It looks like a patent battle will be playing out on the small screen. The participates are Netflix, who has $228 million in cash with no debt and 4.9 million subscribers, and Blockbuster, a company that seems to have trouble reinventing itself. Even though they are most certainly biased, Blockbuster's comments are disturbing:

"There is nothing original about renting movies or subscription rental programs," Blockbuster lawyer Marshall Grossman said, noting both were widely practiced long before any such invention by Netflix.

This comment is disturbing because it suggests that Netflix did not and is not providing a novel service. I don't know about any prior art or lack thereof that would corroborate Blockbuster's statement, but as far as I know nobody was doing what Netflix was doing until Blockbuster and the now defunct Walmart service came into the picture. And of course if it was not such a novel idea Blockbuster would not have copied Netflix. Even more disturbing is this comment in the same article:

The claims filed by Blockbuster against Netflix also allege that Netflix failed to inform the Patent Office of previous patents and previous business methods of other companies. Blockbuster said Netflix has admitted that it was aware of the prior patents of another company, which had already put Netflix on notice about possible patent infringement.

Inventors have a duty to disclose any prior art that is known to them during prosecution before the U.S. Patent Office. If Netflix failed to disclose prior art known to them, it would certainly cast doubt on a novel internet service that deserves protection.