Curse

Lady Lozza · Jan 09, 2009, 07:02 AM // 07:02

Patents last for 20 years. You can't update them, you can't renew them, all you can do is add an "innovative step" on top of the old, but this protects only the "step" not the old patent.

The two patents appear to me to be different things too. The first describes client-server interaction, the second appears to be graphics culling for network optimisation. Now it is possible that the 2nd is their attempt at adding an innovative step in the client-server chain however they are still to a large degree trying to patent an idea, and an idea which was a natural progression of the technology at the time.

To review this idea versus technology requirement.
Worlds.com cannot put forward a patent that says, we cull the redundant faces to make the network run faster. This is an idea.
Worlds.com must say x software, program/interface/technology culls the redundant faces in x (specific) fashion which does x and y and z and makes the network run faster because of this.

Remember also that it must be an INNOVATIVE step. This is a real key that applies in all systems regardless of whether they are first to file or first to invent. This is supposed to stop things such as breathing from being patentable. Text-2D-3D was a natural progression, therefore only technology which does 3D graphics in innovative ways is patentable.

Assuming that the patent is valid (which I have my doubts) then Worlds.com will need to prove that NCSoft is using the SAME TECHNOLOGY, involving the same steps, reasoning and resulting in exactly the same results to win the case. I really don't see this happening unless NCSoft have been using an engine developed by Worlds.com.

ne33us · Jan 09, 2009, 07:24 PM // 19:24

I have a consiracy theory for all of you, and I know that people love good (i hope it is) conspiracy theories

(and let's keep it humorous)

Worlds.com has already settled with some unspecified yet big MMO company on the market (you guess that company).
Worlds.com is motivated by that company not to settle directly with their competitor NCSoft but instead starts a long term non ending pointless lawsuite fight that eventually damages NCSoft financially.

NCSoft in turn is forced to either vaporize ongoing projects (you guess which favorite of yours project) and/or even move their bussiness to ... Mexico.

In addition, some game studios (guess your favorite game sudio/company) facing the uprising bottleneck due to the lawsuite against NCSoft breaks their collaboration with NCSoft and go in bussiness with NCSofts competitor which it turn ends up controlling two of the most popular MMO's on the market, turning your favorite MMO into a monthly fee plus adding maddening EULA rules like "by agreening to this EULA you permit us to install software on your PC that will be able to check other running programs on your PC that may in turn violate the EULA of our game" (in other words you agree to let them run software that may retrieve any kind of information from your computer without your knowledge)

Donnerjack · Jan 09, 2009, 09:34 PM // 21:34

If this "patent" had any legal ground at all, why did it take Worlds.com 8 years to file a law suit? A judge WILL ask that question. Secondly: There were plenty of MMO's long before the patent was filed in 2000.

I think this is more of collaberation between Worlds.com and another big name mmo to harass the big mmo's competition.

This case won't go anywhere. Play on.

By the way I'm going to patent the use of all shades of brown being used on web sites.

Chthon · Jan 10, 2009, 03:39 AM // 03:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by irkwerks2

Wouldn't it be possible for the Judge to dismiss the case until such time that Worlds.com included other possible defendants that may have violated the patent also (ie Blizzard,Microsoft,et al) so as to allow no precident to be set.

No. There is no rule that says that you must sue everyone who has violated your rights in order to sue anyone who has violated your rights.

Blizzard et al could petition the court to accept amici curiae briefs from them, or even to be joined to the case as additional defendants (that would be an interesting move!), but they have no right to have anything to do with this case. It would be up to the judge's discretion.

Also, just for the sake of education, a wee bit about precedents in US law:

First, the strength of a precedent depends upon which court issued it. The only precedents that a court must obey are those from higher courts in their direct path of appeals. Each court is free to reverse its own precedents at any time, though they rarely do (because, cynics would say, it's usually the same judge who set the precedent in the first place). Courts are supposed to give deference to precedents from lower, parallel, and especially diagonally higher courts, but they often give only lip service, if that.

What that means for this case is that a precedent in favor of Worlds.com set in this case would not have the OMFG-all-MMOs-are-destroyed effect that some people seem worried about, since it's only a trial-level court in Texas.

Second, precedents are legal conclusions, not factual conclusions. That the Second Amendment creates a right to bear arms independent of service in a state militia is a legal conclusion, which becomes a precedent. That Booth shot Lincoln is a factual conclusion. A factual conclusion in this case that other uses of Worlds.com's "invention" did or did not pre-date their patent filing could not become a precedent because it's not a legal issue.

There's a different mechanism for preventing re-litigation of factual issues called res judicata, and it works a little bit differently from precedent. To oversimplify only a little, res judicata prevents the loser of a case from re-litigating the same factual issues in a different case. That is, if you sue me for causing a traffic accident, and I lose, I can't turn around and sue you for causing the same accident -- the factual conclusion that I caused the accident is res judicata... against me. A key difference is that someone else can still sue you for causing the traffic accident.

When you think about it, this rule makes a lot of sense. Perhaps you really did cause the accident, but I picked an bad lawyer, or I can't afford a good lawyer, or I really don't care to defend myself because I have no money for you to take, or I want to lose because you're secretly paying me off in hopes that your victory over me will insulate you from liability to a third party who was hurt badly in the accident. Why should anyone else who was hurt in the accident lose their chance to sue you because I did a bad job of proving the facts of my case? They shouldn't. That's why res judicata only applies to me, and leaves the rest of the world free to do a better job if they can.

In the case at hand, Blizzard et al have nothing to lose if NCSoft loses the case on a factual basis. They would be free to try to do a better job of proving facts about the state of the art of online world-making at the time of World.com's filing than NCSoft did. Worlds.com has more to lose. If they lose this case on the facts,* their patent is dead and they can't use it against anyone.

(*I mean the facts underlying the validity of the patent. They could also lose on the fact that NCSoft's technology is not the technology that's described in the patent. In that case, they could still sue other people who have other technologies.)

pumpkin pie · Jan 10, 2009, 04:47 AM // 04:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnerjack

If this "patent" had any legal ground at all, why did it take Worlds.com 8 years to file a law suit? A judge WILL ask that question. Secondly: There were plenty of MMO's long before the patent was filed in 2000.

I think this is more of collaberation between Worlds.com and another big name mmo to harass the big mmo's competition.

This case won't go anywhere. Play on.

By the way I'm going to patent the use of all shades of brown being used on web sites.

I think its more of a I AM KING OF THE VIRTUAL WORLD, now, lets find a dodgy company that has filed an idea and make it big, and sue the hell out of EVERYONE. In this case the vehicles is Worlds.com and the person driving the vehicles is The Virtual Worlds and Multiuser Online Games Committee (VWMOG Committee) whose member including one Sean Kane who is representing Worlds.com, if they win this case, not only will MMORPG gets shut down it the whole internet they are after, they are trying to own the virtual world.

This is probably very easy lol. guild wars does not happens in virtual world. all they have to do is rename the world they are in?

because virtual world does not exist, right? proof that it exist. it doesn't but Tyria exist. and its play across the internet, not virtual world? lol

pumpkin pie · Jan 15, 2009, 04:27 PM // 16:27

$50k rewards for Proof of prior art.

Master Knightfall · Jan 17, 2009, 08:03 PM // 20:03

Quote:

Assuming that the patent is valid (which I have my doubts) then Worlds.com will need to prove that NCSoft is using the SAME TECHNOLOGY, involving the same steps, reasoning and resulting in exactly the same results to win the case. I really don't see this happening unless NCSoft have been using an engine developed by Worlds.com.

Actually this isn't quite right. An infringement only has to prove only one portion of the whole is like the patent orgionally patented. A case I just got off of as a juror had over 37 sub catagories to the origional patent and only ONE of those had to show infringement in which it did. So, the patent doesn't have to be exactly the whole process just a portion of it being used by someone else can cause infringement.

Markaedw · Mar 11, 2009, 11:38 PM // 23:38

Quote:

We'll just give you a second to soak up that headline. And ... good. It was recently reported by Silicon Alley Insider that Worlds.com CEO Thom Kidrin "absolutely" plans to sue MMO giant Blizzard should his company win its lawsuit against NCsoft, publisher of City of Heroes and Guild Wars. The subject of the suit is the very concept of virtual worlds which, Kidrin claims, is patented by Worlds.com, thanks to a children's product that was created in 1997. According to SEI, the patents cover "an architecture for enabling thousands of simultaneous users in a 3D virtual space." Worlds.com is seeking licensing fees from any company that would employ such a technology.

Call us crazy, but the concept of virtual worlds has been around for decades. Our kindred at WoW Insider point out, and we're inclined to agree, that there are many examples of prior art that essentially invalidate the patent anyway. WoW Insider cites the term 'cyberspace' as coined by William Gibson and used in his 1984 novel Neuromancer. One might even argue that the internet itself qualifies.

On top of that, NCsoft itself has yet to be served with notice of the suit. We're not legal experts, but we'd say Blizzard and the creators of, oh, every other MMO are safe. If Worlds.com is eager to find another genre to sue, allow us to suggest first-person shooters. There are lots of people playing those online too.

as reprted by Joystiq.com reporter Richard Mitchell. I've come to believe that he is just looking for attention.

fenix · Mar 11, 2009, 11:53 PM // 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Krangel

Virtual worlds -- or more broadly, 3D online spaces -- have been around for a long time. But last month, worlds.com hired lawyers to enforce a patent for the idea, claiming they invented the concept back in 1995. The first target for lawsuits: NCSoft, the Korean company behind games like World of Warcraft-wannabe "Guild Wars."

Uh...what? This Eric Krangel is a joke. The article that pumpkin pie posted just lost any and all credibility.

Kumu Honua · Mar 12, 2009, 12:27 AM // 00:27

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/

Hollywood invented Virtual worlds first!

Gun Pierson · Mar 12, 2009, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Any news about the case btw?

pumpkin pie · Mar 12, 2009, 03:29 AM // 03:29

ripple in the pond has become a tidal wave :P and tusnami

it seems, worlds.com has gotten another patent approval recently

major trolling

boy do i hate them

RedNova88 · Mar 12, 2009, 04:16 AM // 04:16

I'm with you, pumpkin. Idiots and their lust for money, good luck to them suing every company that's ever developed an MMO or 3d chat/community program like the Playstation 3 thing.

Violators of the laughably broad patent include...

Linded Labs
NCsoft
ArenaNet
NetDevil
Sony Online Entertainment
Mythic
Blizzard
Pentavision
Cartoon Network
Grigon Entertainment
Virgin Interactive
PlayTechTonics
Walt Disney Internet Group
Wizet

Please don't make me go on...

Red Sonya · Mar 12, 2009, 05:23 AM // 05:23

I think it's funny that people like Forrest Gump, Bubba, and Earnest T's are the ones that are going to decide the fate of NCsoft et al. You see Harrison County where this case will be tried is one of the largest red neck counties in Texas. It's farm country for the most part and lotsa Bubba's here. lol So, the side that is going to win this is the side that can present their case in a Bubba sort of intelligence. If they try to get too complicated for them then they will lose. I don't know why and how Marshall, Texas got to be so popular for Federal Patent cases, but, that's the facts today. Good luck NCsoft, the fate of your company is in Bubba's hands now. Suuuuueeeeeeeeeeee lol

RedNova88 · Mar 12, 2009, 06:53 AM // 06:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

I think it's funny that people like Forrest Gump, Bubba, and Earnest T's are the ones that are going to decide the fate of NCsoft et al. You see Harrison County where this case will be tried is one of the largest red neck counties in Texas. It's farm country for the most part and lotsa Bubba's here. lol So, the side that is going to win this is the side that can present their case in a Bubba sort of intelligence. If they try to get too complicated for them then they will lose. I don't know why and how Marshall, Texas got to be so popular for Federal Patent cases, but, that's the facts today. Good luck NCsoft, the fate of your company is in Bubba's hands now. Suuuuueeeeeeeeeeee lol

Do keep in mind it's 2009 and not 1960. Texas holds a lot of gamers, and more than one game development team has made it's home in Texas. Gearbox and 3D Realms just to name two. In any case I don't know why I'm even worried about them winning, because they're not going to. Not when they'd be able to sue literally anyone that's ever made a game with online capabilities.

Red Sonya · Mar 12, 2009, 12:02 PM // 12:02

Do keep in mind it's the residence of Marshall Texas that will decide this case should it come to Marshall not the whole of Texas. For much of Marshall it's still 1960.

This area is also a bible belt area and many of the residence here don't even like video games that present violence and would do most anything to take them off the market. So, Bubba, and Forrest and Earnest T's are still alive and well in Marshall Texas.

RedNova88 · Mar 12, 2009, 12:06 PM // 12:06

Great... Having a bible doesn't give you an excuse to hate video games, or anything. Oh well, I still think they'll lose the case. If they don't Blizzard and NCsoft will hire assassins to take care of worlds.com (you totally know they would).

Markaedw · Mar 12, 2009, 12:37 PM // 12:37

Now he is going to sue everybody!!!!!

http://www.businessinsider.com/world...arcraft-2009-3

Fril Estelin · Mar 12, 2009, 12:51 PM // 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Do keep in mind it's the residence of Marshall Texas that will decide this case should it come to Marshall not the whole of Texas. For much of Marshall it's still 1960.

This area is also a bible belt area and many of the residence here don't even like video games that present violence and would do most anything to take them off the market. So, Bubba, and Forrest and Earnest T's are still alive and well in Marshall Texas.

In Western Europe countries (which I know best), the government would make sure that the "local" court wouldn't make a stupid decision that would globally impact the country's situation (economy, a sensible topic at the moment). Laws are interpreted by the judge and a high-ranked person could make sure he "understands" the case a particular way(?).

And even if worlds.com trolling is successfully acknoledge by this Marshall Texas, don't you have appeals that ultimately lead to the Supreme Court? (maybe not for patents? my knowledge of Law is very limited and I won't try to pretend I understand the grounding or ramifications of this case)

SpiritThief · Mar 12, 2009, 01:40 PM // 13:40

updated with info about them filing now against WoW and Second Life.