Netflix claims a patent on renting movies on-line

And sues Blockbuster for allegedly infringing the patent, issued Tuesday, which purports to teach “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 […]

And sues Blockbuster for allegedly infringing the patent, issued Tuesday, which purports to teach “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.” Blockbuster Online has 1 million subscribers to Netflix’s 4.2 million. (Reuters, Apr. 4). I’m suddenly a lot less sympathetic about Netflix’s class-action troubles. (Full disclosure: I own stock in Blockbuster.)

2 Comments

  • I am trying to retrieve from the dark recesses of my memory what the required qualities of a patent are. From my graduate-school “science and the law” class, I seem to remember the requirements of novelty and significance. What, particularly, is patent-worthy about NetFlix’s business plan? Internet access? Use of the US Postal System? It’s a clever model they have, but doesn’t strike this layman as patent-able.

    But as a NetFlix subscriber, I wonder if I can look forward to a coupon for a free movie rental if NetFlix should prevail.

  • No coupon, but a success in the lawsuit will result in a monopoly for Netflix — and thus price increases.

    Since there’s unlikely to be resolution before 2010, the more likely scenario is that Netflix is trying to gain a competitive advantage through a war of attrition with a financially-strapped competitor.

    (Disclosure: I sold my BBI stock today.)