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.
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?
Slashdot Mirror
How about an OS that doesn't cost money AND it doesn't have ads either. That would be pretty cool. Surprised no one has thought of this.
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.
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?