Slashdot Mirror
Worlds.com Patents Quake-like Games? Kinda.
Eddie Edwards writes "This story over at Gamasutra details how Worlds.com have been awarded US patent 6,219,045 for - well, for more-or-less exactly the client-server architecture used in Quake. As the article says, "the company believes the patent may apply to currently in-use multi-user games" (!) and Worlds.com "will also review other 3D sites who may be using [their] technology to ensure [they] are fully compensated". " Of course, Worlds.com will prolly get squashed on the prior art issue - but wow. From what I can see, IANAL, it's not so much Quake-like games, but more like 3D chat-game-type environment.
I just glanced at the patent, and I know that I'm slightly off topic here, but I thought I'd mention that Netrek (an open source 2D game with a client-server architecture) was used to support a motion to invalidate some of the claims in patent 5,822,523 dealing with Internet messaging. The companies involved settled out of court, so the patent wasn't overturned. But that was probably one of the first IP lawsuits in history to use an open source game as the primary reference in a motion. The motion papers should no longer be confidential, so I'll see if I can post it if you guys want to see it. -d
(Sorry for the AC post, but I don't have a Slashdot account).
I was an employee at Worlds back in 95/96/97, and I'd like to point out one or two issues on the patent to help people looking for prior art.
We were hoping for massively multiuser systems and needed a way to cut down on the number of avatars shown. Claims 1, 3 and 4 are more or less "Display on-screen only the N avatars closest to me". Claim 2 says that you can configure N for your machine.
Claim 5 is roughly a MUD architecture, except for the new position-in-room data going back and forth. What's not obvious this that while section (e) ("list of avatars displayable") seems to refer to claim (g) ("which room the client is currently in"), it could also refer to work we did for later architectures, where the server determines the N closest avatars to display (this reduces network bandwidth). Be on the lookout for another 1996 patent along those lines.
Me, I did the figure display and animation playback code for two products (including the one they're currently selling). I got laid off when they closed down my office in early 1997. From what I can tell, they sold the remains of the company in 1998 (note the gap in the press releases on the site), and the new owners haven't improved the technology at all since.
Derek (worlds@celia.serv.net)
From the back of "Snow Crash"
The idea of a "Virtual reality" such as the Metaverse is now widespread in the computer-graphics community and is being implemented in a number of different ways. The particular vision of the Metaverse as expressed in this novel originated from idle discussion... etc
The words "avatar" (in the sense used here) and "Metaverse" are my inventions, which I came up with when I decided that existing words (such as virtual reality") were simply too awkward to use.
After the first publication of Snow Crash, I learned that the term 'avatar' has actually been in use for a number of years as part of a virtual reality system called Habitat, developed by F Randall Farmer and Chip Morningstar. The system runs on Commodore 64 computers, and though it has all but died out in the US, is still popular in Japan. In addition to avatars, Habitat includes many of the basic features of the Metaverse as described in this book.
So it's probably a good idea to go looking for Habitat, people.
Kaiidth, posting anonymously because of that password I mentioned.
Not if they applied for the patent before those games came out (there's often a long delay between patent filing and patent granting, so this patent may actually have been applied for a long time ago; I'm not sure).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeah, I played Quake1 shareware sometime in late95/early96. I remember cuz I moved summer 96 and it was before that. =]
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's dated: April 17, 2001 / Nov. 12, 1996
Actually, I got the impression that it was limiting the number of displayed users for a given client that the patent focused on.
Also, it should be noted that the client performs this filtering. This sort of stuff has been done server-side by games like Air Warrior for years.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
I think that Meridian 59 dates back far enough to to be well establish prior art against this crap. (let's see Meridian 59 was online/under development well by 1995 if not earlier).
I know 3DO bought the company out and took over the title in 1996 because I was at the announcement dinner at the 1996 E3 show. I also had a friend who modelled some of the original artwork in the game at some point in 1995 or earlier.
It was released waaaay before 96 and it included multiplayer. I can't remember if Wolfenstein did, so Doom might not even be the first.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
So, even if they get smacked back with Prior Art, what's stopping the person with the Prior Art from establishing the same dumb-ass patent? (Kind of OT, but I've always been curious about that - what if this hoopla just makes someone say to themselves, "Oh, I can patent this? Why didn't someone tell me?")
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Yes. In more detail, when someone tried to patent the waterbed, Stranger in a Strage Land was cited, invalidating the patent.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
They've been at it since before 96.. AlphaWorlds, anyone? Try 95, or earlier..
Adrenaline Vault had a big construct on one of their worlds, was how I found the online gaming community..
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Since patents are basically a temporary right granted to inventors by limiting the rights to use certain ideas for the whole society, why not charging a licence fee or tax for the duration of this privilege - very much like the state is charging telephone companies for the right to use limited frequency ressources.
The space of ideas (esp. in the field of software patents where usually every hacker thinking longer about a problem will come up with a simmilar solution) is clearly a public ressource to all mankind, so I don't see why patent holders shouldn't pay for their temporary monopoly to exploit parts of it, esp. as the common practice of look-away or defense-only patents doesn't serve the original intent of making new technology faster available.
What about the following scheme: everybody who files for a (justified) patent has to fix a buyout price for it (i.e. should a group of people or companies pay the patent holder this price, then the patent immediately becomes void and the technology is from then on free for everybody to use). The holder of the patent is then required to pay an annual percentual tax (something about 1 to 5 %, maybe also increasing with time) of this price for as long as he wishes to uphold the patent (up to it's maximum duration). The buyout price can be annually adopted within a certain range (say +/- 20%) by the holder to react to new technological developements.
A annual patent fee would make it expensive to hold on to patents which don't generate revenue (and therefor don't help promote technology), be it either because they are bogus to begin with (no one will pay amazon a dime for their one-click patent since it is probably not valid in the first place), or simply useless or obsolete.
This also has the additional benefit of keeping the number of patents low (which is always a good thing, as it means more freedom for everyone and less restrictions on innovation, or - in one word - less lawyers) while not cutting too much into the legetimate revenue of the holders.
It also makes the patent market more transparent and reduces the risk of abiguities or unintentional violations as patents holders have to be in bussines somehow (either by exploiting their patent themselves or by offering licences) as they usually won't be able to afford to simply wait and then cache in from unsuspecting "offenders" (as with the GIF-patent issue).
While I personally consider the concept of intellectual property as problematic per se, I realise that some incentive has to be given for making your brainwork publicly available. So the poposed scheme is some sort of compromise, which, while being compatible with the current patent system, might at least control some of the current abuse, by simply making hoarding patents for the sake of hoarding less profitable.
The whole thing still sounds a lot like Quake or EverQuest...
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
After quickly scanning through the downloads on the following site, I believe that they may be examples of prior art.
Prior Art?Pity there's no bounty for this at Bounty Quest yet.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Half of William Gibson's work probably invalidates the patent too.
~Cederic
Having skimmed the patent, one of the things they mention a lot is the system for only displaying a certain number of avatars on the screen, so that you never go above a predefined 'avatar count'. I don't believe that Quake had this, although I think it had most of the rest of the stuff.
mp
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
I'm fairly certain that the Pueblo MUD client was out by '96, as well. Pueblo had its own built-in VRML renderer. The MUD client (most from the MUSH, MUCK, etc. line) were hacked to send special messages to the client, giving it the URL of a VRML file to load, the URL of avatar objects, etc. You had to create scripts in the MUD's programming language to send update messages to the client, to let it know where in the VRML space the objects in the MUD's room were.
It never really got off the ground, alas. It was only for Windows, and never quite caught on with either the players or the admins. I had played with it a bit on a MUSH I was an admin on. MUSH programming was ugly. MUSH programming to talk to a graphical client was brain damaging.
The company that made Pueblo (Chaco) still have their web site up (http://www.chaco.com/pueblo/, although they later became LikeMinds, which later was absorbed into MacroMedia. The copyright dates on their site say 1995, and they had a Windows 3.1 version of the cleint(!) so it's a fair bet Pueblo was around before this patent application.
Back in my mudding days (circa 1992) there was at least one rudimentary graphical mud. The resolution was terrible, the objects blocky, the color limited, but depending on how the patent is read it would probably constitute prior art. 3d is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. Does hitting ctrl-r and ctrl-l to turn left and right and displaying a still of the same room count? Certainly 3d, if not as finely tuned as, say, a Doom or Quake interface, but where does one draw the line? 90 degrees between frames, or 0.00001 degree? Communications and chatting between characters was certainly a major part of the game.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Um... not to quibble, but if this is really what they mean, then what is the POINT of the patent, since only a relatively miniscule few displays are capable of generating three-dimensional output. They *DO* definitely use three-dimensional modelling, which is how I would interpret the wording.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
... is this patent about ? They talk about a videogame controlled by local controller and also remotely.
This thing is so vague and general, it could apply to most online games !!!
Who the hell is working at the patent office ?!?!
- sigs are for wimps.
Where did he say, you can't "chat" in Quake ?
He's mentioning this because there are additional methods of interaction in these games, specially, when chatting is not their main function.
- sigs are for wimps.
I think that this is the same company. Worlds Chat was probably the name. I thought it was neat unless you took it beyond the proof-of-concept stage. But then, look at Everquest. Graphical chat with some things thrown in around for you to "do".
How could anyone be certain what the courts will decide "3D" means? Did they happen to mention three spatail dimensions? Then color could count as a dimension. There are lots of dimensions in the world, and no reason not to include R X G X B as a 3D arena (aka RGB). Actually there is controversy as to whether it is 3D or 4D (CMYK), and Epson wants to add a couple of extra to give shinyness, and ?? (I don't have the right printer, so I haven't paid close attention.
Still, as long as we are just talking about CRT's, there is RGB cross for a five dimensional aperture. Perhaps we'll just ignore things like flicker speed, but one shouldn't forget that we aren't talking about still life. So we need to add in time. That gives us a 6D CRT screen.
Who can tell what the courts will decide that 3D means?
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I can imagine that this would apply more to things like everquest, etc...I remember using WorldsChat a long time ago; it was nifty k33n :)
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
http://smokedot.org/
The book Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson describes the 'metaverse'.. It was released in 1992 - and desccribes the _exact_ thing the patent describes.
;)
The metaverse is a highly scalable architecture for three dimensional graphical, multi-user. interactive virtual world system. {blabla] The virtual world shows avatars (yes, the book uses avatars too) representing the other users [..]
In short, the entire patent is a ripoff of Neil Stephensons book Snow Crash.
Its a bogus patent.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
And in the notes at the end of Snowcrash, Stephenson mentions a BBS system from the freaking Comodore 64 which had avatars.
Methinks that prior art is going to abound.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Well, openverse (http://openverse.org) has been around a few years, and was originally named metaverse, obviously a snowcrash referance. We had to change it though because somebody has a trademark on the name metaverse. This patent doesnt apply to OV i guess beacuse OV is 2d and not 3d...
_joshua_
I can remember an "60 Minutes" episode back in the late 70's about a group that was getting patents on small chunks of code. Simple thinks like loops which counted. As has already been pointed out years ago, either IBM or MS has a patent on electronic journals/magazines. This past year, I have watched three of my software ideas get shot down by newly established patents. None of the ideas were earth shattering. Fact is all involved using current technology and software. But company X got a patent for using program types A, B, C, and D together as a package.It is possible to write a program from scratch and not be able to distribute it because the concept is patented. So are all the car manufacturers pay Mr. Car for the use of his initial concept?
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
Was it in 3D? "Habitat" is one early implementation of a virtual world, although in 2D. I'm not sure when it was first launched, but it was somewhere around 1985/6 I'll wager.
Everyone interested in virual worlds know about it. Those of you who do not, search the web for papers by F. Randall Farmer, some of which you'll find here, the most famous of which is The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat.
Recommended reading.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Well, I looked it up and according the The Lessons paper they started working on Habitat in 1985. So it's early. It used a client/server (OOP/message) model, they talk about avatars and they note, on the topic of the future that:
There are several directions in which this work can be extended. Most obvious is to implement the system on more advanced hardware, enabling a more sophisticated display.
(For those wondering, the original on-line Habitat client was C64 based and looked somewhat like the early Lucasgames graphical adventures, like Maniac Mansion. How I love those games...)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
What about wolfenstien 3d? ;)
But if you are awarded a patent on something that has prior art (or known use in the industry) don't companies usually NOT say that there may be prior art? I doubt that this could be used for Quake like games - in fact the whole things seems silly to me. Anyone with real legal know-how on this one?
I'm not sure that this patent can be stretched to apply to 3D games - however, as they are planning to "review sites using their technology," I get the distinct impression they're doing this as a way to generate $$$ with the old "pay-us-you're-using-our-idea" routine.
I've seen assorted 3D interactive environments, both chat and game. Indeed, some 3D games have chat in them. The concept itself is something that has been done in a variety of ways and discussed in even more ways. I can't see it holding up in court.
However, some people prefer to pay fees then face court. So let's keep watching.
If we're lucky, the sheer stupidity of this patent will be a useful tool against patent-mania.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
This company released its first products a long time ago, like 1996-97. Why are they only getting a patent now?
"will also review other 3D sites who may be using [their] technology to ensure [they] are fully compensated"
Aha! This is quite clearly, at least to me, a stab in the dark at getting money. See, their current business model isn't working, and they aren't getting any money. So they figure, "If I can't get money legitimately, I'll sue people!" So they go around claiming that everyone owes them money. This is the last gasp of a dying company, I think.
I'll make a bet: if this ploy fails, they will go on fuckedcompany.com very soon after.
Why would you want to patent something narrow?
You can tie your opponants up in court for a while , while they have to try and prove why they aren't infringing on your patent.
If your opponant has a patent that you want to "infringe" upon, you can offer to cross licence eachother.
Vanity. (I am probably guilty of this one myself)
I am sure that there are other good reasons that I haven't thought of but these three are a start.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
I believe the term 'go fuck yourself' would apply here.
Sig missing. Reward.
>They've just been awarded the patent, and are now planning to go after a 'plurality' of existing 3D sites that are supposedly already using "their" technology. In other words, he admits there are a number of other sites that have already been using such technologies for a while --- given that these other sites all developed their technology without literally stealing it from his company, isn't he basically admitting that their is prior art? "We just got this patent and now we're going to go after a bunch of people who actually independently developed these same techniques"
>
Prior art means prior to their filing the patent, not prior to their receiving it. They are basically claiming that between the time they filed and now, several other companies have developed infringing systems.
Still sucks... but that part at least is normal. A patent application is expected to take a while to be approved and granted.
"We will also review other 3D sites who may be using our technology to ensure we are fully compensated"
They've just been awarded the patent, and are now planning to go after a 'plurality' of existing 3D sites that are supposedly already using "their" technology. In other words, he admits there are a number of other sites that have already been using such technologies for a while --- given that these other sites all developed their technology without literally stealing it from his company, isn't he basically admitting that their is prior art? "We just got this patent and now we're going to go after a bunch of people who actually independently developed these same techniques"
There must be huge amount of prior art on this one (and yes, I have read the patent, and the techniques described in this patent are precisely my line of work). The techniques described are not only in existing games like Diablo2 (not sure about Quake3 as Quake3 doesn't attempt to cull visible avatars to a maximum amount as the patent describes - Quake3 will render all of them if all of them are in view), but have been in common use (precisely as described) in military simulations, including support in open standards like DIS/HLA. I believe the lithtech engine also does what the patent describes.
-----
Didn't doom use this same architecture
Not really, this lame patent specifically includes that the system cull visible avatars to a maximum number. This is an incredibly lame thing to try patent, but to my knowledge none of the ID line of games does this. Doom and Quake (versions 1 to 3) will always display *all* avatars that are in a clients view.
Nonetheless, there is a LOT of prior art. Diablo II, for example, sounds to me like it fits the bill fairly well (although not strictly "3D" in the usual computer-graphics sense of the word). Games aside, a lot of existing military simulations use precisely the techniques described, and *are* "3D" (in the computer-graphics sense of the word). They are even based on open standards such as DIS/HLA. DIS has been around for years.
-----
I don't know about that... The first claim (below) basically says the the client limits how many people it can draw based on some maximum draw count (presumably, this is so it can keep a constant frame-rate with lots of people in the world). Most outdoor games will do something like this - but they usually limit drawing by distance rather than exact count. An exact count would cause a character to blink in and out unless a gradual cutoff is observed.
1. In a system for interaction between a plurality of users in a three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where the system includes at least one server coupling a plurality of clients where each client addresses a client display, a method of representing interactions among the plurality of clients on a display of a target client comprising the steps of:
identifying a position of a local avatar of a user of the target client, the position being a position relative to the graphical space;
determining a maximum displayable avatar count for the target client;
determining a total avatar count for the server, wherein the total avatar count indicates the number of clients connected to the server;
when the total avatar count is greater than the maximum displayable avatar count for the target client, limiting the number of avatars processed by the target client to the maximum displayable avatar count, wherein the step of limiting is performed at the target client; and
displaying, on the client display, the avatars processed by the target client.
-- Virtual Windows Project
This is one of the reasons we need to get some younger judges who have at least some clue about the computer revolution that has happened around them. Seems the patent office has no idea what is going on.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
Crossfire (crossfire.real-time.com) had a networked chat interface with a 3d isometric view since um... 92 or 93 something.
It's spelled netrek (just one t), and I've startet playing it sometime '93 (back when my whole university had a 64kbit/s link to the internet), where it definitly already had a nice history of leagues.
Let me check: the 2nd RFD for rec.games.netrek was posted Mon, 17 Feb 1992. Based on that number, I'd put the start of netrek at around '90.
/ol
Quake, first commercially published in August of 1996, does not predate the patent application by a year. Without passing upon the question whether or not the patent's claims read upon Quake, Quake may not be relevant in determining its validity.
M
well there is one, bountyquest. And you get paid as well :)
I don't use eleetism in my Email
... its more like a 3D version of IRC.
Read the details of the patent.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
This means that Worlds.com is going to pick up the tab from that big lawsuit, right?
Sure, they ripped off Snow Crash, but hey, if they fight this patent they can redeem that yes?
When they first started, they had their own custom program interface, it was pretty cool. Then the had version 2.0 which used Java and VRML plugins inside a webpage, which really stunk. They've never been really popular as far as I've seen (maybe because their worlds always sucked, very ugly from what I recall).
But, they beat the date.
`/\/\
(^.^)
(")(")
not quite an analog pussy, just a cat that plays with vinyl
Erm. Yes. Posts which make nonobvious claims without backing them up deserve to be modded greatly.
--
There's two sides to these stupid patents. There's the USPTO, which is issuing them, and the companies filing them. The reason they file them is that there's very little to lose by filing bogus patents. What kind of penalties would be effective at deterring companies from filing bogus patent applications?
------
Were any of the recent software/internet-whatever patents squashed due to prior art?
I agree, I remember something like this capability being in Moraff's Revenge which came out for 8086 machines running CGA graphics in the late 80's. It didn't use a seperate server, but if I recall correctly, you could get a monster's eye view of your party, though that might only have occurred while you were in the process of being eaten by the monster.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Yep - they were on the list, as was I. All of this stuff has been discussed in public forums.
I was the original lead programmer on EnterTelevision / CyberTalk / OnLive Technologies that did Traveler, I've done tons of similar projects before and after for various game companies (SSI, Bethesda, Accolade), and I still design highly scalable VR systems today for fun...
Everything in that patent is already in the public domain, in the system as they describe it, predating their application. All claims can be invalidated.
If anyone has _real_ need of prior art, I'd be happy to dig through my reference collection and make everything available. I've spent years collecting docs and papers for just this event.
As a previous poster mentioned, this is the "new economy" business model. Patent office is now ran by patent sharks and incompetent examiners, so patent all you can and launch shakedown.
"This explaines why their stock is currently trading at 9 cents."
awwww come on they're at 9.5 cents!
The idea of patents was to encourage innovation. If someone invents something he can patent it and make some money from the monopolisation of an idea. Thus even the backyard inventor should have a possibility to make some money and not get overrun by the superior marketing of some huge corporation.
But with the patent system as it is today, especially the USPTO, it is quite the oposite. To patent something does cost more than the backyard inventor can afford and most of these patents don't ever make a buck, so only big firms can afford to take some shots in the dark until one of them hits. The patents are used for protecting business modells and to shut others out more than anything else, and the way they are used is as the threat of a lawsuit, noone but some big business can live through. So the backyard inventor, or a startup business is demotivated, often enough simply by the fact, that it's next to impossible to figure out, if something is already patented or in the process of becoming patented without a team of specialized lawyers. And in the end a patent is only worth as much, as the lawyers you're paying to defend it.
So patents are stifling innovations because:
- They protect business models, hence the protected business has no need of new inventions.
- They favour big businesses who can afford the lawyers instead of startups which have much more motivation for inventing something.
- They entangle the introductions of new products with a complicated process of tracking down patents which might be relevant
- Especially the granting of overbroad patents to basic methods stifles progress on anything relying on those methods
- Instead of creating more legal security for the inventor they create more insecurity, since the inventor might suddenly find himself in a lawsuit
- Patents are used to suppress superior technologies if they compete with something creating more revenue
- The time patents are valid is too long in relation to the fast paced development
All of this seems so very obvious that this posting should probably be moderated redundant.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
This reminds me of a chat program I once used years ago.
Where each person's "avatar" was a big yellow smiley head. There were also floating voice bubbles above them if i remember correctly.
Any one remember more than I about this?
I was lucky enough to get a patent on this whizbang technology called "bipedal locomotion" Odds are you probably haven't heard of it but, odds are that you are using it. Please send royalty fees to the following address:
Common Sense Patent Swipers
Seattle, WA
This patent actually seems to be rather wide in scope.
I quote:
The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system.
Doesn't EQ meet that description? Asheron's Call? Virtually any of the existing and pending 3D MMORPG's?
As an aside, does anyone remember Midi Maze on the Atari ST? I could describe it as a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system, and it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
Yes, it's exactly like those games. However, I'm not so sure it's an invalid patent. I remember using worlds.com when it first showed up, and I remember that at that point in time, there was nothing like it. So it's quite possible that they came up with the idea first, and so why shouldn't they patent it? Just because something's widely used doesn't mean it can't be patented. At the time they filed (1996), this wasn't widely used at all.
All that this type of enviroment being widely used means is that worlds.com had a great idea and sparked a lot of people to develop similar systems.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Keep a lid on it this long? Worlds.com has been around since about 1994 or so when they came out with their first 3d chat room stuff (which is basically what this patent is for). I remember using it back then, and it was a very cool idea. Not enough to hold my interest for very long, but a cool idea all the same. Fact of the matter is, they filed in 1996, which is actually after they debuted. The patent is just only getting awarded now. They were around long before EQ was. So while it is a patent on something that is *now* fairly commonplace, it wasn't at the time. It may actually stand, even agaist vigorous claims of prior art.
Yes, there are a lot of stupid patents out there, and more are granted every day. But this one may actually be legit. Worlds.com implemented a great idea, and then when they saw it was kinda neat, applied for a patent on it. Now, whether or not sci-fi books that described a similar system qualify as prior art is another question. I'm not really sure that they would.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
[insert IANA caveat here]
Actually, this is a curious point. They tend to say "three dimensional, graphical space" or some such, which means the virtual area could be "3D", independant of the projection (which is generally on a 2D monitor).
Also, even if someone interprets this to mean real, genuine, 3D interaction, bad news because if those "relatively miniscule" displays ever do catch on, they'll run up against this patent roadblock when they shouldn't. They shouldn't because this has already been done in 2D, and the extension to real 3D, when it becomes available, should fit the "obvious" clause of patent law.
I'm sure people were messing with 3D Avatars for chat rooms some time ago, although I haven't found any in 10 minutes of sifting through archives that meets the Nov. 1996 requirement. It's out there, tho; I'll find it. Or someone else will.
Hmmm.
A System to Distribute and Protect Intellectual Property? Or maybe, maybe, A System to Validate Uniqueness and Protect Duplication? Or perhaps we should put the clerks in place, like, A Multi-User Intellectual Property Protection System. Heck, that sounds like SDMI.....
-----
Klactovedestene!
The Worlds, Inc. people almost certainly knew about this, as Tom Meyer, one of the authors, was on the VRML Advisory Group, and I'm pretty certain someone from Worlds, Inc. was on the VAG, too. This was also at the first VRML conference, in 1995. And WAXweb was one of the very first (if not the first) sites to serve VRML over the World-Wide Web.
And Stephenson's Snowcrash was all over the VRML community at that time. Everyone knew that what they wanted to do was implement the Black Sun - the bar where Hiro demonstrates his abilities as a "hacker." In fact, one of the VRML start-ups was called Black Sun.
You can go back even farther to check out Lucas's Habitat system, back in the eighties. Actually, now that I think of it, I remember hearing at the time that Worlds was planning on patenting some of this stuff - my boss at the time was Andy van Dam, one of the leading lights of computer graphics, who scoffed at the prospect of Worlds patenting anything so obvious. Andy and Tom were both all over that stuff, as they were instrumental in establishing the VRML Consortium.
-----
Klactovedestene!
Someone should patent patents and then not give any more out.
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
As the author of the first 3D, first-person shooter multi-user game I can tell you it is pretty dang silly to expect to see basic, far-reaching patents in this area. I mean, it was 1974 when I first devised that system, and it was pretty "obvious" at that time -- including chat system, limitation of visibility and alteration of rendering methods by distance and view, etc. All it really took was the vision to actually write a 3D game (a vision which had been around for a long time when I first put finger to keyboard), some programming skill and access to the PLATO system. In the quarter of a century since then, there has been so much work done in multiuser distributed 3D gaming (including Kevet Duncombe's LAN-based microprocessor game hosting system which he built and demonstrated in the early 1980s, client-side rendering, etc.), that it is very hard to believe any broadly blocking patents are left in this arena that aren't of the "one click shopping" variety.
Seastead this.
The patent was applied for in 1996.
Where I work we are supposed to keep engineering notebooks. When we come up with some idea that might be unique and patentable, we are supposed to have someone else in the company who understands the concept witness and date the notebook. My understanding is that this is to show when we came up with the idea in case we patent it and it gets challenged. If this is really how it works, then the actuall date the patent is filed or when Quake was released is less important then when they can prove they came up with the idea.
I used a semi-3d irc type program many many years ago. I think it was on MSN. It was like a Star Trek chat room or something, anyway, you could select a body and walk around and talk to people. It was sorta neat.
The idea sure isn't very novel as this type of thing has been written about in zillions of books etc., and has already been done.
But whatever, the patent office seems to know what's best.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Actually, no. If I recall correctly, DOOM used a (more or less) strictly peer-to-peer model, where each node was responsible for keeping track of everything.
:) Moderate my first one down.
I'm sorry, you're correct. Wish there was a way to retract posts here.
-Puk
What's silly is that they actually are going to waste money trying to pursue this. Didn't doom use this same architecture (arguably not in 3d, but that's just an obvious extension). Or the plethora of doom clones? I know I was playing these before 1996. If I thought harder, I could probably even come up with WAY older 2d games which used the same basic architecture.
Also note on the linked patents on that page -- someone was nice enough to patent video games in the year 2000. w00t.
-Puk
This patent would affect games like EverQuest. It seems that what really separates it from Quake is that their patent involves a scalable architecture.
I am not sure when they actually designed this technology and began patenting it. Because it is specific to a 3D environment, the only example of prior art that I can think of would be EverQuest. AFAIK, all other similar items (EG muds.) were based in only two dimensions. Given the incredibly long development time of EverQuest, it seems rather likely that EQ is the only example of prior art that one will ever need. This of course, assumes that Worlds.com did not begin their development efforts before EverQuest was started, which means that they would have been working on this stuff at least five or six years ago. I doubt that they would have been able to do so and keep a lid on it this log while maintaining any useful influx of capital.
In short, worlds.com is probably full of shit and needs to keep their lawyers in check.
My patent includes 4D client-server games. All games client-server based, using 3D graphics, and do not complete within an instant are infringing. Any 3D games taking "time" are to cease and desist all processing immediately!
In order to keep your Quake-like games running, send me your first born. This will entitle you to a one year license for using my patented process. In order to re-new this license, prior to it's expiration, you must barter with your neighbors for their first born.
Like that stupid BT hyperlink patent. Whatever happend with that? Or that guy's patent on date windowing for Y2K. He was going to start suing people for lots of money after Y2K wasn't he? We really need to start getting follow ups for these stories.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
AOL: "We're reasonable people: the paperwork for your License to use Air Of Life[AOL](tm) technology will come through next week. We'll allow you to keep breathing, but there will be compensatory and actual damages of three times the normal license fee for the duration of the period during which you continue to use our patents without a proper license. The total will come to $3,246.95. Thank You for your business." LOL
3D Chat with Avatars?
Sounds a lot like the OnLive Traveler (which is now part of DigitalSpace).
I'm pretty sure this was around before 1996.
Yep... and also that things other than chatting can be considered interacting, even if there is no chat function available.
Interacting isn't just talking. Shoving a rocket up your nose (Q3Arena) or a mortar round down your pants (Tribes2) is interacting. It's just not all that polite. :)
Since it specifically mentions that it only displays the maxiumum visible number of avatars. I suspect Quake just keeps trying to display them.
However, looking at the referenced patents, I notice that USRE036574 would seem to me to certaily cover Quake and lots more; it patents real-time video games where you use a modem.
Mind you, IANAL.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
I read the claims. They are broad. And you have to remember that in order to infring a patent infringing a single claim or even a substantial portion of a single claim is enough. Basically it applies to all 3d enviroments matching claim 5. For some more info on patent law, specifically infringing on one, look here.
Doesn't matter. In a court of law only the exact wording of the claims and claims only(no descriptions, abstracts, pictures, etc..) determines whether you're infringing or not. And sometimes it is enough to infringe a substantial portion of a single claim to be in violation.
There's a diference between the words "3D" and "Real".
3D simply means that it arives at your eyes at two diferent perspectives. Flicker Glasses do this. 3d Goggles do this, and as you say, Real Life shotguns will do this.
'3d' does not have to mean 'holodeck'.
Or have I just been trolled?
-Andy
I'm prety sure World's Chat pre-dated M-59 by quite a bit.
This may have been a perfectly valid thing to patent back in 1996. (At least more so then now.) But to just begin to enforce it now would simply be silly.
If, in the time it takes to get your patent, other people come up with the same idea from scratch, You've defeated the purpose of Patents. They haven't stolen anything from you but you can still sue them. You've simply created a bizarre legal weapon.
You have to be able to begin selling and licensing your new product ASAP after inventing it. Otherwise you're allowing other people to duplicate your effort. Duplication of effort is never a good thing and it is even worse if you're going to come along later and say that their duplicated effort is now worthless. If That happens now the Patent Holder is essentially stealing from everyone else!
The patent office needs to find a way to turn around patents a lot faster. I suppose they this means they need a larger, better-trained staff. But it would be worth a few tax bucks.
-Andy
Even barring FPS games, what about Onlive Traveller and any of the [bound to be] hundreds of other small, crappy chat programs started durring the VRML Hype? even if worlds.com was the first (which I seriously doubt they were), can they really make a patent on it, what has it been? 5, years later? After sitting by and letting others do the same thing? Without them having to steal their blatantly obvious idea to do it? How's this for a general rule: If after 5 years of publicly using your blatantly obvious invention without patenting it, and having no real competition without patenting it, It is most definatly too obvious and/or stupid to warant a patent. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to patent my religion before jack chick rights about it so I can sue his ass
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I remember playing Netrek, or maybe one of it's predecssors, back in the 80's: it was networked with a "chat" interface.
Best date I could find on their web site was version 1.3 circa '95.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Phosphors on the display have thickness ;)
;) -- sounds pretty linear.
Anyway, when you read the patent... 3D is used very generically, and seems to be vaugely described as any game where player positions need to be determined in three dimensions.
It definitely says nothing about "3D hardware" or some of the techie uses of "3D".
This pretty much leaves out checkers, backgammon, and solitair -- but you could make a case for 3D there too (i.e. z-order of partially visable cards in solitair stacks).
It does not exclude MUD's.
Furthermore, it doesn't describe the "chat" capability as having to be "3D"... it talks of a typewritten conversation. I don't know what D that is
The point is, while the term "3D" is used heavily in this patent, it is not specifically defined, and we shouldn't be reading our own conseption of "3D game" into it -- the lawyers won't!
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Sombody mod Derek's explanation up (it seems to be the only good non-legalese interpretation of the patent).
If they're patenting "scalability through only showing the nearest avatars" -- then that is quite broad. To not require a license means you'd have to always display every player.
Anyway, Netrek did this back in the 80's -- no need to show players fighting at a planet you're not on!
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Johnathan Clark has hit the nail on the head (post #292). While Worlds' PR and legal departments may claim otherwise, the core of the patent is a way for the system to keep the frame rate up: draw only the N people closest to you. And the system did exactly what he expects. People blinked in and out of the scene as they entered or left the magical group of N. Remember, this was for a 3-D *chat* company. You were expected to find 1-2 interesting people, then park yourself in front of them while you typed back and forth. If you are only a couple of "feet" from them, there's little risk that they'll pop out of your screen graph. (And remember that this was back in 1995/1996; we wanted to support 200 people in a room with only a Pentium on the client box. It was a reasonable solution.)
None of this would apply to an FPS like Quake because there are an order of magnitude fewer players in a given space, and you have to see *all* of them for the game to be playable.
It may apply to games like Everquest, however, if they do some sort of N-closest culling scheme. (Sorry, never played them, so I can't say.) If they do distance based culling, then, well, how fine do you want your hairs split? I do remember seeing a very early (free? shareware?) 3-D networked FRPG back in 1996 that might help prove prior art, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was called.
Claim 5 on the patent is a mish-mash of items. Some of them would never stand up to any challenge, being a mish-mash of MUD and FPS technology. (``[R]endering a 3-D view from a viewpoint of the location of the particular user''? Puh-leeze.) HOWEVER, note that the patent describes a system that goes up to *worlds* running on different servers an connecting to their own particular set of clients (see section (g)). This sounds a lot like Everquest or Diablo, and I don't know of any MUDs that scaled to that level.
See post #120 for a bit more info.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I was a beta-tester for Meridian 59. I'd say it came out around 1995-1996. I tried Worlds around the same time. Anyways, should this really warrant a blocking patent? I surely think not. All the aspects of the programs have prior art. The only thing needed to do was combine it all into one package. Many was working on that at the time. Some even did it long before, but on a more primitive scale.
;), but nothing serious. Then it was back to mudding ;-)
Btw, at the time I thought both REALLY sucked. So me and some friends PKed a little in Meridian and had some laughs by mudsexing in Worlds using the girl avatar (aaw, what a cutie
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Yeah, let's give them our money. Clearly they deserve to have monopoly on the idea of Z-axis clipping.
Oh wait! I was doing tricks along the Z-axis in '92 when I was making 3D textured polygons. So it should be me that get monopoly. I read it in some book, but clearly I am the one who really deserve it. At least IMHO.
Yes, I know sarcasm is lost on you.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I'm sitting here wondering how long it will be before a non-government patent office that actually does its job is created? There's the issue of enforcing patents, but if a non-government patent office existed then I'm sure the patents would still be valid in a court of law (or so it would seem, anyway).
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Nah, that's a trade secret...
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
(As always, IANAPL (I Am Not A Patent Lawyer))
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Patent Nov 96.
Games are ok...or am I reading the patent wrong?
It would also seem to me that if a whole bunch of games developed this kind of thing independently, without ever hearing about these bozos then the idea might qualify as obvious.
Of course there is always Neuromancer, and Snowcrash (where they are in fact called avatars.) The idea would have to be pretty damned obvious after reading those.
t
Grin, well despite being attacked for it being '94 and earlier, I'm glad to know that I hadn't lost my mind. The program was "cool" even if not totally useful. I liked the idea... but I'd spend 5 minutes as a slow moving Avatar, log off the Internet, and dial into a local BBS... :)
:)
Neat idea, but the masses groked "channels" easier than people thought, at least once AOL started calling them chat rooms...
Note to self: pick up a copy of AOL for a free month one of these days... figure out why the masses seam to like it...
Note to others: if you are coding Open Source Stuff for end users, get copies of end user systems (Apple w/ MacOS 9, Apple w/ MacOS X, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows XP, etc.) and see what people like. If you want to design for hackers, don't claim to be making things for the masses.
Either they bought the domain name, or this is the company that has been at this since '96/'97 (hard to tell, Slashdotted). They had cool Avatar chatting systems, etc.
Their stuff was really neat and novel, and probably deserving of protection. They brought a cool concept out to the marketplace years before others, and in doing so helped legitamize it.
You used to be able to go to Tucows and find a couple of chatting paradigms, and this one was really cutting edge back then.
Their win32 client version 2.01 features a copyright 1996 stamp, which almost certainly means their version 1.x code predates the November 1996 filing date. The client featured VRML no less. They also offered corresponding MUD server mods for their Pueblo protocol. http://www.chaco.com/pueblo/ Mind you, this means Macromedia now owns this IP, thanks to a chain of acquisitions. The (partial!) source code to the client and the server mods are available in a variant of public license. http://www.chaco.com/
I mean, who wouldn't want to copy this and make a Hanson World of their own to MmmBop in?
They were claiming that multi user fps games developed since they applied for their patent (Nov. '96, it looks like), may be covered.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
I don't even remember there being a net-enabled version of Wolfenstein 3D, much less one that uses their client-server technology. See some other posts on this topic for claims (and counteragruments) about whether Quake came out early enough to be prior art (maybe), or whether Doom's model was close enough to count (definately not).
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
As someone else pointed out elsewhere, Doom's net model bears not the slighted bit of resemblance either to what Worlds.com has patented or how Quake runs.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Hmm.. just wondering how tight the wording is on patents.
The line "Display only the N avatars closest to me" could be 'got around' by displaying only the avatars which are in the forward-facing arc of the player, and close enough that they're possibly visible. Those avatars standing behind you simply won't be seen, even if they are close..
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
When is someone gonna put a stop to all of this bullshit patent crap?
OK, admit it folks. How many of you skimmed this thread to see whether John Carmack posted a reply?
It's not a patent on video games per se; it's a patent on synchronization between peer-to-peer video games. The patent you reference is even flimsier, as its first claim has prior art in the "Game Link" feature of the Nintendo Game Boy handheld console. It is a reissue (aka amendment) of U.S. Patent 5,292,125, filed May 31, 1991. Nintendo has prior art on their behinds.
Will I retire or break 10K?
My grandpa has prior art on this.
What frightens me the most is that today we're starting to see the first patents from the techno-boom era. Over the course of the next few years we'll start to see exactly what kind of stupid things people attempted to patent. God only knows what else...
It would be fitting, though, if someone successfully patented the GUI, or windowing systems, ot the like. I actually think that would be all kinds of funny.
That's the theory. Amazon's 1-Click shows that's not true, as a few others, like the BBC patenting hyperlinks, etc. The grounds for revocation includes prior art, but that's not neccesarily researched as well as it could beforehand. The USPTO is known for, on occasion, granting the same patent twice...
Good thing you didn't use Time-Warner-AOL-Disney-ABC-Miramax-New-Line etc. as an example. =)
You're either trying to mislead people or only bothered to read the 1st claim yourself. Claim 5, "An apparatus for interaction between a plurality of users in a three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space...", in detail, pretty much describes any 3D RPG or shooter client program.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. A plurality of users can interact in the three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user.
That describes ALL 3d multi player games, regardless of type.
The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual world.
Also known as skins.
In order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars, motion information is transmitted to a central server which provides position updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client process. The client process also uses an environment database to determine which background objects to render as well as to limit the movement of the user's avatar.
Uhm, ok. Again, this describes any 3d multiplayer game, even DOOM.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
It was applied for in Nov. '96. I believe the first Quake came out before then (I'll have to check on that, though).
------
Not a typewriter
This company isn't looking to patent chatting...it's staking out it's claim to all future MMORPG's. It's sad that one company can patent something that's so widely used.
I'm going to patent breathing. Pay up.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
It says among other things: "multiple users to interact in a three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual world." They are not going after Quake, they are going after Everquest... (I'd guess)
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Does this mean that they get sued by the Columbine parents? ..
It must have been the interface after all
I just read the patent (rather briefley since my legaliese isn't that good) I dont see that it is so narrow as you imply.
Another thing that comes to my mind is this: Wh would anyone want to patent something if it is so narrow and useless?
Yet Another Curious Catch is this: how can they state that it is possible that their technique might alreade be in use in other places? Isn't that one of the first criterias to be filled to NOT GET THE ACTUAL PATENT?
Question authorities
The game Furcadia also predates the 1996 date of the patent.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. Or a juggernaut.
And it was released well before November.
If that's the case, this might actually be (in a limited fashion) for something useful. One server running more users, in multiple games, so that the clients don't get bogged down.
For some bizarre reason, apparently science fiction isn't treated as prior art.
-Ian.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"for this company to go after as opposed to Quake. To me EverQuest was never much more than a 3D chatroom.
The stupidity of this hurts!
Software to do this has been around a long time - even before the patent application was filed back in 1996.
Since the fact that software already performs this function doesn't invalidate the patenting of the function itself, I think I'll patent the action of hitting something with a hammer (since, of course, hammers and such already exist and I can't patent them).
Any spoon would be too big.
and we all know how because RAH described the waterbed in a book that they could not get a patent for it right? Snow Crash was published in 1992.
Neal Stephenson to the rescue.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
You know it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that something that was novel in 1996 would be obvious to an expert in the field in 2001. (I'm not commenting on the validity of this particular patent.) This means that a patent that is valid at the time of application can be invalid by the time it is approved. Seems like this flaw would be sufficient to destroy the patent system even without clueless patent examiners.
The benefit of the patent is supposed to be monopoly in exchange for publication. But my above intuition seems true even without publication, simply due to the general forward motion and interdependent nature of technology.
actually, didn't they realase Quake's source code a long time ago?
*Shrug*
YMMV
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Who wants to bet that they get visited by a bunch of guys with nail guns?
I mean, this is just a land grab to see what they can get away with. and they must be hoping that everyone is a sheeple.
I want to go break some fingers at the patent office. Someone needs to patent the idea of a word processor and a spread sheet.
This is starting to fall into the category of needing heavy weaponry as an attitude adjustment tool.
[sigh]
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Actually, I got the impression that it was limiting the number of displayed users for a given client that the patent focused on. If I'm in a virtual room with 10,000 avatars, it'll only display the closest ones up to the capabilities of my system. But my limitations wouldn't affect whether or not those other people are actually logged in. In short, it seems to just be avatar-centric visual clipping.
how about, instead of actually posting these articles, we just add a counter to the first page that keeps track of stupid patents.
the reason I sugest this is that I(along with others I'll assume) no longer care to even hear about what some idiot tricked the government into letting him patent.
Later All
Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
I'll say they haven't updated things in a while!!!
One of the worlds they're advertising is Hanson World! Yeech!
US Patent and Trademark office: http://www.uspto.gov/ +1-800-786-7199 (from US and Canada only I believe) The examiners for this patent: Raymond Bayerl, +1-703-305-9789 Cao Nguyen, +1-703-305-3972 Another software specialist I was referred to at USPTO was Tom Black at +1-703-305-9707 USPTO only receives on average about 150 phone calls per day to the 800 number above... if a bunch of us call and make *clear* and *cogent* comments every time one of these ridiculous patents (remember Comptons? Oneclick?) occurs we could turn them around pretty quick I expect. I mentioned several visual muds then in development in a paper I wrote in 1992-1993 called The Future of Text Based Virtual Reality, http://ocean.ic.net/library/hhardy/FutTxVR21.txt
Several people mentioned the MMORPGs that this patent appears to affect most. Meridian 59 went live in 1995 and was published in 1996, well before the patent application, and of course the client/server architecture for avatars goes back at least to Lucasfilm's Habitat (1986?). The only thing that is even remotely new in the patent is having the clients deciding which avatars to display depending on load. How is that not an obvious algorithm? We need to have a reader go and work for the patent office to stop silliness like this.
Just because something is convenient does not make it "right" or "necessary".
Check out what I wrote here -- thread This may be part of the explanation...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Adobe has something VERY similar:t ml
http://www.adobe.com/products/atmosphere/main.h
I can imagine the teams of lawyers from both companies inside a Mortal Kombat arcade game throwing paperwork at each other...FIGHT!
Adobe wins...flawless victory(or fatality).
Seriously, if this patent can be applied to existing art, then why was it granted? Maybe someone out there who IS a lawyer (IANAL :) ) can explain how this happens. This may not apply to games like Quake, but it certainly WOULD apply to games like Everquest, Asheron's Call, et al., where "avatars" meet and play RPGs. If they had such a good idea in 1996, then why are they only attempting to patent it now?
Carthago delenda est!
"Scalable Architecture" is such a non-legal phrase because it is so vague (esp. considering future technologies), that someone should be tugged by the shorthairs until they say "Uncle!" Also the multi-user crap is vague. If you and a friend take turns on the original Wolfenstein 3D, it is multi-user, literally.
Prior art, prior art, prior art! General use, general use, general use! Now I just need a bell, book, and candle to complete the patent revokation!
----------------------
While they sound the same, it's a little like confusing AT&T with NBC.
I guess this can be shot down pretty simply under prior art even without video games as examples.
Anyone ever read the book Headcrash by Bruce Bethke? It describes the patent exactly and it was published in September of 1995. It won the Philip K. Dick award for Sci-Fi in 1995.
Viv
-----------
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
In 1996 a company called Oz Interactive had already published software (Oz Virtual) that does exactly what is described in the patent. I'm not sure but does'nt this invaildate the patent?
Sindri Traustason
"It takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen"
Sindri Traustason.
But still it's quite sick that such a relatively trivial method/technology can be patented.
Actually it's pathetic!
And it gives "World.com" a legal reason to leech money off from other companies.
I believe it was released to the general public prior to the patent file date. If it wasn't, qtest1a certainly was, in all of its 3-level glory
Either we have (a) prior art or (b) Quake isn't in the scope of the patent, I should think.
Then again, that's what I get for thinking.
[It has been reported that ZeroClick partner Martha's Dildo Vineyard has been responsible for several domestic disturbances due to unexpected adult-oriented deliveries. We at ZeroClick sincerely apologize for that.]
I know that /. is very anti-patent these days. But I swear we only patented ZeroClick technology to keep someone else from patenting it. Can you imagine what someone else might do with this incredible technology?
Sure, we've entered into licensing agreement with several e-mail marketing firms. [Just be careful- clicking "delete message" may actually obligate you to buy something].
To find out more about ZeroClick and our very affordable license plan, click HERE.
Slashdot should open up "patent traq". Dedicated to following what patents are make, when and how insanely stupid they are. Now to annoy my cat with a laser... doh!! That's been patented.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Don't panic, folks. Read the actual patent first. It is pretty narrow in scope.
It would take quite a stretch to make this affect Quake/Duke Nukem/et al.
Nothing to worry about. Back to fragging.
The real DunkPonch is user 215121. Everyone else is Bruce Perens.
....wherein the step of limiting is a step of determining which avatars are closest in the graphical space to the local avatar.
The patent uses the word "avatar" over 30 times to describe a person's representation in a 3-D environment. Funny, Stephenson called them that in SnowCrash. Wait, he basically described the thing being patented. Oops.
I have to say that many people on /. are quick to jump on the anti-patent bagwagon. What you have to realize is that it's necessary in the business world. Often patents are used just to solidify positions when attempting financing, etc. Unfortunately this is something that investors like to see, and rightfully so (if you were to invest your money in a company, wouldn't you like to know that they were looking out for the livelihood of the company).
While I don't condone vague patents, people do it for a reason, and as long as they don't start suing people for infringment, I don't see a problem.
PS. I do realize the purpose of a patent gives the right to exclude, not the right to use, which makes the purpose of obtaining a patent for show pointless, but on the other hand, a patent looks good on paper to business people.
*shrug*
IANAL
But, unless you are a very large corporation I would not lose sleep over this patent. The large corps. with deep pockets are likely targets for suits over this "patent."
StoneWolf
IANAL and the law was changed not long ago.
StoneWolf
AC comments get piped to
I believe activeworlds.com has been around for quite a few years. Anyone familiar with this? Seems to be quite a bit better then worlds.com also.
How about a class action lawsuit against the Patent Office for failing to protect the public interest in being too lax in approving patents?
They have unduly burdened the court system and puts ideas in the hands of who can afford the biggest lawyers, hence failing the goal of the patent system in protecting the someone with a good idea.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
I dunno exactly, but isnt that roughly what most games call "Fog" or "View Distance" or something of the sort?
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
IF they were awarded this patent, I must owe them royalties, as I have been using it for about 3 years now. Its called community server made by http://www.blaxxun.com>Blaxxun, geometrik multi-usr vr, or even the CAVE [cave automatic virtual environment] projects i have been involved in allowing multi-user distance learning over cave vr networks, using Open/caveGL. I would be surprised that blaxxun.com would not have a similar patent on this, or the other muvr companies, as there features include multi-user vrml spaces, databases, position updates using udp, etc. Its always a shame to see a small company try to gain market share not by improving there cheesy product,business model or offering but by gaining a cheesy patent and then hold the others accountable for infringement. I think ill send the patent to bountyquest, pretty sure it would be knocked down..
copyright 1986. It describes an entire amusement park based on computer generated holograms guided by game masters(servers) to players(clients). Darned good book in addition to being 10 years worth of prior art to this thing.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Yes, these two guys claim to have invented peer-to-peer network synchronization.
Truly, if one takes the time to think about it, if they're taking Quake's engine's or a similarity to it, don't they owe Quake then? I mean, you just can't go around and take things, modify them a little bit, and slap your name on it, (look at microsoft, they flaunted this and look what happened to them), and copyright it, (im sure Quake engine's isnt a open source project) Whats going on with Quake then?
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
It must be at least 25 years old but I am pretty sure it represents prior art for the patent.
The patent is probably invalid in any case on account of vagueness. 3D multiplayer games have been arround for many years. The ability to render complex scenes in 3D from unconstrained viewpoints is new but that has nothing to do with the scope of the invention claimed.
The technique of dropping items from a display to reduce processing costs has been used in 3D for at least 30 years.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Client-side clipping seems almost useless to me. You've still got the server sending position updates for all those hundreds of avatars.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> So are all the car manufacturers pay Mr. Car
> for the use of his initial concept?
They actually just talked about this on TV.
Some guy actually had a patent on some simple kind of buckboard-with-a-motor. He had most auto makers signed up with him, but not Henry Ford.
Ford eventually showed his cars (and all cars by that point in time) were significantly advanced over what the patent described, so it didn't apply to them.
We're now at the point in the net/computer industry where people are saying, wait! I get the patent on a buckboard-with-motor-AND-HORN. No, wait! I get a patent on a buckboard-with-motor-AND-SPARE-TIRE-ONBOARD. No, wait! I get a patent on a buckboard-with-motor-AND-ROOF.
It's just silly.
Whatever happened to that claimed patent of rerendering 3D scenes rapidly such that an appearance of motion is achieved, aka a 3D game engine?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> To me EverQuest was never much more than a 3D chatroom.
Awww, you mean it wasn't fun playing a 10-foot tall, 4000-lb ogre with a giant sword pulled sideways out the ass of a dragon, chopping at an orc, whiffing most of the time, and when he did hit, hit as if he was using a wiffle bat? As if a wiffle bat swing by a baby?
How would a game like that NOT be fun?!?!?!?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Should sue them.
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
Every time I read one of these stories, it makes me sick.
My name isn't really Jenny....
Washington, DC -
Today, one Mr. John Faulkner has made himself quite possibly the richest man on Earth. How? He patented the sun.
As we all know, the sun is probably directly responsible for our very own existence, and therefore every single dollar made, earned, saved, spent and wasted can be attributed, in part, to the sun.
The U.S. Patent Office released official documents entailing the reasoning for such a radical move today. "John," says one section of the legal paper, "cited the Bible in proving his direct blood relation to Adam, as well as the fact that Adam and his spouse were forged directly from the hand of God. Furthermore, he stated that God 'had intended man to use the sun as a way of survival', and through laws governing the ownership of property due to usage, regardless of previous ownership (e.g. If you grow plants on your neighbor's lawn for 10 years with permission, you can legally state that property as yours), proved that Adam was indeed the owner of the sun, and that he, as the only descendant to make a claim, should be given full and impartial ownership of the sun.
"It's absurd," said Richard Edwards, "that Mr. Faulkner has gotten away with this." At that point, a squad of Faulkner Lighting trucks drove up and took away everything belonging to Mr. Edwards.
"Too long," said Faulkner, "have we Faulkners been cheated over what is rightfully ours. No longer will we be subject to the Earth's freeloading." When asked what he would do with the money, he said he would start a college named after himself. Unfortunately, at the mention of "Faulk U.", most of the people present began to laugh, and may never be seen again.
Midori, Fox of Three Tails
"MY WORLD IS A CROTCH!!!" -Sluggy Freelance, www.sluggy.com
I just checked this worlds.com out and remember using this technology back in 1995 or 1996, when it was owned by some startup in San Francisco. Back then it was interesting and different but in running the client program again just now I see that basically NOTHING has changed. Where "$35 million" in reseach and development has gone I have no idea- probably up the CEO's nose, and those of his whores. Verant spend about $10 million to develop Everquest and that product is light-years beyond Worlds.com.
This patent, though being totally bogus to begin with, is the only thing the company has of value, as they can use it to try to extract cash out of real 3D/VR technology companies like Id Software and Verant.
The problem of clipping avatars from FOV in server-client worlds is LONG documented in academic and military reseach, not to mention numerous home-grown MUD type worlds.
One should take a look at the video clips of interviews with Worlds.com's CEO on CNBC and CNN, from 1999. It's a perfect example of the DOT-COM/Venture capital mania- totally bogus business models where CEOs basically schill to pump up their stocks value. Their stock is worth 9 cents today. NINE CENTS!
Don't you all see.....
This is the profit structure for the NEW new economy!
patent Ideas that have been around since the OLD new economy and charge those companies for using the Idea!
break out those IPOs!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I think we can all agree that some patents are just too broad to deserve being issued. However, I do believe that patents have there place in a free economy. It's overreaching patents that are the problem.
Are lawsuits showing prior art the only way or would giving the patent office the ability to review a patent application after issuance work? I suppose I would have to read up on the current patent process to know whether this is already the case. Something we should all do before trying to expound on how to fix it.
Still the patent office seems to be skating close to the line of allowing me to patent creativity and thought process. The patent issued here would preclude me from creating any kind of multi-user graphical environment that uses clients communicating with a central server, even if I wrote all the code and produced all the graphics from scratch. Patents were not meant to stifle invention they were meant to encourage it.
I think Everquest pretty much covers this patent. As does Asheron's Call, Ultima Online, etc.
Wasn't there another patent case like this on Slashdot only days ago? And now this?
What's next? "Microsoft patents buggy code." I'd be breaking the law trying to get computer science projects finished.
Perhaps we simply need to attempt to patent the action of patenting very common and frequently used objects/protocols/etc. The law has yet to catch up to the Internet, which is why so many tecchies are floundering. How sad. Well, I'm off to Law School!
Perhaps I'll patent the process by which long existing processes are retroactively patented. Then I can put an end to the insanity. http://www.dtman.com
I think most of the work was done by 1992, but it's a long time since I read the paper... there are heaps of documents about the project, but you have to dig a bit.
Or most other games, for that matter. Claim 5 indicates that the geography("list of rooms") is to be kept on the server, and used real time to update client displays. In Quake-ly games, the client system is responsible for maintaining the geography, not the server. And as far as I know, even with MMRPGs such as Everquest this data is maintained by the client, again not the server(If anyone wishes to correct me on that last, feel free).
Section 2 of part b of claim 5 clearly indicates that the "plurality of room objects"(ie the "map") resides on the server, whereas in Quake it most definately resides on the client system.
Of course this patent had prior art, there were lots of places that did some of this work before Worlds.com. Worlds Chat was innovative in that we did this on standard-issue PC's, over standard dial-up lines, over the internet, which for the time - 95, was totally innovative. There were a number of very other cool things in the product that might or might not have been done before, like some of the culling we did to improve performance. But ..... although I'm listed as an author, I informed Worlds on the one occasion before yesterday that I saw the patent (for a total of 15 mins) that I believed there were claims in there that were not invented by us. I was also informed by one of the other authors that they signed because they believed the other claims had been invented by me.
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn=US06219045__&s _all=1
As I understand patent law, you must file a patent application within one year after you sell, offer for sale, or commercially or publicly use or describe your invention. If you fail to file within one year, the law bars you from obtaining a valid patent on the invention. The invention is no longer considered novel.
Worlds Inc. filed this patent application on Nov 12, 1996. According to Worlds Inc. own press release, they publicly used and described their "invention" at the Digital World Conference on Jun 5, 1995...
http://www.worlds.net/news/PressReleases/pro02.htm l
Since Worlds Inc. didn't apply for a patent on their publicly used invention for at least another 17 months, their "invention" became prior art to itself. It was no longer novel.
While I worked for Worlds Inc., I authored a product called AlphaWorld (now ActiveWorlds). AlphaWorld limited the number of visible avatars in a space using a similar strategy as this patent. If AlphaWorld infringes on this patent, then AlphaWorld itself is also prior art! AlphaWorld was also publicly used at the 1995 Digital World Conference and later fully released to the public in Aug 1995.
Ron Britvich
AskEarth.com
Read the end of Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash". In there he describes software that predates Worlds.com patent claims. I don't have the novel in front of me, so I can't quote it verbatim. Any reasonably skilled lawyer would have no problem getting this one overturned. I actually e-mailed Worlds.com a few years ago when they were touting this...So they can't claim not to know about prior art existing either...
Prior art? here's some.
Commercial in 1987.
3D environment with database controlled environment objects.
Culled avatars (only displayed 12, which were selectable on the client)
Multiple chat channels
Not heaving read the patent itself, I think AW more than covers all the points of the patent that have been discussed, and did it almost a decade previous in a commercial form.
As well there is Multiplayer battletech, which I believe was open beta in '94, and probably even the old games on the INN network, like MP Red Baron etc.
Warbirds, open beta 1995, closed beta late 1994.
VR-1 Fighter ace, beta in 1994 I believe, could have been sooner.
The folks at sony are more than aware of these prior art examples, I think Worlds Inc. is about to get schooled in their own industry.
Here's a couple of prior art takes. Air Warrior from Kesmai Commercial in 1987. MMP 3D game Limited what avatars are displayed through server and client, allowed client to modify or prioritize which were displayed. Warbirds, 1994, Displays up to 32 of hundreds of avatars in a virtual world, server based avatar culling. There are others as well. I still haven't seen anything discussed about this patent that wasn't commercially published proir to 1994, with possible exception of the client specifically configuring the exact number of avatars to display, and I would bet that's out there too.