Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Ca...orld-of-Warcraft-Worlds-Inc-NCSoft,15327.html
All kinds of silly.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Activision Blizzard Sued For Virtual World Infringement
- Thread starter strafer
- Start date
Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Ca...orld-of-Warcraft-Worlds-Inc-NCSoft,15327.html
All kinds of silly.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
How long until someone patents the idea of patenting?
OldJadedGamer
Banned
What is this backwards day? Activision is the one that sues everyone without any basis, not the other way around.
I don't know, but I patented that question so...
Hot Coldman
Banned
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
One of the few times I'm cheering for Activision.
I hope all that money from WOW & COD they accumulated destroys those patent trolls.
I hope all that money from WOW & COD they accumulated destroys those patent trolls.
Having read into this a little bit it would seem that they developed a technical solution to a big problem that was occurring in the mid 90s which prevented online games with more than a dozen users from being able to operate efficiently ? They developed a method of load balancing the tasks between the server and the computers to allow hundreds of players to exist in the same space at the same time.
Not every person who sues a large company is a patent troll. I am sure you'd be upset if a technology you invented and patented was being used by many and you weren't being compensated...
Not every person who sues a large company is a patent troll. I am sure you'd be upset if a technology you invented and patented was being used by many and you weren't being compensated...
Assuming that the users having to be using separate and distinct hardware systems, I *think* the earliest iteration of what they're describing would be Midi Maze. If that's not somehow their product, then that's provably prior art.
Edit: From reading the patent: IANAL, and I'm not sure how Midi Maze handles server, it might not quite fit the bill. Pretty sure Quake does, though.
Edit: From reading the patent: IANAL, and I'm not sure how Midi Maze handles server, it might not quite fit the bill. Pretty sure Quake does, though.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
That is the most generic patent I have ever heard of.
mysteriousmage09
Member
lol good fucking luck with this lawsuit chumps. Against Activision Blizzard and probably SOE?
uuuuuuugggghhhhh
I can't even wrap my head around this level of stupidity.
There's a Nintendo joke here somewhere...
You need to look at some of Apple's patents.
I can't even wrap my head around this level of stupidity.
There's a Nintendo joke here somewhere...
You need to look at some of Apple's patents.
I went to worlds.com because of this thread. I return with some OC.
I see you.
"Interact" doesnt mean chatting.
Which is why I hesitated to make the joke.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Now that you mention that, I'm sure that's actually worse.
AnathemicOne
Banned
dem patent trolls
They'll probably settle out of court for some dollar amount that's less than the legal costs associated with actually going to court.
SMT
this show is not Breaking Bad why is it not Breaking Bad? it should be Breaking Bad dammit Breaking Bad
You see all these people paying homage to Nintendo, and it doesn't seem like they would sue.
Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Ca...orld-of-Warcraft-Worlds-Inc-NCSoft,15327.html
All kinds of silly.
We made it. We patent it. We own it.
Apple usually tries to have patents that are not invalidated by prior art. These guys aren't even trying.
PA has really lost their touch, haven't they?
That comic is from three years ago.
Incidentally, so is this story. These morons have been after Blizzard for a while now.
To be fair, this patent application was filed in 1996.
What 3D interactive online games were there in 1996?
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Full 3D? Quake was one. Probably various clones too.
And of course the earlier Doom-likes probably qualify too, they aren't fully 2D either.
Not that if there weren't any the patent should be viable if there were just 2D ones up to that point.
No, I would be not. Software patents are terrible.
I don't think online is specifically required, just something with a client-server setup - which in turn opens up network gaming, which was definitely around back then. As I said, Midi Maze *might* work if one system acted as a server. Doom probably fits the bill, Quake *definitely* does.
Eight Diagram Bat Fighter
Banned
With that broad of a spectrum, couldn't he technically sue every company for 99.9% of all games made? Does it only apply to online? or two player games or even single players games interacting with AI?
Just looking at the first set of patent claims, it talks about the client receiving only a partial view of other avatars from the server, so it appears to be describing an MMO type system where only a portion of the world view is available to each client.
In any event my point was just that it's not that outlandish a patent to have been approved, given the time it was filed.
I'm pretty sure Meridian 59 was out by 1996.
Wasn't UO partially 3D? That should count too.
Is there a way for the US patent system to declare a patent to broad ? Like, this seems to trademark the very idea of playing a game online which to me doesn't seem like something specific enough to be the natural idea of just 1 guy or company.
I ask because isn't that pretty much what happened with the whole Edge games thing ? a judge revoked the patent because trademarking the word was simply too broad a thing to patent ?
Also, these franchises have been out for 10 years , why bother to declare it infringement now ? seems to be only further justification that it's just for the money. Course, a small settlement is likely all they are after , not everyone wants to spend what EA did to kill Edge games. Handing them a check for a million dollars WILL be cheaper then going to court but if they fight it off they might prevent future abuse.
I ask because isn't that pretty much what happened with the whole Edge games thing ? a judge revoked the patent because trademarking the word was simply too broad a thing to patent ?
Also, these franchises have been out for 10 years , why bother to declare it infringement now ? seems to be only further justification that it's just for the money. Course, a small settlement is likely all they are after , not everyone wants to spend what EA did to kill Edge games. Handing them a check for a million dollars WILL be cheaper then going to court but if they fight it off they might prevent future abuse.
I actually played Worlds this past summer. It's the closest you can get to a virtual ghost town. They still have hundreds of user created areas and such. Also, their are regulars who've been on it regularly about a decade plus. It's interesting to check it for a little bit.
Also, they still have their franchise hubs. You can't beat pre-millenium WWF nostalgia.
Also, they still have their franchise hubs. You can't beat pre-millenium WWF nostalgia.
wut
witchedwiz
Member
no offense, but it's my honest opinion you shouldn't be allowed to patent AN IDEA..
you can patent something you build, but a concept is too much volatile to patent..
Basically worlds.com is patenting the capability to let object A interact with object B in a particular fashion C in a particular environment D..
that's so fucking absurdly generic that it maes me wonder if court judges in america are too much troll-friendly... this should be rejected by office.......
I repeat, we're not talking about patenting a car engine or a car engine technology/blueprint, we're not patenting a schema for something, we're talking about patenting something we haven't YET realized or even schematized (and judging by worlds.com site, I doubt they have even the sligthest capability to deliver something that can be defined not cutting edge, but even passable for the current times....)
you can patent something you build, but a concept is too much volatile to patent..
Basically worlds.com is patenting the capability to let object A interact with object B in a particular fashion C in a particular environment D..
that's so fucking absurdly generic that it maes me wonder if court judges in america are too much troll-friendly... this should be rejected by office.......
I repeat, we're not talking about patenting a car engine or a car engine technology/blueprint, we're not patenting a schema for something, we're talking about patenting something we haven't YET realized or even schematized (and judging by worlds.com site, I doubt they have even the sligthest capability to deliver something that can be defined not cutting edge, but even passable for the current times....)
Femmeworth
Banned
Can we launch patent trolls into the sun?
Wha? Could anyone post the definition of this law? I do understand why the law exists, to some degree, but has it ever been used against or for anything slightly reasonable? Like someone copy-pasting regular rock n' roll song, and instead of singing the words they are rapped.
Anyhow.. many ideas are probably more or less iterations -- someone brilliant came up with the concept; then someone refined it and passed it off as his own. Then it happened again, except the concept changed directions, etc. And the development of player to player interaction is most likely an iterative process. It certainly hasn't changed fundamentally in any way or form in 10-15 years even!
Oh I just read more of the interview, and it's worse than I thought:
"As the patent label implies, the "product" deals with creating realistic scalable presentations of 3D virtual worlds, and allowing players to interact in those virtual worlds."
What? How could a patent infringement law even say, or imply that stuff like THAT is ok? You can't copyright or put a patent on a concept like that -- Creating virtual worlds with accurate representations of enviroments in 3d is, more or less, just the paper on which you put the ink of your story; you employ it to simulate a world/place, to, hopefully, get the player to feel more involved in what is going on, and then feel like he is part of another world.
It's human nature.
Obviously, only ideas that are extremely rare/unlikely/an idea that, when logically considered and researched, is something that is exceedingly rare to consider. And that conclusion should only be reached after 20 people from different walks of life/parts of the world agree on that conclusion.
It's somewhat extreme yes but it has to be I think...
Anyhow.. many ideas are probably more or less iterations -- someone brilliant came up with the concept; then someone refined it and passed it off as his own. Then it happened again, except the concept changed directions, etc. And the development of player to player interaction is most likely an iterative process. It certainly hasn't changed fundamentally in any way or form in 10-15 years even!
Oh I just read more of the interview, and it's worse than I thought:
"As the patent label implies, the "product" deals with creating realistic scalable presentations of 3D virtual worlds, and allowing players to interact in those virtual worlds."
What? How could a patent infringement law even say, or imply that stuff like THAT is ok? You can't copyright or put a patent on a concept like that -- Creating virtual worlds with accurate representations of enviroments in 3d is, more or less, just the paper on which you put the ink of your story; you employ it to simulate a world/place, to, hopefully, get the player to feel more involved in what is going on, and then feel like he is part of another world.
It's human nature.
Obviously, only ideas that are extremely rare/unlikely/an idea that, when logically considered and researched, is something that is exceedingly rare to consider. And that conclusion should only be reached after 20 people from different walks of life/parts of the world agree on that conclusion.
It's somewhat extreme yes but it has to be I think...