Ridiculous. No one should be able to hold a patent over what's so fundamental to a genre of games. I hope they don't win any suits related to this. Otherwise, people have to pay licensing fees to make an MMO that's otherwise original? ...
Well the line "System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space" isn't very specific either. Back like 21-years-ago when I was a child, my brother and I frequently played our Atari or Nintendo together, mostly enjoying 2-player functionality. That in itself can be considered "Interacting in a Virtual Space" Can't it?
I'm still amazed that they have a case in this. Although it claims interaction, the interaction appears to be of some other form of communication than text rooms and playing with other people.
I can only wonder how this will turn out, since Worlds.com has a strong case in this and it'll be scary if they don't lose, since many other virtual worlds are at risk, imagine Xbox live games and PS Home, etc.
Jesus... you know I'm sure I used to lean with my controller to try to make sonic run faster on my megadrive... think i may have flicked it up once or twice when i was jumping too... if I can find an old camcorder tape of it then Nintendo, you're going down!!!
@VileMethoD: Their site said they were founded in 1994. I'm just curious if this would bar all 3D games with chatroom support. Because it seems that's where the argument lies.
@Derek Rumpler: from the article "His company claims the idea of a scalable virtual world with thousands of users is its patented intellectual property"
apparently it's the architecture of a large number of users occupying the same virtual space these guys have a patent on.
even back in 1997 i don't think it was an entirely original idea though. I don't know a great deal about patent laws but if you patent an existing idea just because you developed a way to do it, does that patent only stand for your particular approach to realising the idea?
@Gossy loves yo' mamma's flapjacks: No, not the architecture. The concept. Architecture implies design. Concepts imply throwing ideas to the patent office, and waiting for someone else to do all the work, then swoop in and leech off their success.
But wouldn't this fail for one thing because they had to have deliberately ignored so many prior violations to defend their patent, and also because anyone can see that what they have patented is utterly inevitable?
Not to show how old I am but I played an mmo by them of Battletech and Air Warrior on GEnie a long time ago (back in the 80's). This technically would fit into the patent as well.
No judge will favor Worlds.com in this case. When a technology becomes as ubiquitous as "virtual worlds" there is no way such a patent holds up in court. Most likely this will end up with the patent office being fined for passing such a broad, generic, and stupid patent.
This is the kind of complaint a lawyer laughs at... mostly because it means they'll get paid big bucks just to take a dump on it in a courtroom.
I actually looked through this patent, and apart from the massive amount of penguins portrayed in it: it doesn't make sense to patent something like this (and even sue companies with it)
It actually describes in minor detail how they thought up a 3D chat room, with objects like graphics stored on a local computer and communications processed by a central server (just like MMO's)
So they do have the proper patent, but this applies to all games that use a central server... Or to put it in non technical terms: they are suing writers because somehow they have patented grammar.
... I'm going to be filthy rich once my patent "usage of the letter e, a and i on a centralized server" gets approved!!
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
I can only wonder how this will turn out, since Worlds.com has a strong case in this and it'll be scary if they don't lose, since many other virtual worlds are at risk, imagine Xbox live games and PS Home, etc.
03/11/09
Slimeballs. What a joke.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
Expect to hear from Al Gore's lawyers very soon.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
At its core concept, its a chatroom. Are you saying video games can't have chatrooms? Do they own the patent on 3D videogames which do?
Were there any 3D games with chatroom support before MMOs or the 1997 patent?
Some thoughts.
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
apparently it's the architecture of a large number of users occupying the same virtual space these guys have a patent on.
even back in 1997 i don't think it was an entirely original idea though. I don't know a great deal about patent laws but if you patent an existing idea just because you developed a way to do it, does that patent only stand for your particular approach to realising the idea?
03/11/09
03/11/09
03/11/09
12/29/08
Wow. They're gonna be rich, bitch.
12/29/08
But wouldn't this fail for one thing because they had to have deliberately ignored so many prior violations to defend their patent, and also because anyone can see that what they have patented is utterly inevitable?
12/29/08
Not to show how old I am but I played an mmo by them of Battletech and Air Warrior on GEnie a long time ago (back in the 80's). This technically would fit into the patent as well.
12/29/08
This is the kind of complaint a lawyer laughs at... mostly because it means they'll get paid big bucks just to take a dump on it in a courtroom.
12/29/08
It actually describes in minor detail how they thought up a 3D chat room, with objects like graphics stored on a local computer and communications processed by a central server (just like MMO's)
So they do have the proper patent, but this applies to all games that use a central server... Or to put it in non technical terms: they are suing writers because somehow they have patented grammar.
... I'm going to be filthy rich once my patent "usage of the letter e, a and i on a centralized server" gets approved!!
12/29/08
One way around it, though I'm sure there are many others, is to leave everything server-side and provide software-as-a-service.