Curse

Lordshonsu · Jan 06, 2009, 08:35 AM // 08:35

ok i cant believe no one looked at the worlds.com clients here is the list:

IBM
VISA
Sony
MGM
Starbright Foundation
Absolute
Pearson PLC
Compaq Computer
Artisan Entertainment
David Bowie/Ultra Star
Aerosmith
Universal Pictures
WWF
Polygram
BT
Freeserve
Roadrunner
AOL

as u can see Sony is on here so that means Worlds.com cant sue them

also their graphics are really horrible. If im thinking about this correctly they are going for the domino effect which i hope stops at a big company if NCsoft loses

Bob Slydell · Jan 06, 2009, 08:48 AM // 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordshonsu

as u can see Sony is on here so that means Worlds.com cant sue them

Im glad, and then not glad that this is the case. The reason that i'm glad is because i play Everquest 2. Why am i also upset that this is the case? Because i had hoped Worlds could attempt to sue Sony for infringement and get ruined by Sony because Sony has moneys and Worlds is a company i don't think any living gamer i know has ever heard of, that wields a patent that Not I or anyone i Know has EVER heard of so it would be extremely lolsome. But now Worlds can't sue Sony. Oh well...

But as we see... Blizzard is NOT a client. This is so juicy I can't wait to see soon: "Blizzard is SUED by Worlds.com click here to read more" a fun filled adventure awaits when this happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordshonsu

also their graphics are really horrible. If im thinking about this correctly they are going for the domino effect which i hope stops at a big company if NCsoft loses

Maybe worlds is jealous of the fact that the Guildwars graphics engine kicks the shit out of what ever the hell Worlds is using.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wish Swiftdeath

http://wenderella.com/2008/05/most-r...one-right-now/

http://www.invention-protection.com/...g_patents.html

God Bless America!

The one about the "Method for Exercising a Cat" made me LOL.

distilledwill · Jan 06, 2009, 01:33 PM // 13:33

Super lame on their part, but I guess if they feel that their patent has been illegally infringed upon then its their prerogative.

Still, harking back to the post by Isaac on the first page:

Quote:

The last thing they would want to do is shut down WoW, those 11 million people would riot lol. I don't know if their ganna be able to pull it off.

Worlds lamest riot. Picture the scene, 6m skinny spotty kids team up with 5m fat middle aged virgins to ineffectually pummel the world.com headquarters with their muscleless arms before descending into arguements about how everyone else is doing it wrong and how they each were there first and have been whacking the building longer than everyone else and so know the best way to do it.

Neo Atomisk · Jan 06, 2009, 02:19 PM // 14:19

tbh I'm sure that worlds.com won't get anywhere.

But I would LOVE to see them sue Blizzard, worlds.com would absolutely get their shit rocked.

lakatz · Jan 06, 2009, 02:59 PM // 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritThief

Source

So it looks like every MMO on the planet will need to shut down? And btw who the **** are worlds.com???

Worlds.com started the MMO concept in 1994 with World Chat and 2D avatars. They significantly expanded their MMO concept in 1995 when they 'merged' with Ron Britvich and his Activeworlds project with 3D environments and avatars. Ron is a very cool guy.

Activeworlds allows people to populate their own worlds with their own 3D creations or build in public worlds with pieces provided by the developers. Activeworlds is where I learned 3D modeling using Renderware technology.

Worlds Inc (their name at the time) sold Activeworlds in 1997 or 1998 to Circle of Fire, one of the world developers resident in the program, and a lot of the old timers left.

It's real easy to believe one can own a patent on MMO technology. It was a revolutionary concept barely more than 10 years ago. Activeworlds and their 'citizens' were pioneers. It was quite an exciting time.

pumpkin pie · Jan 06, 2009, 03:18 PM // 15:18

No, worlds.com did not start the MMO concept, that was started by someone else and everyone involve in online gaming business evolve from there. it started back in the late 80s with something called habitat.

Actually, it started when internet started. Roy Trubshaw

Riot Narita · Jan 06, 2009, 03:35 PM // 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakatz

Worlds.com started the MMO concept in 1994 with World Chat and 2D avatars. They significantly expanded their MMO concept in 1995 when they 'merged' with Ron Britvich and his Activeworlds project with 3D environments and avatars. Ron is a very cool guy.

Activeworlds allows people to populate their own worlds with their own 3D creations or build in public worlds with pieces provided by the developers. Activeworlds is where I learned 3D modeling using Renderware technology.

Worlds Inc (their name at the time) sold Activeworlds in 1997 or 1998 to Circle of Fire, one of the world developers resident in the program, and a lot of the old timers left.

It's real easy to believe one can own a patent on MMO technology. It was a revolutionary concept barely more than 10 years ago. Activeworlds and their 'citizens' were pioneers. It was quite an exciting time.

Started the concept? Bollocks.
Revolutionary? Bollocks.

Are you still working for them? If so, that would explain why you'd post their propaganda for them. If don't still work for them... wow, they must have quite an "induction" program.

Morla Blood · Jan 06, 2009, 03:42 PM // 15:42

would this cover any typed message also the avatar being your name

pumpkin pie · Jan 06, 2009, 03:51 PM // 15:51

sarcasm: i am going to patent the word Mobs which was carry forward from the MUD days and then sue the hell out of the mmorpg company for tons of cash for something i didn't invent. :P

lakatz · Jan 06, 2009, 03:55 PM // 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

No, worlds.com did not start the MMO concept, that was started by someone else and everyone involve in online gaming business evolve from there. it started back in the late 80s with something called habitat.

Yeah I was just coming back to reword my post because it's not the MMO "concept" they pioneered. It's their technology that they're suing over. The worlds.com concept is about 3D or VR technology, and they put the massive in massive multi-player with their technology. Until 1995, the most users the Everwinter Nights engine could hold was 50 and it was limited to AOL users.

"Habitat was not a 3D environment and did not incorporate immersion techniques. This would generally exclude it from the VR mold, and it was neither designed nor perceived as a VR environment. However, it is considered a forerunner of the modern MMORPGs which are more similar to VR-style applications and was quite unlike other online communities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_(video_game)

pumpkin pie · Jan 06, 2009, 04:19 PM // 16:19

No worlds.com did not put the word massive into massive multi player with their technology. someone else did. Worlds is a patent troll.

and the patent officers that allow this are idiots for approving something so broad in scope to be patented. Something that all pc gaming industries are working on and will eventually all evolve in the same direction.

mmorpg "history"

Fril Estelin · Jan 06, 2009, 07:14 PM // 19:14

I understand lakatz's point (how ridiculous to call him a traitor, don't people read posts anymore?), because I had a discussion not too long ago with people from the Second Life community (very, very knowledgeable) and realised how diverse these "Virtual Worlds" (VW) are, both from the point of view of their aims (MMOs are games, SL is "serious" as people work and "live virtually" over there) and technology (SL looks too basic graphics-wise, but it's a User-Generated Content/UGC kind of VW which makes the technological challenge amazingly difficult but so rewarding for creators).

(side-note: the discussion on this affair in the SL mailing lists almost immediately died with people in-the-know telling others that it's not going to last long, from the opinion of well-informed lawyers; the contrast with this gaming community is striking, with most (but not all) people expressing opinions, without any deep understanding or facts, it's like anyone can have an opinion on anything and want to share it with the world, freedom of information but no accountability)

Despite all our accumulated knowledge and tools like google, people are short-sighted nowadays, because we lost the link between things, given the number of things we can access. History is a thing of the past (some call it "provenance") and I'm always very, very happy to read stories about old technos and developments. Nothing is completely new, you always built on top of old stuff, but rarely learn your lesson.

The patent system is ridiculed by story like these. When SCO launched their affair to claim rights over Unix/Linux systems, people were baffled. It's a lawyer-thing (no offence to lawyers) and we simply realise the profound gap between "correct" and "right". It's almost funny (in a cynical kind of way :/ ) to read people trying to make sense of this at "their" level.

Lady Lozza · Jan 06, 2009, 10:56 PM // 22:56

The thing that cases like this make me realise is how ridiculous the US Patent system has become.

Time and time again, the US Patent Office has said that they do not believe it is their responsibility to check the validity of a patent application. This means that three people could potentially apply for a patent for the SAME thing because they don't bother to check whether someone has already filed. The US Patent Office expects the company filing to check that:

1) there isn't an existing patent for an identical/similar item/manufacturing process/novel techonological step/technology
2) that it is an item/manufacturing process/novel technological step/technology
3) that it is NOVEL, not just a natural progression of ideas

Just because worlds.com is associate with some big names doesn't make them right/correct/consistant with law. Having read the patent it is clear they are patenting a "concept", which you simply cannot do. If they wish to patent an "engine" then they may do so. If NCSoft uses that engine without royalties, then NCSoft must pay. However from the (albiet limited) information given on this case I would certainly say that worlds.com is just a patent troll.

The US Patent System is wide open for abuse. From what I can tell Worlds.com is taking advantage of that. They are taking advantage of the legal system that is more likely to rule in their favour.

Anyone remember the guy who patented a certian method of swing on a swing and tried to sue the parents of other kids who used the same method?

If worlds.com were trying to patent more than just a concept I'd be less sceptically of this whole media blitz.

Once upon a time when the world wasn't this huge international trading post, first to file must have been a great idea. The US Patent office must have worked really well, but in today's world it is way out of touch. It needs to be fixed.

Pumpkin Pie: Damages exist in many forms. Damages for loss of business, damages for loss of proprietry technology, the list could go on. The long and short of it though is that they can only be awarded damages if the patent is held up by the court. And the defense has the opportunity to argue that damages are negligable - for instance in this case worlds.com probably wouldn't have suddenly got all of Blizzard's business. What I'm saying is that just because WoW has 11 million subscribers, if WoW didn't exist doesn't mean they will be playing EQ2. Damages is normally where the money comes from in many cases that go to court. In this case even if they uphold the patent (which I believe to be unlikely) and order other companies to pay royalties, I doubt that significant damages could be awarded unless they come up with something creative.

enter_the_zone · Jan 06, 2009, 11:32 PM // 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Lozza

Once upon a time when the world wasn't this huge international trading post, first to file must have been a great idea. The US Patent office must have worked really well, but in today's world it is way out of touch. It needs to be fixed.

Was it ever really? I mean, apparently, Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone....

Lady Lozza · Jan 07, 2009, 01:31 AM // 01:31

Here is why first to file was great 100+ years ago:

If it had been first to invent, then they would never have been able to use many of the inventions that where occurring in Europe at the time. Patents weren't at the time enforced across international boundaries. If the US had used a first to invent system then they would never have been able to patent and "protect" the technology they were bringing into the country.

Patents were, at the time, about protecting the technology WITHIN the borders of the US. It cost a lot of money for some of these people to go overseas and acquire the technology, it was a good idea to be able to protect their ventures by being able to patent it when they got home. The fact that (for certain) many technollogies were patented many times in various countries meant nothing.

Unfortunately this doesn't work in the world we live in today because we work on a global scale. Ugg Boots are a perfect example of this.

Ugg Boots is a term long used in Australia to describe sheep skin boots. That even stretches to the fluffy synthetic slippers we wear around the house today. Back in the 50s (I think) an American visiting Australia thought it was a quiant idea and went back home and patented/trademarked the good old ugg boot. Push forward in time nearly 50 years and the company established which manufactured "Ugg Boots" demanded it be removed from the Australian vocabulary because they had the rights to it (as filed in the US). The US courts upheld the rulings but it was eventually dropped. Why? Because it was stupid. Australians have been using the term for ages, and changing it because they were first to file (in the US, not Australia) was stupid. The saga continued with the company trying to file in Australia, they were told they could not because it was a common part of the Australian language and society.

First to file is a ok/good idea in a country trying to protect imported technology. In a country isolated from the rest of the world. But that is not the case today, where the market is international.

Dre · Jan 07, 2009, 02:48 AM // 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasmitchies

This a shakedown, pure and simple. They chose GW first because they don't have the deep pockets WOW has to defend the suit as well. If they can get a precedent from a weaker MMO then they will go after the bigguns. That being said, all GW has to prove is the technology is markebly different or that the patent creates an unfair monopoly from what is common knowledge. Worlds may have had a patent pending, but they never tried to enforce it prior to now and that will kill the patent outright on appeal.

this

if they had the patent for such a long time, why didn't they use it earlier?

Zodiac Meteor · Jan 07, 2009, 04:22 AM // 04:22

Why doesn't worlds.com pull the stick out of their butts? Because if they don't, Anet will and beat them with it.

This could affect ALL MMO's. I'm pretty sure Microsoft, Sony, Blizzard and hell even Runescape will be more than happy to help.

Worlds.com just announced, "Hey, I have this patent that gives me the right to sue every MMO!"
Every MMO company will say. "What is worlds.com?"
Worlds.com will reply. "I'm going to target Anet first!"
Anet will say. "What is worlds.com?"

Shadowhaze · Jan 07, 2009, 05:16 AM // 05:16

Lol! I just love how everyone gets sued these days...it's pretty ridiculous.

Sjeng · Jan 07, 2009, 06:20 AM // 06:20

It's the American way, don't you know?

Killed u man · Jan 07, 2009, 07:26 AM // 07:26

1) Having a patent on a virtual online world is redicilous. Having a patent on a game, ok, but having a patent on a concept is just redicilous. (Gamewise anyway)
But then again, the world is a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed up place, so I gues the patent IS ligitimate, AND WoW and GW ARE in fact breaking it.

2) NC soft, nor any company doesn't really want negative publicity. Any publicity = good publicity doesn't go here, as I can see headlines read:
"Company sues NCSoft for STEALING their idea"
or something along those lines. Even if they manage to win, which is very likely, they will still have to invest alot in their lawyers, aswell as the counter-publicity.

3) I can see where it's easier for a comany such as NCsoft, or Blizzard to simple "pay them", and avoid any further fuss, depending on HOW MUCH they are asking. If that number < the total cost of lawers, publicity, etc... then it would make sense to go for this option.

4) It's America, anything is possible.

I can definatly see the company take NCSoft down, unlikely but plausible. At the same time, I can see them getting payed by NCsoft. And last but not least, I can also see NCSoft crush them with the help from Blizzard, etc...

Either way, something interesting for tought for the next few weeks/months...