3D Virtual Worlds Patented! Lawsuits Started...
from the oh-come-on... dept
It seems that the ridiculous patent holders are trying to go out with a bang in 2008. Worlds.com, which holds a patent that never should have been issued on virtual worlds has sued NCSoft, makers of a bunch of popular online virtual worlds -- including some that were launched before the patent was even filed for in 2000. The Register link above shows a few examples of such virtual worlds, but you can dig back even further. In 1996 I was using OnLive! Traveler which did all of the things described in the patent described, as can be seen in the video below:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patents, virtual worls
Companies: general patent corporation, worlds.com
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe - too bad for them the First Warcraft game came out years before 2000.
So did Everquest.
So did Doom, Quake, Baldur's Gate - the list could go on for pages and pages - literally.
Nope, sorry - try again. Virtual Worlds were around before NCSoft was even a company. And yes, all of those games could be played 'online'. Been there, done that - even before it was 'cool'. Warcraft 1 and Doom were IPX games, but could be ran over Kali on the 'net.
Let us not forget Diablo either - really, in many ways the first true 'virtual world'.
Blizzard was already doing this before you were even in business Mr. Kim.
"NCsoft was originally founded in March 1997 by T.J. Kim, a business software developer and author of the Korean word processor Hangul."
"Diablo is a dark fantasy-themed action role-playing game developed by Blizzard North and released by Blizzard Entertainment on January 2, 1997."
"Warcraft: Orcs & Humans is a real-time strategy game, developed and published by Blizzard Entertainment in 1994"
If one was around in those days, they may recall various MUDS and other BBS games like Legend of the Red Dragon, which were also 'online virtual worlds' - just not with all the pretty graphics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is GPC and worlds.com who are sueing NCSoft for violating their patent(?).
Anyways, i just detest these bogus patents and companies who tries to glean off of legit companies who innovate.
Can't we do something about the crappy patent laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget...
I'd really love to see them go after Blizzard... or Sony ( who has Everquest and Star Wars)... good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everquest: Prior to the patent.
Hell, if we dive into movies describing the concept, let's take a look at The Lawnmower Man, which was released in 1994.
Books? Even further back.
These guys are apparently not very good at their jobs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike...are you helping?
I presume you are going to make this wealth of information available to the attorneys for the defendant(s)? It seems that it would make the case open and shut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike...are you helping?
I am always intrigued by the technological expertise exhibited by many of the persons who frequent this site. If only I have the ability as they apparently do of being omnipotent and being able to immediately discern what is a "good" patent and what is a "bad" patent.
One should never let relevant facts get in the way of making up his/her mind. Otherwise they might actually have to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike...are you helping?
Why would anyone let something as minor as reading the claims get in the way of a blog post?
Regardless, I am a "put your money where your mouth is" kind of guy. If there is evidence that a patent should never have been issued because of prior art, then let's get the prior art in public view so that is can be properly evaluated. The court case will go away like a bad dream, if the prior art existed before the filing date and if the prior art is relevant to the claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike...are you helping?
You sound like a twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike...are you helping?
Blanket insult is inaccurate in that my statement was qualified by the modifier "many", and based upon many comments in threads pertaining to patented subject matter involving arts such as electronics/computers/pharma/etc. it seems apparent that many who are making disparaging comments do not have backgrounds in science/engineering and the like.
Just a guess, but your comment suggests you are not one whose profession is in either science or engineering. If it was, I believe you would likely comment in a much different manner. These are not easy disciplines to master, and the many naunces associated with what is and what is not relevant prior art would be readily apparent.
One thing to keep in mind. You will never read any comment I make that says "this is a perfectly valid patent", nor will you ever hear read any comment to the contrary. Why? Because these issues depend upon relevant facts, virtually all of which are not contained in the articles and their links. The most that can ever honestly be said is "I don't know at this point in time. I need more information."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike...are you helping?
Blanket insult is inaccurate in that my statement was qualified by the modifier "many", and based upon many comments in threads pertaining to patented subject matter involving arts such as electronics/computers/pharma/etc. it seems apparent that many who are making disparaging comments do not have backgrounds in science/engineering and the like.
------
This is an argument I've heard and seen used many times by those who want to disparage those disagreeing with their "lofty" knowledge of whatever subject was being discussed.
It is, of course, a specious argument. It's used when the author wishes to "talk down" to his audience, basically saying, see, "I'm smarter than you, so you should do as I say".
Bluntly put, "a background in science/engineering and the like" is not necessary requirement to write or speak intelligently on the subject. It helps, of course, but all that is really required is a modicum of intelligence, some common sense, and the habit of keeping abreast of events in those fields. Experience acquired over ones life time also comes into play.
Nice try AC, but it doesn't wash...
And, just so you know I'm not one of those "Many" you refer to, my background is specifically in Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, and well over 40 years of experience in those and related fields.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike...are you helping?
In which case it is all the more surprising you are speaking on the behalf of the "many" who are quick to express opinions about technological arts in which they have no substantive/relevant experience. It is one thing to express an opinion about what should or should not be embraced within the patent law (e.g., software and business methods), which is an opinion regarding public policy. It is, however, quite another matter when one without any knowledge of specific engineering fields expounds on a matter that does require such knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
The thing is, this is blatantly obvious to any serious developer for MMORPGs or any other scalar 3D environment. What, would a good developer focus primarily on the avatars that are furthest away? Maybe developers would prefer a giant megaserver render every possible viewpoint into raw video format and stream it to every user? No, the solution provided in this patent falls under the "blatantly obvious" category; perhaps not to a layman, but to anybody with any computer science and 3D programming background whatsoever.
Further, their patent doesn't name any techniques for actually restricting this communication. It lists no algortihms whatsoever. There is no engine depicted. Instead, it lays claim to any and all possible methodologies for restricting this communication (and thereby conserving not only bandwidth, but CPU and GPU loads as well.
Sorry, this is a bad patent. Mike is patently correct, if you'll please excuse the pun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
Maybe it was obvious in 1996. Maybe it was not. This is for a court to decide based upon relevant evidence provided to it by the parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of prior art and obvious solutions
Now as far as prior art or obviousness, it's difficult to say. To me, being a programmer (since 1990) a lot of this stuff is pretty damn obvious (and to be frank, most of programming IS). If this patent was a continuation of something filed in 1995, the only thing close to prior art that I can think of off the top of my head is Doom. Doom was a singleplayer/multiplayer 3D first-person shooter. Many of the concepts in that patent are present in Doom. Limitations on server and client ends for the number of clients that could connect and/or be rendered. Make no mistake, even though there was no central server "farm" as such, the computer that hosts the game is technically a server.
I think this is a bad patent yes. It is a horrible patent..but the vast majority of software patents ARE. Anyway, I wanna go finish this 5th, happy new year to everyone.
Just my 2 cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wrote a "carp" about it on the Q&A thread. It was the wrong thread for it of course, but if you read my two posts about it you'll see that I put the cart before the horse.
Hopefully Mike will make some necessary changes in future embedded videos that will prevent them from starting automatically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patent filed 1996 for example listed as US patent Scalable virtual world chat client-server system is not just used in mmo games. The method here is used in any online game
From wikipedia
Although MMORPGs, as defined today, have only existed since the early 1990s,[4] all MMORPGs can trace a lineage back to the earliest multi-user games which started appearing in the late 1970s.[4] The first of these was Mazewar, though more would soon be developed for the PLATO system.[13] 1984 saw a Roguelike (semi-graphical) multi-user game, called Islands of Kesmai.[13] The first "truly" graphical multi-user RPG was Neverwinter Nights, which was delivered through America Online in 1991 and was personally championed by AOL President Steve Case.[13] Other early proprietary graphical MMORPGs include three on The Sierra Network: The Shadow of Yserbius in 1992, The Fates of Twinion in 1993, and The Ruins of Cawdor in 1995.
When NSFNET restrictions were lifted in 1995, the Internet was opened up to developers, which allowed for the first really "massive" titles. The first success after this point was Meridian 59, which also featured first-person 3D graphics,[14] although The Realm Online appeared nearly simultaneously and may be credited with bringing the genre to a wider player-base.[13] Ultima Online, released in 1997, may be credited with first popularizing the genre,[13] though Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds was primarily responsible for mainstream attention throughout Asia which was released in 1996, about a year earlier than Ultima Online. It was EverQuest that brought MMORPGs to the mainstream in the West.[13]
So previous to 1996 there where many prior art examples that featured the method described in 6219045.
Whats more all online games mmo or not use the system methods in US patent 7,181,690 System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space can not really be seen as a continuation as it deals with other functions namely basic REQUIRED server client architecture.
There is a reason all online games follow the methods they mentioned because the function of hardware and programing require them to.
They invented nothing they just copied the work of others and are attempting to claim it as there own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents in 3D virtual worlds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$50K rewards for Prior Art proof
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/50000-reward-offered-for-proof-worldscom-patent-lawsuit-i s-bogus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I get that $50k in cash.. might bump me up a tax bracket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kingdom of Drakkar
Kingdom of Drakkar went mainstream in 1992 on the MPG-Net games network. It is alive and well today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]