Patents threaten virtual worlds, MMOGs
Filed under: News items, Opinion, Second Life, Legal, Virtual worlds
Any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent," subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. So says the US Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO), citing the applicable statute.
There's a lot of slicing, dicing and hair splitting over nearly every part of that sentence, and some extraordinary debates and numerous calls for reform of the patent system. Nevertheless, today we're looking at two patents that the owners appear to be keen to enforce.
Between them, they appear to cover a few simple, and difficult-to-avoid systems that underpin pretty much every graphical virtual environment, and MMOG that you can think of, from World of Warcraft, to Second Life -- and perhaps most of the online multiplayer games since the era of Doom.
The two patents in question are 6,219,045 and 7,181,690. Respectively those are "Scalable virtual world client-server chat system" and "System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space".
As software patents go, they're actually pretty straightforward. Don't be fooled by the language, however, as patents only appear to be written in English. Sure, the words are English as are the sentence constructions, but each word and phrase possesses an accretive definition representing layers of judicial precedent. Many of the words, therefore, do not necessarily have the same meanings you would find in the dictionary. Not when it comes to arguing them in court.
And an argument in court seems to be in the offing.
"We are pleased to have the expertise and IP experience of General Patent and Lerner David to enforce Worlds' patent portfolio," stated Thom Kidrin, Worlds' CEO. [our emphasis] "As the number of virtual worlds and MMORG's continues to grow, Worlds has seen the space we pioneered in 1995 validated in techniques and methodologies we believe are defined in our patents."
We're not sure that Worlds.com necessarily pioneered the space in 1995, but whether they did or not really isn't the issue here. Patent 6,219,045 was filed in 1996 and granted in 2001. Patent 7,181,690 was filed in 2000 and granted in early 2007.
Right now, barring some circumstance that might invalidate them (a lengthy and costly procedure), Worlds.com does in fact appear to hold the keys to the fundamentals of almost all virtual environment and MMOG architectures.
The usual procedure at this point is to line up the lawyers and demand money. Lots of money. Submarine patent enforcement strategy usually goes one of two ways. Either you basically hit a lot of people at once, hoping that a whole bunch of them will settle before any of the cases actually get to court, or you target an organization that is weak or has little in the way of cash reserves.
In the latter strategy, getting your weak target to roll over in court establishes a precedent that makes your patents much harder to overturn by anyone else in future.
Obviously there's prior art involved, but a half-baked prior-art opposition can actually strengthen a patent's position, and potentially invalidate the prior art from being used in further challenges.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit
"Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights"
The doctrine of Laches -- typified by the above quote -- seems to be the most effective opposition in this case -- basically, that if World.com's patents are being infringed upon, that it has been happening openly for some years, and that they chose to do nothing during that period.
You can also bet your bootstraps that these are not the only patents lurking in the wings that potentially threaten our favorite industry. We expect to see more of this sort of thing pop up over the next few years.
In the meantime, we will be watching what World.com and its partners do with these patents with keen interest.
Update: NCsoft has been sued for infringement of one of these patents, and we've got additional commentary here.
_thumbnail.jpg "Aion Beta: Asmodian Ascension Quest")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Patchouli Woollahra said on 11:13AM 12-12-2008
This screams 'money grab', and is what I would describe also as a attempt to ransom an entire industry with the aid of an extremely big pair of clubs.
Worlds.com needs to die in a fire. Even if they have more of a leg to stand on than the Santa Cruz Organization ever had with Linux, the implications of a Worlds.com success in court over this would be unthinkable. Isn't there meant to be legislation against racketeering in America?
Reply
Kara Spengler said on 2:01PM 12-12-2008
It will be interesting to see what happens. Since SOP with software is the legal department files whatever pattents they can, I am sure SL, WOW, and so on could have some counter-suits if they wanted.
Remember Mutually Assured Destruction?
Tateru Nino said on 9:25PM 12-12-2008
Maybe so. Many other companies and engineers refuse to file them as a matter of principle - so many companies may not be armed with defensive patents.
Kazadun said on 12:56PM 12-12-2008
This directly shows the integrity or lack there of from Worlds.com.
I have already written an email detailing my dissapointment with them and I would suggest that anyone else reading this do the same.
Especially in an economic climate such as this to see a greedy CEO taking this stance is disheartening.
Reply
Doubledown Tandino said on 4:08PM 12-12-2008
How are these patents legitimate. How can someone claim ownership of something they did not invent?
RE: The two patents in question are 6,219,045 and 7,181,690. Respectively those are "Scalable virtual world client-server chat system" and "System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space".
It seems that both of these should be followed with "in relation to worlds.com" ....How can Thom Kidrin declare all virtual worlds and all virtual world chatsystems his when he only patented one kind?
It seems that each world's chatsystem and each world's shell and structure are unique, and the creator of each world should retain their own individual patents.
All this is just a loophole and Thom Kidrin is trying to abuse words and terms... but when 1 million strong come at this from every angle..... EEK... I feel sorry for Thom Kidrin.... cause it's rare that one person is going to have to battle EVERYONE, not from just one world, but from ALL worlds.
The longer this foolishness goes on, the more Thom Kidrin seals hit fate as 'the worst person in MMOG history' ouch, that's a pretty nasty title to have for someone that owns a virtual world.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 9:19PM 12-12-2008
The way things generally work is that it's the first one who gets to the patent office with the most correct paperwork, as it were.
Having your application granted by the USPTO gives you provisional ownership. They're also the people who handle trademarks, and you've seen *some* of the silliness that can surround those. Patent law is even *more* exciting.
Tateru Nino said on 9:25PM 12-12-2008
For example, this application last year that patents online scavenger hunts... http://www.google.com/patents?printsec=abstract&zoom=4&id=eQiiAAAAEBAJ&output=html
DeathMutant said on 4:28PM 12-12-2008
I suspect that Blizzard and other top MMOG publishers will join forces for the sole purpose of proving these types of "claims" unwarranted.
Perhaps Sci-Fi authors that describe "cyberspace" like William Gibson (Neuromancer, 1984) will be allowed to comment. Patent claims do not usually require the actual construction of a device or process -- just the idea -- and there are a hell of lot of ideas that have been published in science fiction long before someone tried to file a patent claim.
Reply
Arashikou said on 5:39PM 12-12-2008
Technically, you need the DESIGN of something to patent it, not just the idea for it. Ideas aren't patentable. But the standards for what constitutes a patentable design (especially in software) have become so lax in the last few decades that the difference between "Oooh, wouldn't it be neat if..." (idea) and "Here's how we could make a..." (design) has practically become nil.
Also, it's not just Blizzard we have to hope will step in. EA and Sony have much more of a history of getting into legal tussles and have a stake in this. Hell, stepping beyond the bounds of MMOs, MICROSOFT runs a few services that it seems to me would infringe on these patents. I doubt their flock of lawyers is going to sit by and let some no-name website threaten them...
ArcaneEyes said on 6:23PM 12-12-2008
holy shit, are these guyes for real?
thats not just shooting yourself in the foot, thats outright blowing your head off.
and actually, some patents have been killed because they were used in sci-fi novels, ie. someone had the "idea" before they did. i don't see how the patent got trough at all, concidering this.
i never even heard of them before. to me, thats "not using" the right you have, especially concidering i'm pretty into MMO and virtual worlds...
it should be judged invalid, and the guy should be sentenced some cash-fine for wasting the time of gamers and courts around the world.
Reply
alphadog said on 6:48PM 12-12-2008
More proof that patents on software should be abolished, much like patents on business processes have fallen. (a.k.a. the Bilski Decision)
Patents were design to protect tangible inventions, not mathematical concepts.
Reply
alphadog said on 6:59PM 12-12-2008
@DeathMutant: You don't just patent ideas. Furthermore, after the recent Bilski Decision, it seems that if you can do something "in your head", even if slower than a computer, it is not patentable, even if "original". Software is math, it is the notation system for complex math. As such, it isn't patentable; that's why we have had decades of issues related to software patents.
Reply
Kole said on 10:13PM 12-12-2008
Both patents are directed to systems for limiting the number of avatars displayed client side at a time.
Whether or not they are valid depends on what existed before 1996 and 2000 respectively. Its also unclear if anyone else is actually is practicing the claimed invention. Their claims specify counting all the avatars on a system and comparing that number to a display limit. Any game with instances probably doesn't use this system. Also any game with draw distance limits probably doesn't use this system. So what does that leave?
Its interesting that they say they pioneered the technology in 1995 but didn't patent it until 1996. They might have invalidated their own patents by releasing the system to the public before they filed - you can't claw back into a patent for something you already released to the public.
I can't see them going against Blizzard with this, they have so much money, they could keep this in the courts until the people behind World.com are forced declare bankruptcy.
Also the patents were only filed in the US. It can be practiced anywhere else with impunity.
Reply
TigroSpottystripes Katsu said on 11:01PM 12-12-2008
I once read that this patent sneaking shit was what caused most joysticks nowadays to either be completly passive or just vibrate (haptic feedback) instead of having true force feedback (moving the stick against the hand and all) :/
but hopefully you guys are right about the flaws that will make this attack fail :)
Reply
Jason said on 1:40AM 12-13-2008
Anyone remember Habitat for the Commodore 64? Wasn't that in 1984 or something, definitely before these greedy farts "pioneered" virtual worlds 11 years later. And what about all the MUDs even before that?
Reply
Steve said on 8:15PM 12-13-2008
Unlike patent trolls that are out there, at least Worlds has been invovled in 3D worlds for a long time and actually uses the techonology. To me it looks like that Patent Office is a factor in the timing since the second patent was granted only recently.
Reply
Doubledown Tandino said on 9:22PM 12-14-2008
Does this help any?
"Moove" - A German based virtual world created in 1994. Emphais on 3d Chat and dating.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 11:06PM 12-14-2008
Not if they didn't file a conflicting patent with the USPTO first - if they were using the specific technology and it was a trade-secret at the time, it probably doesn't count.
Gwyneth Llewelyn said on 8:54PM 12-15-2008
Also, Moove's parent company is located in Germany (although they have offices in the US too), and Europe doesn't acknowledge software patents, so very likely Moove is free to ignore any crazy software patent rights in the US.
It's definitely time for the European SL grid... ;)
David Sauter said on 1:11PM 12-16-2008
Prior Art for "System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space":
DikuMud: 1990/1991
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DikuMUD)
Prior Art for "Scalable virtual world client-server chat system":
IRC: 1988
(http://www.irc.org/history.html)
Reply