Update on Patent Wars: Worlds.com Picks a Fight
According to a story in The Register, Worlds.com made good on its promise to go after MMOG companies using its patents. Playing the role of Mr. Potter, Worlds.com lawyers delivered a lawsuit to NCSoft on Christmas Eve, saying that NCSoft "willfully and deliberately infringed on its patent." They are seeking "an unspecified amount of damages along with prejudgment and postjudgement interest, or 'in no event less than a reasonable royalty.'"
The Register article also notes that "the patent was filed in August 16, 1999 and granted to Worlds.com on May 4, 2004. (Note that City of Heroes was released April 2004, before the patent was issued. Lineage was released in 1998, before the patent was even filed.)"
Others have already come up with various reasons this patent (and the others along the same lines that Worlds holds) are, or should be, considered spurious and worthless. How long Worlds.com will be allowed to continue with these strongarm tactics based on IP they didn't invent remains to be seen.
Actually VirtualWorldsNews.com broke the story. You can read about it here along with a copy of the complaint: http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2008/12/worldscom-files-suit-against-ncsoft.html
Posted by: chris sherman | Dec 30, 2008 at 23:19
Worlds.com Files Suit Against NCsoft
http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2008/12/worldscom-files-suit-against-ncsoft.html
Posted by: chris | Dec 30, 2008 at 23:23
In the United States, it doesn't matter when they filed under the law. The United States (unlike most of the rest of the world) operates on a first to invent principal, not first to file.
Posted by: FlipperPA Peregrine | Dec 30, 2008 at 23:43
Hey does anyone know the person to contact at NCSoft or their law firm? Our little community here possibly has enough information to invalidate this whole effort by Worlds.
Posted by: Bruce Damer | Dec 31, 2008 at 01:34
Shouldn't the issuer of a spurious patent which then loses in court on the basis of prior art be held accountable, or it be possible to levy a large penalty if the court thinks the filer of the suit always knew it was flimsy?
It seems from a purely gameplay point of view, that the risks involved in losing, or from issuing a bad patent, are not high enough to make the parties involved think twice, which forces the cost of the whole thing onto the courts and those claimed against.
Posted by: Daniel Speed | Dec 31, 2008 at 10:19
FlipprPA has on point. Don't go by the filing date in looking at prior art. Worlds.com released their first social space under the model detailed in the patent in early 1994.
Posted by: Chas | Dec 31, 2008 at 10:21
Shouldn't the issuer of a spurious patent which then loses in court on the basis of prior art be held accountable, or it be possible to levy a large penalty if the court thinks the filer of the suit always knew it was flimsy?
AFAIK, this is possible, but the standards of proof are deliberately set rather high to keep it from being used as an automatic retaliation against *any* litigation (since the defendant can almost always afford more lawyers than the plaintiff in individual vs. corporation cases).
So if you can plausibly claim you thought your case was good, you're safe (other than losing your own legal bills).
Posted by: chris | Dec 31, 2008 at 13:25
Maybe if enough of these spurious patents come to the fore, virtual world developers will finally form that trade association they should have formed a decade ago, and that can defend its members against speculative patent claims.
Here's a question for the lawyers: if an MMO developer has US players of but no US offices, and is based in a country where software patents are not recognised (eg. the UK), what's the worst that a patent troll can do to them using a US software patent as a weapon?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jan 01, 2009 at 13:11
http://knol.google.com/k/dv8-org/worldscom-a-history/2pp40c68ytz4j/2#
relevant dates
Posted by: khz | Jan 02, 2009 at 10:37
The Register article has their dates wrong according to the USPTO site:
http://tinyurl.com/6ohx6a
Filed in 1996, approved in 2001
Posted by: Elle Pollack | Jan 02, 2009 at 13:03
Anyone have contact with the company or its law firm? I could provide key defensive material for this, stop it in its tracks possibly.
Posted by: Bruce Damer | Jan 02, 2009 at 17:00
Hi guys,
Bruce, I can put you in touch with David Reid, NCsoft head of publishing. Will ping you offline about that.
Happy New Year's all!
ron
Posted by: ron meiners | Jan 04, 2009 at 10:12
Topic for spam?
Posted by: TommyUI | Jan 11, 2009 at 20:27
what do you think about BMW?
Posted by: EsomyNomb | Jan 16, 2009 at 19:23