology was substantially different from Polaroid's. (Polaroid exposed the front of the print - Kodak exposed the back of the print and the picture came through on the front.) But Kodak lost the patent case, forcing it to stop selling instant cameras and film. I think they gave some kind of discount coupons to people stuck with their worthless cameras. 
Of course the court victory saved Polaroid and turned them into the imaging powerhouse they are today. :lol:


----------



## dishbacker (Jun 15, 2004)

rjruby said:


> And now for your enjoyment:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060405/bs_nm/media_netflix_blockbuster_dc_5
> 
> ...


At least netflix didn't wait 2-3 years to sue... just one whole day! Maybe this one should be thrown out so the parties can at least have a chance at negotiating...


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

lifterguy said:


> ... But Kodak lost the patent case, forcing it to stop selling instant cameras and film. I think they gave some kind of discount coupons to people stuck with their worthless cameras....


At least the Polaroid camera was more than a regular camera with some extra buttons. Those were the days, when you needed more than a few extra buttons to get a patent.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

If that case is one by NetFlix.... there are a LOT of other sites out there that offer services like this (for DVDEmpire (their Adult section))

This one could be as big as the TiVo Lawsuit.

and if Netflix gets damages, you could begin to see the end of Blockbuster.
As I ventured into one of their stores the other day... and that had nothing new on the shlefs, and the stores about 1/3 of the size they used to be (when i worked for them 10 years ago)


----------



## bavaria72 (Jun 10, 2004)

lifterguy said:


> Does anyone remember the Kodak Instant Camera? It was Kodak's answer to the Polaroid camera and Kodak insisted their technology was substantially different from Polaroid's. (Polaroid exposed the front of the print - Kodak exposed the back of the print and the picture came through on the front.) But Kodak lost the patent case, forcing it to stop selling instant cameras and film. I think they gave some kind of discount coupons to people stuck with their worthless cameras.
> Of course the court victory saved Polaroid and turned them into the imaging powerhouse they are today. :lol:


Yup, I got the coupons. Not sure what I did with the camera.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lucent is suing Microsoft over incorporating MPEG2 decoding in the X-Box 360. I think they sued them over the original X-Box, but the Lucent patent (No. 5,227,878) was afflicted by a scrivener's error (typo) so the case was dismissed without prejudice.

I wonder if Vegas does betting lines on patent lawsuits.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

lifterguy said:


> Does anyone remember the Kodak Instant Camera? It was Kodak's answer to the Polaroid camera and Kodak insisted their technology was substantially different from Polaroid's. (Polaroid exposed the front of the print - Kodak exposed the back of the print and the picture came through on the front.) But Kodak lost the patent case, forcing it to stop selling instant cameras and film. I think they gave some kind of discount coupons to people stuck with their worthless cameras.
> Of course the court victory saved Polaroid and turned them into the imaging powerhouse they are today. :lol:


I remember the camera, my uncle kept his for years. I have no idea why since you could not buy film for it.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> "Netflix holds two U.S. patents for its business methodology..."


I should patent the business methodology of using machines to keep track of stuff. That's it!

I'll be so rich, Bill Gates will be calling me for advice! :lol:


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

harsh said:


> ..I wonder if Vegas does betting lines on patent lawsuits.


If you feel you know who will win a patent lawsuit the best method to make a bet is the stock market. But be warned, you will be betting against people that do this for a living.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

It is amazing to me that one can patent a business model that involves the USPS? Some one can prevent other people from using the mail to send merchandise? How about if they use UPS? Some one can patent how long people can keep things they get in the mail? Some one can patent how much is charged for a service?

Imagine if some one had patented serving broiled or fried ground beef patties between two pieces of bread?

What a crock! The patent should be declared void!

You can't patent an idea! You can patent a product that comes from the idea, but not the idea itself. BTW the Kodak process was a "reverse engineer" of the Polaroid process and even then we were dealing with a PRODUCT, not an idea.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*"Patent suit could be more about the future than the past."*

Phillip Swann
TVPredictions.com

Online DVD service NetFlix has filed for an injunction seeking to stop Blockbuster from continuing its online DVD rental service. The company says Blockbuster is violating its patent for operating a Net-based DVD rental service, including the use of the term "queues" to describe the list of films people want to rent.

Legal experts differ over whether NetFlix's claim has merit. Some argue that NetFlix is essentially saying that its patents cover any DVD rental service, which, of course, would be absurd. Patents protect innovation, not monopolies.

However, it's undeniable that Blockbuster's online service is remarkably similar to NetFlix in tone and design.

But that begs an interesting question: Why did NetFlix wait 18 months after Blockbuster launched the service before filing its suit? ...

More @ *TVPredictions*.com


----------



## bobsupra (Jul 12, 2002)

Couple of points not mentioned. (1)The COO for Netflix is a former Postmaster General who may have a clue about what can be patented as it relates to using the mail, and, (2) why sue right away? I'd ride it out and see what happens, and then sue them for megabucks. Blockbusters is a cash pig and ripe for this kind of action. I think the Netflix folks are pretty smart and they would not venture into this arena without having a good idea about the outcome. And looking at the stock, it looks like Wall Street agrees.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

lifterguy said:


> Does anyone remember the Kodak Instant Camera?
> I think they gave some kind of discount coupons to people stuck with their worthless cameras.
> Of course the court victory saved Polaroid and turned them into the imaging powerhouse they are today. :lol:


I never recieved a coupon from kodak. :nono:
I will never buy a kodak product. 
I gave the camera to a kid that wanted it to play with it, it became a toy. :lol:
and Polaroid became a monopoly on this kind of instant cameras, thanks to a court. 
When I first heard of Dish Network, I really wondered if Directv would sue them, since they are both mini-satellite dishes.


----------

