Activision Blizzard Sued For Patent Infringement Over WoW, CoD

Let me guess by crazyjj · 2012-04-13 09:41 · Score: 0, Troll

They filed in Texas.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Let me guess by Necroman · 2012-04-13 09:45 · Score: 2

Nope, not in Eastern District of Texas. According to this article:

Worlds Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Activision Publishing, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 30, 2012.

--
Its not what it is, its something else.
Re:Let me guess by poetmatt · 2012-04-13 10:15 · Score: 1

isn't that another court that is very friendly to plaintiffs in patent lawsuits as well?
Re:Let me guess by Anubis+IV · 2012-04-13 10:47 · Score: 1

I don't believe so. Delaware and Florida Middle are the two district courts that have higher patent troll success rates than East Texas.

Sounds familiar by Gideon+Wells · 2012-04-13 09:43 · Score: 1

Sounds familiar... is this a repost or did they sue other companies already? If the latter, what happened to those cases?

--
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?

Re:Sounds familiar by Dutch+Gun · 2012-04-18 06:59 · Score: 1

Sounds familiar... is this a repost or did they sue other companies already? If the latter, what happened to those cases?
They already went after NCSoft, and it appeared the result of that was a settlement / dismissal of the case. The settlement is confidential, so we'll never really know what the real result was. Activision is one of my least-favorite companies, but I hope they tear Worlds.com a new one.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/04/27/worlds-com-vs-ncsoft-lawsuit-settled/

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.

First sentence of the first article by Roobles · 2012-04-13 09:43 · Score: 5, Informative

"Worlds Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Activision Publishing, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 30, 2012."

Re:First sentence of the first article by Fned · 2012-04-13 09:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Wow.
They REALLY don't know what they're doing.
Re:First sentence of the first article by ericloewe · 2012-04-13 09:58 · Score: 2

Beginner's mistake. All trolls must file in the Eastern District of Texas.
Re:First sentence of the first article by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:25 · Score: 0

This is the first time I hope I get called for jury duty
Re:First sentence of the first article by Grond · 2012-04-13 10:31 · Score: 4, Informative

The law regarding venue has shifted in the past few years and it is now much harder to stay in the Eastern District of Texas, especially if both the plaintiff and defendant have only a nominal presence there (e.g. their products are sold there via the internet or they have a couple of retail outlets). In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008); also see In re TS Tech. USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Anyway, the Eastern District of Texas's reputation as a pro-patentee district is a little undeserved. The statistics on that aren't super strong. For example, here are the patentee win rates among various popular districts, taken from Andrei Iancu and Jay Chung, Real Reasons the Eastern District of Texas Draws Patent Cases—Beyond Lore and Anecdote, 14 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 299 (2011).
District Jury Trial Win Rate
E.D. Virginia 79%
M.D. Florida 77%
N.D. Illinois 74%
E.D. Texas 73%
C.D. California 73%
W.D. Wisconsin 71%
N.D. California 66%
D. Minnesota 65%
D. New Jersey 64%
D.Delaware 61%
S.D. New York 53%
(NB: That's the jury trial win rate; less than 3% of patent cases end with a jury verdict, so don't think these stats show that patentees win patent cases left and right.)
As you can see, the Eastern District of Texas is only a little above the average there. Its affirmance rate at the Federal Circuit is similarly middle-of-the-pack, and it's also not the fastest district by a long shot, with an average time to jury verdict of almost 29 months, compared to Eastern Virginia and Western Wisconsin with 12 and 13 month pendencies, respectively.
Re:First sentence of the first article by Anubis+IV · 2012-04-13 10:51 · Score: 1

Definitely agree. I wrote something awhile back in response to someone else making a snarky comment about East Texas courts being patent troll friendly. Your numbers are more recent than mine, since mine were for 1995-2009, but mine also included data on summary judgments, which accounted for a decent number of case outcomes.
Long story short, it deserved the reputation of being a patent troll haven at one point (for about a year in the mid-2000s), but not any longer.
Re:First sentence of the first article by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:12 · Score: 0

You realize you're saying that E.D. Tex. is "only a little above the average there" for courts that are generally considered patent plaintiff-friendly, right?
Re:First sentence of the first article by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:59 · Score: 0

Your stats don't include the settlements for ED Texas. Show us that. When you are losing badly, one often settles rather than get a jury outcome.
Re:First sentence of the first article by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 13:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

FWIW, the judge that made East Texas famous for it's patent rocket docket has retired (about 6 months ago). So not only is it not the patent-friendly court it used to be, but that particular judge no longer serves as well.
Re:First sentence of the first article by jhoegl · 2012-04-13 13:24 · Score: 1

Actually, I think "Worlds, Inc" may have a valid complaint here. If I remember right, Alpha World became Active Worlds.
The previous owner of Alpha Worlds split off or something... There was some sort of drama, which created, I believe, Worlds inc.
For those of you who dont know, Alpha World was essentially a "Second Life" type adventure, where you can claim land a build your own house. Although it was mostly prefab type items, it did evolve to allow some modifications and customizations.
I was known on there as "theone" (this was before Matrix).
Re:First sentence of the first article by Darinbob · 2012-04-13 14:34 · Score: 1

Noobs...
Re:First sentence of the first article by SadButTrue · 2012-04-13 14:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Horrible statistical assumptions here. To compare success rates only, is to assume that the quality of the complaints in all districts had the same distribution. For the sake of argument lets say that 100% of the frivolous cases were filed in E. Texas and 0% in S. NY. You can plainly see that success rate alone would tell you nothing. I understand that this is not the case, the numbers are simply meant to illustrate the assumption being made.
In real terms there is reason to believe that there is indeed a skew in the validity of the cases brought however. How much? I have no idea. Perhaps a better statistic would be the number or trials verdicts that have been overturned?

--
grape - the GNU free, open source rape
Re:First sentence of the first article by hvm2hvm · 2012-04-13 19:15 · Score: 1

Well too bad they filed the patent in 2009 then...

--
ics
Re:First sentence of the first article by hvm2hvm · 2012-04-13 19:18 · Score: 1

Never mind... I see they also filed (and got approved) other similar patents going back to 1996.

--
ics
Re:First sentence of the first article by Teancum · 2012-04-13 19:28 · Score: 2

What happened was that the "modding" community around the original Alpha World ended up becoming more successful from a financial standpoint than the game/world itself. One of the companies that was producing content and providing stuff for players ended up buying out the company producing the main engine software, including all of the "intellectual property". Essentially the original development team really didn't know how to turn a profit out of the virtual world in spite of some pretty ambitious business goals.
That said, I think after the buy-out, the "new management team" has done a pretty good job of managing the resources of the game and the move to "Active Worlds" was a pretty good move given everything that happened earlier including putting the finances of the whole enterprise on a sound financial standing. While they have stayed a niche player and Active Worlds certainly never became something like World of Warcraft, they have had a very steady presence on the internet for a couple of decades now.
I spent perhaps far too much time in Alpha World myself and created not just a nice little McMansion, but I also ended up building a major subdivision in terms of laying out a huge grid network of roads and even started a "subway" system (actually an "elevated train" network) with several "stations". I loved the roller coasters but never got around to building one myself. Boy does this bring back memories.
I remember the original "Alpha Station" that even predated the Alpha World itself, and they've done some amazing things over the years. While there might be some prior art, these guys were some of the very early pioneers of avatars and were some of the very first people who tried to implement VRML in a meaningful way. Keep in mind this was back in the days that NCSA Mosiac was still the dominant web browser on the internet. In fact I think I downloaded the original Alpha Station with Mosaic, or perhaps that was a Gopher client based upon a post I saw on USENET (before spam became a problem there as well). This goes way back in what is now called the early history of the internet.
In terms of prior art, I would say that they are the prior art. The only question I have is if that prior art happened long enough ago for patent protection to even apply. At the time when the original software developers were making Alpha Station, they acknowledged the inspiration for their software from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. It was so much of an inspiration that the Black Sun lounge was even built by some of the developers once Alpha World came out. So does Neal Stephenson get a cut of the profits from the lawsuit if they win?
Re:First sentence of the first article by ericloewe · 2012-04-13 22:05 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter if they have a valid complaint. They deliberately waited for the business to grow before going to court.
If they wanted to sue, they should've done it a decade ago.
Re:First sentence of the first article by julesh · 2012-04-13 22:58 · Score: 2

Doesn't matter. The technique described in the claims (essentially, a server that works out which other users a user's avatar is able to see and only sends position updates for those, with various variations - all of which are obvious - involving how the necessary information is to be stored in a database) is so fundamental, I find it highly unlikely that there was no prior art older than even that. The defendants should be looking at, for example, CitySpace, a networked virtual world system that was demonstrated in 1993. Failing that, any number of examples of similar behaviour in different fields could be used as a basis for an argument of obviousness.
Re:First sentence of the first article by mysidia · 2012-04-14 01:23 · Score: 1

Clearly Massachusetts is the new Eastern Texas; The folks in Texas must have begun to suspect that something strange is going on.
Re:First sentence of the first article by mysidia · 2012-04-14 01:29 · Score: 1

(essentially, a server that works out which other users a user's avatar is able to see and only sends position updates for those, with various variations - all of which are obvious - involving how the necessary information is to be stored in a database) is so fundamental
Text-based MUDs do that, and have been around since the 80s. The algorithm implementation required to determine who sees who and what motion updates are sent is much simpler, but the principal of sending updates to a server, and the server determining which player can see what, is identical.
Re:First sentence of the first article by meerling · 2012-04-14 03:04 · Score: 1

Actually that patent describes rather well the technology of multiperson VR that was being played around with in various company and university experiments way back in the 1980s. Basically they are describing something that was already a basic feature of the entire field. Their patent is bullshit, since everyone in the VR field had already thought of it. It isn't novel, unique, nor something that someone in the field wouldn't normally think of since it is in fact one of the underlying principles of the entire field and has been since inception and even back when it was science fiction.

There are way to many ignorant or corrupt patent examiners since this kind of obviousness junk keeps getting approved.
Next thing you know, they'll patent swinging sideways on a swing. Oh wait, that already happened.
Re:First sentence of the first article by Zordak · 2012-04-14 03:50 · Score: 1

Do text-based MUDs also have 3-D avatars? From the actual claims (the part of the patent that matters):

A method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space, each user of the first user and the other users being associated with a three dimensional avatar representing said each user in the virtual space, the method comprising the steps of: customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in response to input by the first user; receiving, by the client device, position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device; determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display; and displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display.
You can't just say, "Oh, we've had this stuff since the 80s" to inavlidate a patent claim. You have to find each and every element of the claim. And you need to find it before November 13, 1994, which is the bar date for this application. Now look at the insanely-large list of references the examiner considered. He/she tried and failed to find the prior art that kills this patent. Maybe it's out there, but it's not going to be your trivial recollections of what people were generally doing in the 80s.

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.

1970s by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 09:44 · Score: 0

Sorry was playing 0avatar, 0moriah, and other such games on PLATO in the 1970s. Hardly a deviation from the description of their invention.

Re:1970s by realityimpaired · 2012-04-13 10:53 · Score: 2

Here's the thing... here I was hoping to shoot it down with prior art, mentioning stuff like DikuMUD, and such.... then I checked the patent and realized that it was filed in 2009.
WoW had already been on the market for several years by that point....

How did they get a patent... by Zakabog · 2012-04-13 09:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

How did they even get a patent for this? They basically described every multiplayer video game for the past 20 years.

Re:How did they get a patent... by DanielRavenNest · 2012-04-13 09:58 · Score: 1, Informative

Reading the patent, which was granted in 2009, it seems no different than what Second Life did in 2002, so at least that much is prior art. I have not used other virtual worlds, so not sure if there are even earlier 3D virtual worlds as prior art. The patent makes no mention of Second Life that I can find, which given it's popularity as a virtual world, is a glaring omission. World of Warcraft was released in 2004, and also predates the patent.
Re:How did they get a patent... by Hentes · 2012-04-13 10:00 · Score: 1

After reading the patent it seems like they got it for a specific implementation, which they believe is similar to the one WOW uses.
Re:How did they get a patent... by Sycraft-fu · 2012-04-13 10:04 · Score: 0

Which would be news maybe, if WoW didn't predate the patent by 5 years.
Re:How did they get a patent... by medv4380 · 2012-04-13 10:08 · Score: 1

They bought it from someone. If memory serves me it was sold by some charity. This patent has been around for a while. Worlds.com should be dead by now but they seam to have the life expectancy of SCO
Re:How did they get a patent... by runeghost · 2012-04-13 10:09 · Score: 1

To the best of my knowledge, the US Patent Office doesn't actually check for prior art. They just take your money, make sure all the 'i's are dotted and 't's are crossed on your application form, and then issue the patent. Resolving things like prior art, or if what you're patenting is even patentable, is left as an exercise for lawyers.
Re:How did they get a patent... by Faluzeer · 2012-04-13 10:21 · Score: 2

Hmmm
If you read the patent, you will see it refers to earlier patent applications on a related theme from them. The earliest patent application goes back to November 1995, hence it is prior art from before that date that needs to be taken into consideration.
Re:How did they get a patent... by Dahamma · 2012-04-13 10:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's what I thought at first - but the submitter linked to the wrong patent(s). They have several dating all the way back to the mid 90's that at least predate any commercial 3D MMORPGs.
Not saying they aren't stupid patents, but at the least they were not in fact stupid enough to try to sue their prior art...
Re:How did they get a patent... by suutar · 2012-04-13 10:41 · Score: 2

Looking at the first few claims, it looks like they basically took the concept and then started shaving off little bits to keep it from _quite_ matching anything they knew about. Basically an attempt to patent "this thing everybody's doing but only the pieces that nobody's done yet". Unless there's some interesting stuff in the later claims, I'd seriously question it on obviousness.
Re:How did they get a patent... by realityimpaired · 2012-04-13 10:56 · Score: 1

You mean like DikuMUD?
Re:How did they get a patent... by jd · 2012-04-13 11:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Everything but the 3D aspect was done in AberMUD (which used a 2D graphical interface in a dedicated client). Basic GUI-driven avatar-based multi-player interactions via specialized clients can be traced back to XTrek at least (XTank didn't use clients per-se, since the server transmitted X protocol commands to the client display), since avatars could directly interact and players could chat via a console.
In terms of 3D interactions, Second Life was hardly the first. Alpha World was earlier and even that was derived from earlier attempts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Worlds
Aha! Yes, Worlds Inc was responsible for Alpha World. That makes sense, and certainly Alpha World has a legitimate claim to being the direct ancestor of WoW, etc, and the platform that developed all of the technology used by Second Life, ad nausium. It's a push for them to claim the sole rights to MMORG Virtual Realities, though.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:How did they get a patent... by CaptainLugnuts · 2012-04-13 11:17 · Score: 2

I'll raise you a decade. Midi Maze for the Atari ST in 1987. 3D Networked multi-player game using MIDI for data communiations.
Re:How did they get a patent... by MoFoQ · 2012-04-13 12:40 · Score: 1

Not to mention, WoW and CoD were released long before that patent "Worlds" was filed.
CoD (1st one) was 2003
CoD4:MW was 2007
MW2 was 2009
etc
WoW was 2004
And yes, there have been expansion-packs and such since then.
not a fan of activision/blizzard but I hope they win (and set some form of precedent) or something that leads to a decrease in patent-troll-ism
Re:How did they get a patent... by deblau · 2012-04-13 13:41 · Score: 2

Because they filed the original application 16.5 years ago, when there wasn't so much prior art.

This application is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/353,218 filed Jan. 13, 2009, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,945,856; which is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/591,878, filed Nov. 2, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,493,558; which is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/632,154, filed Aug. 3, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,181,690; which is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/747,420, filed Nov. 12, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,045; which claims priority from U.S. Provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/020,296, filed Nov. 13, 1995. The disclosures of all of the foregoing patent documents are incorporated herein by reference.

--
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Re:How did they get a patent... by Kalriath · 2012-04-13 14:10 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, 1995 was considerably before every single one of those dates.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:How did they get a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 17:03 · Score: 0

Worlds was just a glorified irc client. It brought together 2 already in use technologies, 3d and irc and thats all it did, oh and you could teleport.
Heck by this standard, doom is far superior prior art and being a game that excelled in many ground breaking areas, worlds seems like a real step backwards.
Re:How did they get a patent... by rtb61 · 2012-04-13 20:00 · Score: 1

Ohh, look someone has patented that piece of crap movie Lawnmowerman 2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116839/ released in 22 August 1996 in Australia now including production time, that puts it well before that date. Now that is just one blatant example.
1) Watch a crap movie
2) Describe what's going on in patent language.
3) Bullshit Uncle Tom patent law revision, fuck prior art, if it ain't patented patent it and fight it out in court.
4)???????
5) Profit.
One can only imagine all the stuff that is currently being done that wasn't patented and that will. One of the more popular ones, is to go through every imaginable variant of relational databases, re-describe the database in patent language and if some troll already hasn't patented it, patent it.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:How did they get a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 21:38 · Score: 0

And of course, this sort of virtual reality was described by William Gibson in Neuromancer back in 1984. He's the one who came up with the term cyberspace.
Hell, the Neuromancer video game simulated this, and it was released in 1988!
Re:How did they get a patent... by thejynxed · 2012-04-13 22:06 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_(MMORPG)
1991-1997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cityspace
1993-1996
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_(video_game)
One form or another from 1986 until at least 2011 under different companies ranging from Lucasfilm to Fujitsu, etc. to the current owner of the patents and technology, Stratagem Corporation.
Unless Worlds, Inc. is a renamed Stratagem Corporation, they have some explaining to do with their patents. Even Microsoft and Time Warner had stuff going on back then, and may still even hold patents on some of this material.

--
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Re:How did they get a patent... by Chris+Mattern · 2012-04-14 00:37 · Score: 1

16.5 years ago, when there wasn't so much prior art.
But still enough that the court should kick them out so hard they'll be wearing the bootmark for years: Neverwinter Nights came out in 1991. Several other MMORPGs based on proprietary online services came out before the original application as well.
Re:How did they get a patent... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 09:06 · Score: 0

4) Sue the living fuck out of everyone who even thought about anything that comes near your BS patent
Re:How did they get a patent... by DarthVain · 2012-04-16 03:16 · Score: 1

Problem is, this describes pretty much any 3D multiplayer computer game in which the game is hosted by a central server.
While this would discount early games like Doom2 and Duke3D (as they were hosted by one of the clients), it would not discount all of those that enabled dedicated servers for clients to connect to and "interact" with each other in a virtual 3d world, etc... You know games like CS for example. Though looking up that example on wiki gives a release date of June 19, 1999, which is too late, though I am sure there are other less popular, earlier, examples of these types of games.

Filed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 09:44 · Score: 0, Informative

Filed: March 19, 2009

Re:Filed by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:28 · Score: 1

Please see geekoid's comment as to why the 2009 filing date isn't the date against which prior art is compared.
Re:Filed by dlingman · 2012-04-13 11:50 · Score: 1

Well, it does actually date back to 1995. This application is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/353,218 filed Jan. 13, 2009, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,945,856; which is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/591,878, filed Nov. 2, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,493,558; which is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/632,154, filed Aug. 3, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,181,690; which is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/747,420, filed Nov. 12, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,045; which claims priority from U.S. Provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/020,296, filed Nov. 13, 1995. The disclosures of all of the foregoing patent documents are incorporated herein by reference

They still exist but in Ghost Form by Shikaku · 2012-04-13 09:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://www.worlds.com/

It's mostly empty now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqel0k0NzNU has a short walk around of something before Second Life came around, and that still runs well on 56k.

Re:They still exist but in Ghost Form by Anarchduke · 2012-04-14 11:40 · Score: 1

interesting, they have a dedicated Patent page
http://www.worlds.com/patentinformation.html

Their page shows a first patent on:
April 17, 2001
http://www.worlds.com/text/PatentNo1_6219045.pdf

--
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain

technically 4d by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 09:44 · Score: 0

Modern graphics cards all use 4*4 matrix multiplication. This patents only focuses on 3d. That math is a lot harder.

Prior Art by Nos9 · 2012-04-13 09:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

There is this obscure game called Everquest that does all of the described elements of the patents. Everquest released March 16th, 1999. The aforementioned patent was filed March 19th, 1999.

Re:Prior Art by Rhywden · 2012-04-13 09:49 · Score: 1

Meridian 59 came even earlier in 1996.
Re:Prior Art by Megor1 · 2012-04-13 09:52 · Score: 0

The patent was filed in March 19, 2009, WOW itself is prior ART...so is COD.... I DONT WANT TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE

--
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
Re:Prior Art by iamhassi · 2012-04-13 10:03 · Score: 0

The patent was filed in March 19, 2009, WOW itself is prior ART...so is COD.... I DONT WANT TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE
I saw that....
Assignee: Worlds.com, Inc. (Brookline, MA)
Appl. No.: 12/406,968
Filed: March 19, 2009
.....
What? They filed in 2009? ..... maybe I don't understand how patents work, doesn't it go by first to file? Everything is prior art then.

Ok nevermind, I read the patent and they're legit, from back in 1994

I think Blizzard is going to owe them some money.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:12 · Score: 1

Actually the Patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on Nov. 13, 1995. Therefore your Everquest example is NOT prior art. A patent may claim priority to another application. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:15 · Score: 0

And while we're at it - in judging patentability AND assessing prior art, you have to look at the claims - not just what some idiot says the patent is about.
1. A method for enabling a first user to interact with other users in a virtual space, each user of the first user and the other users being associated with a three dimensional avatar representing said each user in the virtual space, the method comprising the steps of:
customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in response to input by the first user;
receiving, by the client device, position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device;
determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display; and
displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display.
The title and abstract are MEANINGLESS. THE NAME OF THE GAME IS THE CLAIM(s).
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:19 · Score: 0

Yeah. I can't wait for 0x10c either.
Re:Prior Art by Fishbulb · 2012-04-13 10:27 · Score: 2

Forget that, there's this obscure game called netrek that beats Everquest by about ten years. And if you're going to talk about multiple users in 'virtual space', that's pretty much all netrek is.
Scratch that, beats it by 11 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netrek
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:33 · Score: 1

Netrek?
Island of Kesmai was on Compuserve in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Kesmai
Fully functional, multiplayer online game. It was the major influence on all to come. It was a great game as well, I was a member of a guild on IOK that STILL exists, on WoW. Not that I play WoW. But the guild is still there, the oldest online gaming guild ever. The Sun Clan of Warriors.
Anywho, I think that counts as prior art.
Re:Prior Art by Gr8Apes · 2012-04-13 10:33 · Score: 1

OK, as I understand the patent system, you only have 1 year from the time of an invention to file, or you're done. This was enacted to stop submarine patents, as I understood it. The second thing is, we coded MUD's and were discussing the approach to handle graphical worlds in 92 or 93, and IIRC, there was a movement afoot to create a graphical muds around then as well. USENET would be your reference there. Habitat was the first recorded one launched in 86. M59 was launched in Dec 1995, I'm guessing the development cycle pre-dated the patents, and the 95 patent seems to state the basic same claims, upon a skim.
Seems like the core of the patent claims have copious prior art, and differs only by adding in the term "3D Graphical Avatar". Guess the "on the internet" was merely a copy-cat tactic.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:34 · Score: 1

Doom was released in 1993. (CoD being a FPS game you get to use those too)
Multiplayer? 2-4 player networked coop mode and deathmatch available. Check!
3D Virtual world/setting? Check!
Central server passing out positional data? I think so. If not, Quake released 2 years or so later had it as an obvious extension of networked gaming.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:36 · Score: 1

How does this get modded so high? The patent is part of an unbroken chain dating back to a provisional in 1995. Further, it was filed in 2009, not 1999. To beat this patent, you need prior art from pre-1995.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:36 · Score: 0

The patent was filed on March 19, 2009, but it claims priority all the way back to 1995. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
The name of the game in patents is the claims. So as long as each and every element of the claim finds support in the priority document (e.g., the 1995 application), patentability is judged as of 1995.
Therefore, WOW is not prior art unless it was released prior to 1995.
Also, in judging patentability, you need to assess that with respect to the claims. The claims define the legal rights of the patent.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:44 · Score: 0

I should also add, that this also (generally) means that the patent expires in 2016 - 20 years from the earliest priority date claimed (one minor patent technicality - the 1995 provisional application is not counted against patent term - so the earliest priority from the perspective of patent term is the 1996 application date.)
Re:Prior Art by jd · 2012-04-13 11:04 · Score: 1

AberMUD is from around the same time, but both are just extensions of Essex MUD which is from 1980 according to the source code.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Prior Art by holmedog · 2012-04-13 11:10 · Score: 1

Though I sadly missed the game, Neverwinter likely predates the hell out of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights_(MMORPG) 91-97.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:15 · Score: 0

negative. patent claims priority back to 1995.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:21 · Score: 1

Failure to enforce a patent can be legally construed as abandonment of the patent. All Activision Blizzard has to do is show that they failed to take action against any of the countless other games out there, and the courts will determine that they abandoned their patent long ago. Before Everquest there was Ultima Online. Before that you had MUDs and any number of online virtual worlds.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:25 · Score: 0

I would think that DOOM (0.99 released December 10, 1993) would satisfy prior art here. The only thing that might be questionable is the "three dimensional avatar". While DOOM avatar's were rendered as 2D objects, they were presented in 3D space.
Re:Prior Art by calzones · 2012-04-13 12:48 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lawnmower_Man_(film)

--
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Re:Prior Art by Gr8Apes · 2012-04-13 12:59 · Score: 2

Now that's a cool reference. The only thing lacking is a 3D avatar, but one can argue that the 3D avatar is an obvious extension to the core portion of the idea, and therefore this would be an invalid patent, otherwise anything 3-D could have been patented, back in at least 85 or so, and SGI would have owned just about all of them.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Prior Art by deblau · 2012-04-13 13:46 · Score: 1

No, it was filed March 19, 2009. But EQ isn't prior art; see this http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2785717&threshold=3&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=39679881#39681965

--
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 16:51 · Score: 0

The patent is on a system which determines what data is and is not sent to clients. Doom and Quake sends everything to everyone - MMOs like WoW are selective about what is sent. In simpler terms; WoW does not send information for players located more than 200 yards away you. They do not exist on your client; you cannot see them, you cannot use any tools in order to unfairly see them. (See: wallhacks for FPS games)
Re:Prior Art by ZackZero · 2012-04-13 17:33 · Score: 1

It would appear so, since the client would show you your opponents if they were not visually obstructed or too distant, in a 3-D space that is rendered on each client in exactly the same way, save for each player's viewpoint. Customization via user input may be the tricky part here... unless "customization" includes "changing position information via user input."
Re:Prior Art by Teancum · 2012-04-13 19:50 · Score: 1

The customization that happened in Alpha Station was rather extensive and nothing like what happened with DOOM. I am scratching my head to remember if I played the Alpha version of DOOM first before I used Alpha Station, but they were pretty much contemporary with each other.
Alpha Station and later Alpha World really did have some unique elements compared to other software of the time including some extensive player to player interactions and what would be called today "emotes" on avatars. DOOM had none of that. I'm not knocking the coding skills of John Carmack, but the audience for DOOM was a very different crowd.
You certainly couldn't have literally hundreds of users gathering in virtual space each with different avatars like what happened in Alpha World. I remember an event with nearly a thousand different users, and at the time it was considered a mind blowing record for the most number of users in the same virtual space simultaneously for an avatar environment.
The claims here certainly seem very legitimate on the part of Worlds, Inc. As for why they waited until now to enforce their patent is something to be asked, but the claim that they really did come up with these ideas first is something that really can't be questioned if you know any of the history of this software at all. The original development team did some amazing things with avatars. The only prior art I could even consider would be Neal Stephenson with his book "Snow Crash", but these guys were the ones who figured out how to take the ideas in Snow Crash and convert them into actual software.
Re:Prior Art by Teancum · 2012-04-13 19:58 · Score: 1

Doom originally sent all of the data out to all of the clients via UDP packets to a broadcast address. Network administrators absolutely hated the game because those packets would literally melt down routers and they had to be filtered out from the outgoing hubs or those packets would flood the whole internet. Later versions of Doom switched to TCP packets and kept track of the individual IP addresses for each player that significantly cut down on the packets being sent around the network. Doom worked just fine on a LAN though.
Re:Prior Art by KDR_11k · 2012-04-13 20:18 · Score: 1

Considering the customization of the visible avatar in Call of Duty isn't much greater than what Doom offered this cannot be an integral part of the patent.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Prior Art by julesh · 2012-04-13 23:15 · Score: 1

You missed a bit:

receiving, by the client device, position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process
Doom did not do this.
Re:Prior Art by julesh · 2012-04-13 23:18 · Score: 1

MUDs are unlikely to satisfy the requirements of the patent, as I'm pretty sure that none of them (at least none of the ones I played) send updates of only some of the positions of players in a room based on whether they are visible to the client. In fact, all the ones I remember only sent enter/exit position updates, which were sent to everyone in the room.
Re:Prior Art by the_arrow · 2012-04-15 23:38 · Score: 1

In DikuMUD from 1991 players or NPCs could be invisible, and their movement or other actions would be hidden from players who could not see invisibility.

--
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny

They are already prepared to lose. by Jeng · 2012-04-13 09:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I see that they made a spinoff company to litigate with so that when they lose they don't lose the shirts off their back when they lose, which they will.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Re:They are already prepared to lose. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:53 · Score: 0

Maybe, but honestly, in this day and age it would just be stupid not to do this. Regardless whether you're a troll or have a legitimate patent related complaint.
Remember that laws and the legal systems aren't much about serving justice anymore. On this corporate planet they have been degraded to just another weapon to use to compete with. He who wields it best wins.
Survival of the fittest ain't what it used to be...
Re:They are already prepared to lose. by DigiShaman · 2012-04-13 10:56 · Score: 1

It's called a front organization (a shell corporation). They express purpose is to firewall liability from the parent company. They should be illegal if not already. It's bad enough the parent co is granted personhood. Even worse when it's used as a shield.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:They are already prepared to lose. by Kalriath · 2012-04-13 14:15 · Score: 1

No, that happens everywhere. Did you know almost every film is produced by a company, usually named the same as the film, which makes no money because it has to pay the REAL production companies 99% of the income?
Have a look at the tail end of the credits for a blockbuster film sometime, when they start rambling about the copyright owners and licensing.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

They can have the money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 09:47 · Score: 0

Minus the penalties for their creation's flaws. Let's see addictions, gold-spammers, broken relationships, a few murders.

Eleventy-million dollars should be sufficient. That's forty two gallons of Latinum.

Re:They can have the money by ZackZero · 2012-04-13 17:45 · Score: 1

42 gallons? I thought all Latinum was gold-pressed in strips or bars, not liquefied.
Re:They can have the money by KDR_11k · 2012-04-13 20:22 · Score: 1

Latinum itself is a liquid. The gold bars and such are just containers.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

hunt by RichMan · 2012-04-13 09:48 · Score: 2

really really ancient unix network multiplayer game

----
The object of the game hunt is to kill off the other players. There are no rooms, no treasures, and no monsters.
Instead, you wander around a maze, find grenades, trip mines, and shoot down walls and players. The more players
you kill before you die, the better your score is. If the -m flag is given, you enter the game as a monitor (you
can see the action but you cannot play).

hunt normally looks for an active game on the local network; if none is found, it starts one up on the local host.
The location of the game may be specified by giving the host argument. This presupposes that a hunt game is
already running on that host, see huntd(6) for details on how to setup a game on a specific host. If more than one
game if found, you may pick which game to play in.

The symbols on the screen are:
-|+ walls /\ diagonal (deflecting) walls
# doors (dispersion walls)
; small mine
g large mine
: bullet
o grenade
O satchel charge
@ bomb
s small slime
$ big slime
>^v you facing right, left, up, or down
}{i! other players facing right, left, up, or down
* explosion
\|/
-*- grenade and large mine explosion /|\

----
chat was possible using other unix utilities so it was not part of the game

Re:hunt by Dynedain · 2012-04-13 09:58 · Score: 1

The patent clearly states 3D/VR implementations.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:hunt by RichMan · 2012-04-13 10:26 · Score: 1

Hunt is more than 2D as "invisible" is a 3D parameter above the 2D rendering.
Hunt has you can't see behind you as well.
Hunt even has dynamic environments in that the walls can be destroyed and restored.
Hunt is VR in that you can't see behind you and you can't see others or walls unless they are in your sight line.
You could make a 3D hunt client without changing any of the network code. And even play 3D hunt with other people on 2D clients without getting any advantages or disadvantages.

"but now they want a cut." by elashish14 · 2012-04-13 09:53 · Score: 1

In other words: "Give me money for free! I don't feel like making an honest, productive living!!!"

--
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.

Re:"but now they want a cut." by Gripp · 2012-04-14 02:46 · Score: 1

eh... to be fair the patent isn't *completely* a troll. they were fairly specific about packet encoding and what sides of the communication are responsible for what logic. But IMO without and engine/framework having been made by them and commercially available, it is akin to patenting logic.

A time limit needed by Grayhand · 2012-04-13 09:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's obvious that the lawsuits are ridiculous but what's most ridiculous is they are allowed to file after this many years. Usually there's a three year cut off. These companies, and some of them are the majors, sit back and let the totals add up until there are businesses valued in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to sue. It's a blatant way of preventing the offender from modifying their product to avoid being sued and to rack up as much damages as possible before filing. Some minor tweaks in WoW might have avoided the lawsuit so they sit quietly until the damages are massive then sue. Without reading the patents it's hard to say but some of their claims involve things that have been standard in gaming for more than 20 years. The biggest advance in WoW was faster computers and connections allowing multiple players to interact. Also how could it have "helped the businesses of virtual worlds gaming and the sale of virtual goods to grow into a multibillion-dollar industry" when the ones being sued were never aware of the patents in the first place. It's like patenting the wheel then keeping it to yourself then claiming the car companies stole your design.

Re:A time limit needed by geekoid · 2012-04-13 10:31 · Score: 2

sigh. I wish people wuiold make an effort tounderstand the things they complain about.
This is a continuous patent. It goes back to 1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
Please try to understand the basic concepts of things you don't like.
Anyone who doesn't do that is hating something based on a 'gut feeling'' which is useless.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:A time limit needed by wmbetts · 2012-04-13 10:48 · Score: 1

Okay they patented something obvious in 1995 instead of 2005. His point is they patented something so obvious everyone in that field had 0 idea that the patented existed, but still came to the same conclusion.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
Re:A time limit needed by alienzed · 2012-04-13 11:03 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's only ok to do that if politics are involved!

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Re:A time limit needed by makomk · 2012-04-13 11:24 · Score: 1

Ah, continuations on patents, that clever trick where you can legally claim to have invented something a decade before you actually thought of the idea.
Re:A time limit needed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 13:04 · Score: 0

There's no clever trick.
In order to be entitled to the priority of the earlier application, the claims in the continuation must have written support in the specification of the earlier application. Thus if they added anything new, they wouldn't get the earlier priority date.
when you file a continuation application, generally the application filed is an exact copy of the earlier filed application but with new claims. I suppose you could try and sneak something in, or try and claim something not originally disclosed, but its not wise and is very easy to discover, especially in litigation.
Re:A time limit needed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 13:56 · Score: 0

so.. lemme get this straight.... they have been 'working the system' for over 16 years in order to greatly extend the time frame and scope this patent covers in order to be able to troll now for billions.
Re:A time limit needed by Teancum · 2012-04-13 20:13 · Score: 1

I have a very hard time believing that nobody knew this patent existed, and certainly the developers at Blizzard should have known about Alpha World and Worlds, Inc. well before they started the game. Worlds, Inc. really did create some amazing software that was ground breaking in a whole bunch of ways and was well known to developers who were familiar with the state of the art... because these guys actually did create some of the first kind of custom avatars that had player to player interaction. Not really so much gun fights but rather the social interaction stuff... which is what Alpha World and the previous Alpha Station software concentrated on.
At the time this stuff was being done, most people didn't even think it could be done. You would have to go back to some of the discussion groups of VRML, where the Alpha World guys were some of the first to put many of those VRML ideas into practice. That they may have been trolls to file patents on some of their work once they got it implemented may be true, but that is a criticism of the whole concept of a software patent in the first place rather than a criticism of these guys doing pioneering work and trying to "protect themselves".
Keep in mind that in 1995 there was the whole LZW algorithm patent issue that impacted the GIF image format, where software developers were suddenly impacted with having to deal with software patents... particularly anything dealing with graphic engines. If they decided to patent some new ideas they came up with at the time, I say more power to them. If you hate this, contact your congressman. Don't go saying how somebody using the system as intended is finally getting recognized.
If you've never heard of this software, I say you are missing something amazing, but also realize that the company who produced the software hasn't really had a commercial success because of several mistakes they made on the way. Many companies make mistakes like this too, so it isn't anything new. What amazes me is that the company is still around.

Dates? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 09:58 · Score: 0

WOW was released at the end of 2004. The patent in question was filed in 2009.

There must be something mighty good in the details of the patent to cover the fact that WOW is prior art.

But then you never know

Re:Dates? by IQGQNAU · 2012-04-13 10:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's what I was gonna say. Not to mention the many virtual worlds and many MPORPGs that preceded WoW. Very weird. But not really so weird when you consider Oracle thinks they have billions worth of damages from Android when OpenJDK is GPL. All it takes for a lawsuit is a lawyer who figures he can make a buck and plaintiff crazy enough to pay.

I don't get it by jeti · 2012-04-13 10:00 · Score: 1

The patent was filed March 19, 2009 and only describes the basic steps to display avatars in a MMO setting. WoW was released in 2004 and it certainly hasn't been the first (3D) MMO. The abuse seems so obvious that I don't think a trial would last long. And AFAIK the loser now has to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Re:I don't get it by Grond · 2012-04-13 10:12 · Score: 1

The company's earliest patents go back to at least 1996 and possibly earlier. You also have to remember that many patents are the result of continuations or divisionals and can thus claim the benefit of the filing date of the parent application. The other patents that I looked at seem to derive from the same early filing. You can't just look at the filing date of the application, you have to go up the chain.
And AFAIK the loser now has to pay the costs of the proceedings.
As a general rule this is not correct in the United States. Fee-shifting is possible in "exceptional" patent cases, but it's not very common. Even then it tends to be awarded in cases of willful patent infringement rather than in cases where the patent is invalid or uninfringed.
Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:12 · Score: 0

uun

statute of limitations by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-04-13 10:03 · Score: 2

you should have a relatively short time limit to recognize your patent being used without permission and sue for it. waiting to see which business became profitable off you should invalidate your claim.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

Re:statute of limitations by Grond · 2012-04-13 10:14 · Score: 1

There is a six year limitation on damages that functions similar to a statute of limitations. 35 U.S.C. 286. The defenses of laches and waiver are also potentially available if a patent owner sits on their rights after becoming aware of possible infringement.
Re:statute of limitations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:42 · Score: 0

Well, since you would have to have been a cave to not notice WoW, and WoW has been out for more than six years now, I'd say invalid claims.

Im flambait and AC and i know it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:05 · Score: 1

but this "litigation" problem needs to fixed /now/.

- A Blizzard fanboi (pre-activision) and EU resident.

"Vi förvandlar västvärlden till en plats FN vill skicka trupp till" - PST/Q (Swedish)

In 2008 they sued NC soft, and NCsoft settled. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:11 · Score: 4, Informative

http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/04/27/worlds-com-vs-ncsoft-lawsuit-settled/

from the article:
"Worlds.com president and sole full-time employee Thomas Kidrin has simply exhausted his resources. Kidrin was recently quoted as saying "if we do not develop any new projects, we would have to severely diminish our operations or halt them entirely,"

Re:In 2008 they sued NC soft, and NCsoft settled. by Kalriath · 2012-04-13 14:19 · Score: 2

I love how he's the sole full time employee, and still says "we" and "our".

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:In 2008 they sued NC soft, and NCsoft settled. by drkstr1 · 2012-04-14 06:18 · Score: 1

I used to do that too, before there actually was a "we." It just sounds so much more legit. :)
Also, it's most likely that he was the sole full time (aka W2 in the states) employee. We only hired 1099 contractors for the first year or so, and I Was the only "employee" who received a W2, because I hired myself as the manager.

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7

Patents. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:25 · Score: 0

They're fucking awful. They're shit! They're fucky screw!

Not true by geekoid · 2012-04-13 10:28 · Score: 1

This patent goes back to 1995. This application is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S. patent application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Not true by KDR_11k · 2012-04-13 20:13 · Score: 1

So basically they had a patent from 1995, amended it with new stuff in 2009 and now sue people as if they had invented the amended stuff back in 1995? If this was continuous development then why was there a 14 year gap between filings?

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Not true by makomk · 2012-04-13 20:55 · Score: 1

Pretty much, as far as I can tell. The nice thing is that unless I'm missing something any prior art has to cover all the new aspects added in the 2009 patents but has to predate the priority date of 1995, over a decade before they claimed to have invented the things in question.

Worlds Inc. is nothing but legal zombie, no IP... by kbonin · 2012-04-13 10:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Those of us who worked and actually innovated in VR in the late 80s and early 90s have always been a little worried about Worlds, as they liked to run off to the patent office with all the ideas the collected from the rest of us. All of their patent claims existed in other products - even their first patents were an attempt to claim basic VR tech shown several years before by several groups, including the one I worked with (OnLive Traveler). There is plenty of prior art to invalidate these patents, but in our glorious patent system it will cost millions to do so. And like SCO, their legal zombie remains keep trying to extend old claims and collect something for the little invalid patent portfolio that was passed on when they shut down. The software patent apocalypse continues....

Obviousness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:31 · Score: 0

MUDs moving to a graphical setting rather than text only. Obvious.
FPS gaming was actually using a 3d virtual world (albeit small worlds) before this patent was filed for. Doom was released in 1993 and featured 2-4 player coop and deathmatch modes in a 3D virtual world.

This is gonna drag on a bit but its gonna get kicked back to the Patent office for re-examination first, and should (rightly) fail.

Remember Worlds Chat? by t4ng* · 2012-04-13 10:32 · Score: 1

I had completely forgotten about this company, but they had a 3D chat program back in the mid-90's called Worlds Chat. It had some innovative features like proximity filtering of messages. There was another program that came out a little later that allowed you to claim land and build structures on it, even allowing you to upload surface map image files for custom structures. It had proximity filtering of structure and map detail downloading. But it was horribly slow on dial-up and the average cpus of the time.

IANAL, but IMHO they could very well have a valid claim.

Re:Remember Worlds Chat? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:06 · Score: 0

But it was horribly slow on dial-up and the average cpus of the time.
If they implemented, like claimed in their patent, a data-filter on the client, it's quite believable that it was slow, unnecessarily slow, on dial-ups.
Re:Remember Worlds Chat? by xmundt · 2012-04-13 11:54 · Score: 1

Greetings and Salutations;
Yes I was going to bring this up, if no one else mentioned it. It was quite an interesting concept, and, for the beta testing period was hugely popular. However, as a business model it was a massive fail. The day that World's Chat closed its free access and required a paid registration it lost about 99% of its customer base, and, I suspect that shortly thereafter it reached 100%.
It was my understanding that their picture of reality was that businesses would set up conferences in their 3d VR world, and use that as a way of getting inexpensive "face time". This was a total failure. I suspect that at least three of the reasons were that there WERE speed issues, and, perhaps more importantly, it was too strange for upper level management to get their heads around. Adding to that the cost of the subscriptions and it was dead man walking.
The same issues plagued the virtual world that they created. If they had worked on generating a revenue stream outside of user subscriptions perhaps they would have been successful.. In this case, the problem was that they were trying to get revenue from a world that had no point, except to allow the users to build amazingly elaborate world. Again, when it was free they had a fair number of users. once the charges started, folks disappeared in droves....

--
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
Re:Remember Worlds Chat? by Xian97 · 2012-04-13 12:05 · Score: 1

I spent a lot of time wandering around that spaceship in World's Chat. I thought it was a pretty amazing program to have an online virtual world in 1995 when I was still on dialup. I quit using it when they started wanting you to pay. I loaded up the next one, Alpha Worlds a couple times, but it never had the appeal to me that Worlds Chat did.

why are these patents being approved? by daniel78 · 2012-04-13 10:35 · Score: 1

Wow. Just wow. After reading the claims on the USPTO site it boggles the mind that such a patent could be granted in 2009. As a game developer myself, i can guarantee that every single thing mentioned in that patent has been done *at least* 10 years prior - probably more like 15 or 20. In addition, the history of the patent application (ie. the back and forth between applicant and examiner - all public record) is very illuminating - the arguments (for the claims being valid) being made are laughably simplistic, and the prior art considered is mostly limited to existing patents. Moreover, I find it *fucking offensive* that parasites like this can try to claim ownership over what is (for the most part) an extremely open, patent free, and innovative industry (albeit moreso in technology, than game ideas!). Ever been to GDC? Each year, hundreds of developers from competing companies will share the tips and tricks used in their latest technology, with no expectation of financial compensation. I have *never* heard a game developer complain that someone else was using their "invention" - much more likely they'd be flattered. The success of the games industry is in fact, a great counter-argument to those who argue that the elimination of patents (software or otherwise) would be catastrophic to inventors. Why are these patents being approved, and what recourse against the applicants do we have for applications that (presumably deliberately) ignore prior art - not to mention the waste of taxpayer money involved?

Re:why are these patents being approved? by Grond · 2012-04-13 11:07 · Score: 0

After reading the claims on the USPTO site it boggles the mind that such a patent could be granted in 2009. As a game developer myself, i can guarantee that every single thing mentioned in that patent has been done *at least* 10 years prior - probably more like 15 or 20
The patents in question date back to at least 1996. Anyway, if it's that easy to find prior art then the case should be a slam dunk.

the prior art considered is mostly limited to existing patents
The Patent Office's access to computer science-related prior art documents other than patents that are older than 1996 is not very good compared to the patent and patent application databases.
It does not help that the Patent Office fought tooth and nail against the patentability of software, thus finding itself completely unprepared to properly examine software patents once they were allowed. That continues to this day, with computer science and electrical engineering being some of the weakest technology areas in the examining corps. It also doesn't help that examiner retention is abysmal. The vast majority of examiners have less than three years of experience, since they tend to either burn out, return to industry, or become patent attorneys.
The short-term solution is to eliminate the presumption of validity. Longer-term solutions include tightening the enablement and written description requirements, increasing the Patent Office's budget by raising fees, and opening satellite offices near technology hubs like Silicon Valley and Seattle.
I find it *fucking offensive* that parasites like this can try to claim ownership over what is (for the most part) an extremely open, patent free, and innovative industry
Does it offend you that some people like to enforce property rights in their homes even though some people choose to live in communes?
Anyway, patent free? Check your hardware sometime. I guarantee that the device you posted that comment from is covered by thousands of patents, as is every gaming device on the market. As are the major operating systems on the market and many of the frameworks used to make games (e.g. DirectX). As are many related technologies like the servers that run XBox Live and the PSN. And lots of major players (e.g. Microsoft) own patents and applications related to video games. Here's one from Microsoft on spectating in multiplayer games.
Open? The commercial gaming industry is quite closed, actually, with very few games being open source, and many publishers quite fiercely protecting their IP. Lawsuits over clones and copycats are as old as the industry itself.
Patents don't affect games qua games much (e.g. a patent on a side-scrolling platformer) because copyright is free, instantaneous, international, broader in scope, and provides better remedies (e.g. statutory damages, criminal enforcement).
Ever been to GDC? Each year, hundreds of developers from competing companies will share the tips and tricks used in their latest technology, with no expectation of financial compensation. I have *never* heard a game developer complain that someone else was using their "invention" - much more likely they'd be flattered.
Don't confuse programmers with the video game business. A developer may be flattered if someone copies his or her code in violation of copyright. The business that employs the programmer may feel very differently. The same is true of other creative industries such as film (e.g. a director's response versus the movie studio's).
Re:why are these patents being approved? by makomk · 2012-04-13 11:35 · Score: 1

The patents in question date back to at least 1996. Anyway, if it's that easy to find prior art then the case should be a slam dunk.
The trick is apparently that they've used continuations in part, which allows them to patent new improvements on an existing patent in such a way that any prior art for them only counts if it predate the original patent - which in this case means that the prior art has to be over a decade older than the claimed inventions by Worlds Inc. I've no idea who thought this aspect of patent law was a good idea.
Re:why are these patents being approved? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:52 · Score: 0

The patents do not appear to be continuations-in-parts they are continuations - there is a difference. A CIP adds new material to the specification, a Con does not (presumably). In either case, to sucessfully be able to claim priority to the earlier application - EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT of the claim in the continuation or CIP must have written support in the earlier patent's specification.
In addition, a patent issuing off a cip or continuation expires 20 years from the date of the earliest priority claimed (generally).
New improvements like you suggest would not receive the benefit of the earlier filing date as they would not have support in the earlier application. While I suppose it woudl be possible to claim priority you weren't entitled to (and I wouldn't put it past the USPTO to give you that priority date) - you can better believe the litigators feel that they have support for the later claims in the earlier applications - they wouldn't file a suit without that kind of due diligence.

Re:Worlds Inc. is nothing but legal zombie, no IP. by Grond · 2012-04-13 10:39 · Score: 3, Informative

There is plenty of prior art to invalidate these patents, but in our glorious patent system it will cost millions to do so.

Requesting an ex parte reexamination costs $2,520, plus a fairly modest amount for a patent attorney to put together the request. The Patent Office takes it from there, and any litigation is typically stayed pending the result. Worlds' patent portfolio appears to be pretty small, only five patents, so all five could be thrown into reexam for not a lot of money. For a more hands-on approach there's inter partes reexamination, though it is a bit more expensive, but still cheaper than litigation. Litigation is not the only way to address a potentially invalid patent, depending on the defenses one plans to raise (i.e. not all possible defenses are available in reexamination).

Too Many Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:42 · Score: 0

I am lawyer. I am too lazy to contribute to society meaningfully. I went to law school so I deserve to be rich. I'll just leach off the work of others.

Duke 3d is more prior art by bl968 · 2012-04-13 10:43 · Score: 1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_3D released 1996 and while doom is referenced, duke is not. I also think the detailed list of commands would not bode well for them since each program would have it's own language and functions. Most don't even use plain english such as world's "invention"

--
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"

Re:Duke 3d is more prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:20 · Score: 0

Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Doom II, Wolfenstein 3D, Need for Speed (multi-user racing over a lan), Some of the Wing Commander titles allowed vs fights, Quake, etc...
Many more - most of the multi-player racing titles were from the players perspective - Nascar, Indy Car, etc...

Brilliant by haydensdaddy · 2012-04-13 10:46 · Score: 1

What's wrong with these people at the patent office...? It's not like you have to be Einstein to work there... oh wait...

Basically... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 10:51 · Score: 0

They took object-oriented MUD code added "LOL graphics renderer" and called it good.

Where's the infringement? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:03 · Score: 0

Claim 1: ..." determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display; and displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display."

For an infringement, this feature would need to be implemented. However, it seems to be quite stupid to implement something like this: If the client has more data than it needs to display, this a) costs unnecessary bandwidth and b) offers the user room to create a cheat to display things that should not be displayed. Therefore, I assume that WoW does not likely implement this feature. Furthermore, it would be quite difficult to prove this by black-box testing.

The other claims are dependent or simply the device for this claimed method.

Now, where's the infringement?

Re:Where's the infringement? by Qzukk · 2012-04-13 11:32 · Score: 1

determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display; and displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display
What's interesting is in that very same claim, the server already removed avatars:

wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device;
So as long as the server removes all of the not-visible avatars or none of the not-visible avatars, it's not infringing. As far as "black box" though, I'd be tempted to guess that the server does some checks but not all... after all, WoW had all those warping loopholes people were using a while back so at least some processing of some kind is done client side. If WoW's server doesn't know where the user's avatar is actually standing, the best it could do is send all the avatars in the general area and the client figures out which it sees based on viewport direction.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Where's the infringement? by citizenr · 2012-04-13 21:00 · Score: 1

determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display; and displaying, on the client device display, the displayable set of the other user avatars associated with the client device display
What's interesting is in that very same claim, the server already removed avatars:

wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device;
So as long as the server removes all of the not-visible avatars or none of the not-visible avatars, it's not infringing. As far as "black box" though, I'd be tempted to guess that the server does some checks but not all... after all, WoW had all those warping loopholes people were using a while back so at least some processing of some kind is done client side. If WoW's server doesn't know where the user's avatar is actually standing, the best it could do is send all the avatars in the general area and the client figures out which it sees based on viewport direction.
Carmack engines use BSP trees, network code will sent player positions for all the players in the same room/branch + safety margin, meaning you will get info about them even if they are behind a wall to minimize popup (players popping up into existence from around the corner instead of just appearing seamlessly)
that is If you insist on ignoring software patent being a total BS and think that patents on software are valid (they are not)

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.

They invented the metaverse! by daniel78 · 2012-04-13 11:19 · Score: 1

Hmm.... customizable avatars... virtual, 3d multi-user, environments. All thought of in 1995? These guys were true visionaries!
Or maybe they read Snow Crash which was published years earlier.

I'm just going to ignore the patent's laughably simplistic "instruction" on technical issues such as "position" and "orientation" and the blindingly obvious "invention" of the client not processing every avatar in the environment.

Priority date: 1995 by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:22 · Score: 2

it was filed in 2009

The patent "claims priority from U.S. Provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/020,296, filed Nov. 13, 1995".

Re:Priority date: 1995 by KDR_11k · 2012-04-13 20:08 · Score: 1

Isn't that what's called a submarine patent? Why the huge discrepancy in dates between the two?

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

3D + customization + server-side PVS by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:24 · Score: 1

But were the avatars three-dimensional? And did they have server-side determination of what other players' avatars are visible to you? That's what the first claim covers.

Server-side PVS determination by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:26 · Score: 2

The key part of the first claim, as I understand it, is server-side determination of which other avatars a given player is allowed to see: "wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on a client device display of the client device". For example, the server might hide other players that are too far away or players on the opposing team that are hidden behind walls.

Re:Server-side PVS determination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:42 · Score: 1

Sounds like Netrek beat them by about 8 years.

A robust client–server model that reduces the data exchange to "need to know" information, limiting both the required bandwidth and the opportunities for players to cheat by obtaining more knowledge of the game world than their opponents.
Re:Server-side PVS determination by Sabriel · 2012-04-13 15:39 · Score: 1

"... is server-side determination of which other avatars a given player is allowed to see"
So basically they're patenting algorithms?
Re:Server-side PVS determination by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 19:58 · Score: 0

Wolfenstein did that too, no?
And if you'll insist on 3Dness - doom 2 / Quake / Duke 3D.
(Actually, maybe these did send all details on all players to all, but then still: this optimisation is obvious to anyone who gives it the merest headscratch)
Re:Server-side PVS determination by yahwotqa · 2012-04-13 22:58 · Score: 1

Yes, every MUD did this from the very beginning. Who do you think decides whether to send "Yourmom the Hobbit is standing here." or "Yourmom leaves west.", based on whether you can see player Yourmom (invisibility, sneaking, various detection buffs and such come into play here)? The server does. It's just not in 3D.
Re:Server-side PVS determination by tepples · 2012-04-14 04:37 · Score: 1

It's just not in 3D.
And therefore not a smoking gun among the prior art.
Re:Server-side PVS determination by TheTurtlesMoves · 2012-04-14 22:56 · Score: 1

No. Quake, doom etc seen the full game state each "frame". That is why wall hacks work.

--
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!

Search the page for the word "continuation" by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:30 · Score: 1

you only have 1 year from the time of an invention to file

Open the patent and search the page (Ctrl+F) for the word "continuation" to see the real original filing date.

differs only by adding in the term "3D Graphical Avatar"

That and server-side determination of the PVS, as I explained elsewhere.

Re:Search the page for the word "continuation" by Gr8Apes · 2012-04-13 13:00 · Score: 1

IANAPL.
That's out of the way, how can you continue a granted patent with no new additions? Isn't that explicitly against the terms of the new patent laws?

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

Whichever is longer by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:32 · Score: 1

this also (generally) means that the patent expires in 2016

Does the rule of 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant, whichever is longer, for applications pending as of June 8, 1995, apply?

Re:Whichever is longer by julesh · 2012-04-13 23:11 · Score: 1

The application date was November 95, so presumably not.

Was 3D hunt done before 1995? by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:33 · Score: 1

You could make a 3D hunt client without changing any of the network code.

Could, but did anyone prior to 1995?

Re:Was 3D hunt done before 1995? by Anarchduke · 2012-04-14 11:42 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter, its the server side technology that the patent seems to be claiming ownership of.

--
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Re:Was 3D hunt done before 1995? by tepples · 2012-04-14 12:33 · Score: 1

The patent claims a combination of a client and server. Claim 1 refers to 1. a server calculating a potentially visible set using a "participant condition" and sending the positions of the avatars that match it, 2. refinement of this list into a "displayable set" by the client, and 3. three-dimensional display of customized avatars by the client. Any prior art to disprove novelty would have to show all elements of this claim before the priority date.

"fewer than all of the other user avatars" by tepples · 2012-04-13 11:40 · Score: 1

You're talking about the step of determining a PVS on the client side. If this is the only place a PVS is the determined, then yes, it would waste bandwidth and enable cheating. But before that step is a step of the server sending a rough PVS: "receiving, by the client device, position information associated with fewer than all of the other user avatars in an interaction room of the virtual space, from a server process, wherein the client device does not receive position information of at least some avatars that fail to satisfy a participant condition". Anything with 3D avatars where the server evaluates a "participant condition" (i.e. a rough PVS) and the client refines this PVS is covered.

Re:"fewer than all of the other user avatars" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:05 · Score: 0

The PVS is determined by the server and sent. Every transmitted and received avatar information is displayed at least on the mini-map. Hence, no further constriction of the avatars transmitted to avatars displayed exists. The claim, however, requires to determined a displayable set. A computation that never restricts the set of received avatars in any way does not qualify as "determine" in the sense of the patent.

Too long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:55 · Score: 0

If I remember correctly, patents have to be actively disputed in a timely manner in order to remain valid. Since WoW has been around since the early 2000's and has been fairly popular from the beginning (i.e. they were well known and not "hidden" in any way), *I* would rule that the troll allowed too much time to pass before suing and throw the whole thing out of court.

Even my Captcha says it's OBVIOUS. :D

Judith Challinger by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 11:57 · Score: 0

I have one of the Patent group. This patent seems be recent:

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Inventor/Challinger-Judith/11793998#More

Pete

Netrek isn't 3D by tepples · 2012-04-13 12:17 · Score: 1

Unlike in some other cases, Netrek doesn't appear to be the smoking gun among the prior art unless it has customizable 3D avatars.

Why a rough and refined PVS by tepples · 2012-04-13 12:22 · Score: 1

Every transmitted and received avatar information is displayed at least on the mini-map. Hence, no further constriction of the avatars transmitted to avatars displayed exists.

I don't play Call of Duty series, but my cousin does. I don't remember seeing members of the opposing team on the mini-map. And avatars that aren't visible but may become visible within the next ping time, such as those just about to peek out from behind a wall, would have to get filtered out at the client.

Re:Why a rough and refined PVS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-14 00:14 · Score: 0

Due to the low number of players on a map, quite likely CoD lacks the server-side filter. All avatars are transmitted, all of the time.
Also, interpretation of "in an interaction room of the virtual space" might be interesting. It might be a sub-set of the complete environment, e.g., close proximity where interaction is possible. The claimed subset is a subset of those in the "interaction room". I'd be surprised if such a filter exists even in WoW.

prior art - 1996 VRML by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:22 · Score: 1

Virtual reality modelling language. Even had made myself a nice castle and lands around ....so 15-16 years later these twits claim what?

link by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:45 · Score: 0

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/VRML/

april 1995

Prior art for you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 12:50 · Score: 0

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/VRML/

at bottom of page says april 17th 1995

VRML - april 1995 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 13:01 · Score: 0

prior art too late.
they lose.

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/VRML/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML

and its spec is 1.0 on that page
i had used this to do some neat things....

"The first version of VRML was specified in November 1994"

Re:VRML - april 1995 by julesh · 2012-04-13 23:04 · Score: 1

VRML was a client side technology. This patent describes a server side technology for sending real-time updates to a 3d client.
Re:VRML - april 1995 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-16 02:32 · Score: 0

It's still a bullshit patent, like rest of software patents.
When will this madness stop?

One word... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 13:12 · Score: 0

VTTREK

(3D space, lovingly rendered in finest ASCII on 2D VT100 terminals...)

Many Seem To Have Expired by muindaur · 2012-04-13 13:43 · Score: 1

I double checked, but a number of those patents are no longer enforceable since prior to 1995 it was 17 years from the filing date. After that it was 20 years after the filing date. With the earliest date being 1977. My guess is they are throwing them all in, and hoping some stick. So everything filed in 1994 (2011 is 17 years later) or earlier has already expired. Lack of enforcement of the patents may work against them too.

Glad patent trolling is finally coming to games by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 15:48 · Score: 0

I've got this patent called "Method for Depicting Gritty White Space-Marine Saving the Earth from Aliens."

I think I can make a few bucks off this one :)

A little late... by cbytes · 2012-04-13 17:02 · Score: 1

It's highly unlikely that the lawsuit will gain any traction since the patent was granted in 2009 a full 5 years after world of warcraft was developed. I would wager that they were most likely playing world of warcraft when they "invented" it.

Alpha/Active/Worlds, Inc. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 20:14 · Score: 0

You do remember right - we might have been neighbors.

Alphaworld was renamed Active Worlds and opened to the public in June,1995. The tug-of-war referenced is because Ron Britvich had an open-source philosophy in pushing for user-created worlds while Knowledge Adventure Worlds pushed it's own proprietary Worlds Chat project in-house because of corporate projects (Disney, etc). This was what kept Active Worlds from really taking off, as they had the design tech (and rightful patents) first.

Cybertown & the rest came only a year later, while Alpha was still being endlessly revised/mutated/torn between user-created content & "theme parks" (remember when people visualized shopping at Amazon as a virtual bookstore?) Other virtual reality spaces were coming online & splitting the relatively-small group of people who had both access to fast connections and the tech muscle to inhabit those spaces. A core group of people remained in Active Worlds a long time (me through 1999) as well as some of the other spaces. Second Life wasn't even a cloud in Philip Rosedale's coffee then.

However, Alphaworld & its open manifestation Active Worlds definitely were the leaders in the fully-realized VRML interconnected worlds paradigm, and their patents wouldn't be a trolling at all, but fully legitimate. Ron Britvich was a genius ahead of his time (and the technology).

Shadowjack/relayer

3d avatars not necessary by maroberts · 2012-04-13 20:23 · Score: 1

Netrek has avatars (spaceships) and it can be argued the transition from 2D to 3D is obvious and non-patentable, as 3D multiplayer games were also plentiful.

--

Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

Re:Worlds Inc. is nothing but legal zombie, no IP. by Teancum · 2012-04-13 20:28 · Score: 1

Of any complaints that I've seen here, this is the most legitimate. Most of the other claims of stuff like World of Warcraft being the first to do stuff like this just make me want to puke in terms of the sheer ignorance of the people posting.

There were many sources of ideas that came from the virtual reality community, and I agree with the sentiments you are making here. The patents were filed though and not invalidated, and I certainly hate the software patent system including how difficult it is to prove prior art without showing a patent number which demonstrates that prior art. That is how patents on silly things like the ROT-13 algorithm got through the USPTO or in one case I even saw a bubble sort get approved because there was no "prior art" in the USPTO archive. Yes, I know that prior art can come in other forms, but prior patents seem to hold a whole lot more weight.

If Blizzard is being smart here, that would need to be their basis of defense where they would have to find groups like the ones you worked with or perhaps scan Slashdot for precisely comments like this and try to get you to testify on their behalf to demonstrate prior art. It would certainly help though if you had some of the source code or software from the era. I would have a hard time finding much of the software I wrote from back at that time period.

Actually what you said means the opposite by roguegramma · 2012-04-13 22:44 · Score: 1

If they had a 3D chat client and game in 1995, which contains portions of the patent (which was filed in 1999),
they essentially made their own prior art.

IANAL either, but AFAIK you had 1 year in the US during which you could file a patent after its technology went public, and in Europe you had to file the patent before you made you technology public.

--
Hey don't blame me, IANAB

Ultima Online started development in 1995 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-14 00:02 · Score: 0

Ultima Online started development in 1995 if you read the story behind that there was a lot of stuff they needed to figure out on their own because nobody had done the stuff before. I know there were a few others shortly before or around that time. But World did not apply for patent till Nov 1995. I would assume that meant UO in some small way could be considered a contender for that patent?

Re:Ultima Online started development in 1995 by Hachima · 2012-04-14 17:55 · Score: 1

Meridian 59 was before that. The 59 comes from 1995 backwards and that's when it was released.

Quake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-14 01:52 · Score: 0

No. He meant Quake.

Prior art indeed.

Also, I think you misspelt Discworld MUD.

The area inside one skybox by tepples · 2012-04-14 04:01 · Score: 1

An "interaction room" in the patentese is probably the area inside one skybox, that is, one set of players playing on a map.

Customizability by tepples · 2012-04-14 04:04 · Score: 1

Netrek has avatars (spaceships)

Is their appearance customizable? The first claim includes the step of "customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in response to input by the first user".

it can be argued the transition from 2D to 3D is obvious and non-patentable

Arguing obviousness at trial is much more expensive.

Quake not early enough by tepples · 2012-04-14 04:33 · Score: 1

Quake doesn't count because it was published in 1996, and the priority date was 1995. Doom's avatars weren't customizable.

Re:Worlds Inc. is nothing but legal zombie, no IP. by chrismcb · 2012-04-14 06:06 · Score: 1

There is plenty of prior art to invalidate these patents, but in our glorious patent system it will cost millions to do so.

Now, if only they would sue some deep pocket company, that was pretty much printing its own money... nah that'll never happen.

No Biggie by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-14 20:16 · Score: 0

Since the patent office web site doesn't display the images in neither IE or TOR the patent is invalid ;)

Prior art by equex · 2012-04-14 21:57 · Score: 1

Remember playing Firepower over parallell cables (ParNet) ? Games where the players are operating in the same world is *ancient*.

--
Can I light a sig ?

Pretty obvious... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-19 03:47 · Score: 0

"...a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. In a preferred embodiment a plurality of users 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."

You know, just like the cyberspace described in William Gibson's books from the 1980's and later depicted in the movie "The Lawnmower Man".

Slashdot Mirror

Activision Blizzard Sued For Patent Infringement Over WoW, CoD

194 comments