Things To Like And Dislike In The Plan To Build Netflix Directly Into Your TV

from the good-for-netflix,-but-for-everyone-else? dept

Various authorized movie download sites have been flopping lately due to various reasons -- but one of the big ones is the continued difficulty in actually being able to watch the downloaded movies on your television. In many cases, part of the problem is the DRM that many movie download sites use, but an even more fundamental problem is that there still isn't a decent link between most household computers and household televisions. Apparently, Netflix is trying to solve this. Late Wednesday, the company announced plans to get various consumer electronics firms, starting with LG, to build technology directly into TVs or other set-top boxes that will allow Netflix subscribers to download and watch movies directly on the TV. Netflix had considered building its own branded set-top boxes, but wisely reconsidered. Given the proliferation of set-top boxes, and the dismal failure of other companies that have tried to go that route, it makes sense to get consumer electronics makers to build the tech directly into their own offerings.

Initially, from Netflix's perspective, this plan makes a lot of sense. It's already been experimenting with streaming movies to subscribers on their computers (at no extra cost) for about a year. Netflix also has the name recognition and clout to get consumer electronics firms to go along with this plan (and it wouldn't be surprising to see a few other CE companies fall into line quickly behind LG). However, that doesn't mean this is the best result for consumers (or even for Netflix in the long run). By building in a proprietary solution that effectively only works with Netflix, buyers won't have much of a choice. They won't be able to compare other movie streaming/downloading services via their TVs and will have to effectively make a choice and stick with it for the life of their TV. What would have been a lot more interesting and better for everyone (perhaps other than Netflix) would have been for the CE companies to agree to a standard by which various movie distribution firms could have streamed movies directly to TVs, and then allowed those companies to offer competing services. I don't want to buy a DVD player that only plays movies from Netflix, so why should my TV only play streaming videos from Netflix?

While it may initially seem like a win for Netflix to lock out the competition this way, that may not be the case. If Blockbuster is smart (a big "if") it's currently running around trying to get CE companies to align with it, instead. Then we have another standards battle situation, where people decide not to buy any such solution until everyone agrees to play nice (witness the HD DVD standards battle that has greatly slowed the growth in next generation DVDs). If there were a standard that others could plug into, then it would encourage more people to upgrade. However, if the competition is between a "Netflix" device and some other device, it may make people wait to see how the market really shakes out.

Filed Under: internet, movie rentals, streaming video, tv
Companies: lg, netflix

Apple Settles Burst Patent Suit for 'Only' $10 Million

from the legalized-extortion dept

Burst.com is a company that developed some streaming video technology in the 1990s but couldn't find enough people who were interested in buying it. After trying and failing to turn a profit as a legitimate software company, they discovered the joys of patent lawsuits. They wrested $60 million out of Microsoft and then turned their legal guns on Apple. Now Apple, too, has buckled, agreeing to pay Burst $10 million for a license to its patents. The thing that the media coverage of the patent seems not to convey is how spectacularly unoriginal Burst's patent claims are. As this great post explained way back in 2002, Burst's secret sauce is that there is no secret sauce. Burst's patent describes "faster than real time" streaming. There's simply nothing novel or innovative about this; it's perfectly obvious that if you've got a fat enough pipe, you can download video faster than you play it, buffering the difference. Buffering isn't a new "technology," it's a common-sense programming technique that has been used for decades. In a sensible patent system, Burst would have been laughed out of the patent office for claiming they invented such an obvious concept. But in the upside-down world of the USPTO, filing patents on incredibly obvious concepts can net you tens of millions of dollars.

It's not hard to understand why Apple would settle this despite the obviousness of Burst's patents. Research in Motion learned the hard way last year that it doesn't pay to challenge bad patents in court. Even the patent office itself admitted the patents were invalid, but RIM was still forced to pay a $612 million settlement. Comparatively speaking, Apple's $10 million settlement looks like a bargain. But it's important to remember that $10 million is still a huge amount of money for a handful of patents. And every time a bogus patent nets a company a multi-million dollar payout, it's going to prompt other companies to file hundreds more dubious patents, in the hopes of either reaping a windfall themselves or warding off the attacks of a future patent troll. And that, in turn, pushes up the salaries of patent lawyers, diverting thousands of bright and competent people away from more productive profession into a life of filing for and litigating bogus patents.

Filed Under: patents, streaming video
Companies: apple, burst, microsoft