The news came out early this morning that Blockbuster was making an unsolicited bid to buy Circuit City, which has left many scratching their heads, saying that the synergy isn't all that obvious. Circuit City has been in trouble for a while, and Blockbuster (while a lot healthier than Circuit City) has been facing its own series of challenges. While it's unclear what Blockbuster's plans are, the deal actually could make sense if Blockbuster was really looking distantly into the future about where its market is heading. It knows as well as anybody that video delivery is moving to the internet eventually -- at which point its business model gets a lot trickier. Yet, by owning a retailer selling hardware -- and the rights to content to be distributed to that hardware, things could actually get interesting. Now, I'll say ahead of time that I doubt this is where Blockbuster is heading, but with both movie distribution rights and the ability to sell hardware, it could embrace the economics of infinite goods, by packaging content (infinite) with hardware (scarce), creating a much more compelling offering, than competitors to either firm alone.

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Apparently Blockbuster is working on plans to offer up its very own set top box for downloading movies that can be watched on your television. This is a bad idea. There is a long and disastrous history of companies trying to create their own proprietary set top boxes for downloading movies. They pretty much all fail. It's another piece of expensive hardware that is extremely limited and tied to just a single company. This is probably something of a response to Netflix's plans to have consumer electronics companies build in the ability to download Netflix films directly to televisions and set top boxes. That plan was bad enough, but this is much worse. People don't want to spend a few hundred dollars just to get another set top box (which they don't have room for given the number they probably already have) that only does one thing and only works with one company who they may not be comfortable dealing with for very long.

If Netflix and Blockbuster were being smart about this, they'd actually agree to an open standard to allow consumer electronics makers to build into systems so that people could sign up for whichever movie download service they want. They won't do this because they think (short-sightedly) that this only helps their competitors while losing the "lock-in" that a proprietary solution would have. That's the wrong way of thinking about it, however. The proprietary, limited, solution will fail because it won't provide enough value. Therefore, the comparison isn't between helping a competitor or having the field to yourself. It's between a strategy that will cost a lot of money and ultimately fail, or one that will be cheaper and will most likely succeed, even if it means sharing some of that success with competitors. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a success to a failure any time -- even if it means my competitors succeed as well.

While Netflix has done a great job building up its business and competing with players who were much bigger and more well established, could it be the US Postal Service that finally does the company in? It turns out that those patented funky red DVD mailer envelopes are a pain for the postal service. They "sustain damage, jam equipment and cause mis-sorts during automated processing," and the postal service has had enough. The Inspector General is asking to charge an extra $0.17 per DVD mailer if adjustments aren't made to make the envelopes more "machinable." While $0.17 may not sound like a lot, a research analyst at Citibank cranked the numbers and found that it would likely cut Netflix's monthly margin per customer from $1.05 to $0.35 -- basically killing 67% of its margin (ouch). Now here's where the situation gets fun. It turns out that Netflix's main competitor, Blockbuster, does not have this problem with its DVD mailers. Remember that Netflix sued Blockbuster over its patents last year. The two firms reached a settlement earlier this year, but could this be a chance for Blockbuster to strike back at Netflix? Anyone know if Blockbuster patented its "working" design for the DVD mailers? I'm sure it would be thrilled to license it to Netflix... at a reasonable fee.

Back in May we told you about a class action lawsuit that was being filed against Netflix, claiming that the company violated antitrust law by fraudulently obtaining the patents it was using to sue Blockbuster. This seemed like a really odd argument, and one unlikely to succeed. By definition, patents are monopoly rights which are granted by the government -- so it's difficult to see how they can violate antitrust law. Also, as we noted when the original suit was filed, these types of class action lawsuits rarely do much good (though, they do tend to make lawyers a lot wealthier). A little over a month after this lawsuit was filed, Netflix and Blockbuster decided to settle their patent dispute, at which point we wondered what would happen to the antitrust class action. Now we know. It's about to be dismissed. However, the judge apparently is worried that due to the original press coverage of the case (from folks like yours truly), potential members of the class may have held back filing other actions against Netflix -- and therefore has demanded that the lawyers get the same level of press coverage as the first time. Of course, the news that such an action has been dismissed isn't quite as newsworthy as the original filing (which was newsworthy for being an odd way to fight bad patents). Either way, the anonymous lawyer who tipped me off to the original case, has now emailed me again with the order demanding similar press coverage (to be clear: it's the order demanding similar press coverage, not the lawyer, who said rather little in the email). I'll post it here not because the dismissal of the case is interesting, but the idea that the judge believes the plaintiffs can "make sure that the end of these actions gets as much attention as their start." At this point it's unclear if the dismissal is because of the settlement (quite likely) or because it's just not a very good idea to claim patents violate antitrust law. As much as our patent law and patent system are screwed up these days, allowing people to challenge patents on the basis of antitrust class action lawsuits seems likely to only make things worse.

Although Blockbuster sat on its heels for a long time while NetFlix gobbled up market share, the company has aggressively fought back this year, prompting a lot of pain at NetFlix. NetFlix stock has been pummeled lately as its been drawn into a price war in order to stem customer churn. The problem is that its business model is easily replicated, which partly explains the company's attempt to assert a patent on it. However, the company does appear willing to actually compete, which is refreshing. The New York Times reports on the company's unorthodox decision to offer customer support services from friendly sounding Oregonions (as the company puts it), rather than rely on offshoring or email support. Although this is an expensive move, the company feels it will prove to be a key differentiator as it battles back Blockbuster. Obviously, good customer support means happier customers, while bad customer support can turn customers away. But the lesson isn't that companies should immediately stop all offshoring of these services. Rather, it's important for companies to think of customer support strategically and weigh the various costs and benefits, rather than just going on the lowest-price option.

It's incredibly obvious -- to everybody but the Hollywood movie studios, apparently -- just how bad movie-download sites are. When the first studio-backed efforts launched several years ago, the problems were clear. In the following five years, they haven't been fixed, despite plenty of reviews pointing them out. The studios made "protecting" their content with ridiculously restrictive DRM their top priority; delivering a good user experience came in somewhere down towards the bottom. Now, a new study has yet again pointed out that consumers don't like these services, and yet again makes it clear why: poor selection, unreasonable prices, poor quality. Add in the general difficulty in getting video from the services to users' TVs, and you've got a recipe for failure. These are many of the same points that have been made over the download services' lifetime, but that the studios and companies running the services have largely failed to address. It's little wonder, then, to see a site like Movielink, the studios' own download site, get sold at a huge loss since it's going to take wholesale changes to give it any chance of success.

Movielink, the movie download site started by major movie studios, has been up for sale for quite some time. The studios have had a hard time finding a buyer, though, because it's blindingly obvious (to everybody but the studios, apparently) just how badly the site sucks. The studios' desire to lock down the content with restrictive DRM, along with other flaws make the site wholly unattractive for users. It now looks like the studios have finally talked Blockbuster into buying Movielink at a fire-sale price -- less than $20 million, according to the WSJ, compared to the $100 million-plus the studios pumped into the site. Blockbuster may have picked up some download infrastructure on the cheap, but if it hopes to wring any sort of success out of Movielink, it's going to have to completely change the way the site works. But the studios wouldn't let that happen before, since controlling the content was their top priority; since they'll still be licensing the content to Blockbuster, it's unlikely that they'll let it remove any of the barriers to uptake they've put in place.