Worlds.com Asserting Patents on Virtual Worlds

News in the blogosphere this morning (from Sean Kane's Virtual Law blog, via Virtual Worlds News) that Worlds.com, a company that was an early pioneer of virtual worlds development, but which has long been relegated to the shadows of online history, is flexing potential litigious muscle in asserting certain patents it has been awarded on key aspects affecting virtual worlds and MMOGs -- essentially, just about anything with a virtual space and an avatar. 

Quoting Kane's blog,

According to statements by Alexander Poltorak, General Patent Corporation’s Chairman and CEO, “[t]he Worlds patents represent exceptionally valuable intellectual property,” and “[w]e welcome licensing inquiries from the on-line game industry. Non-exclusive licenses are available on favorable and non-discriminatory terms.”

Worlds.com holds U.S. Patent Nos. 6,219,045 entitled “Scalable Virtual World Chat Client-Server System” and 7,181,690 titled “System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space”.  Thom Kidrin, the CEO of Worlds.com, stated that “[w]e are pleased to have the expertise and IP experience of General Patent and Lerner David to enforce Worlds’ patent portfolio,” and that “[a]s 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.”

The central question, of course, is whether these patents are any good, and what effect this is likely to have on virtual worlds -- MMOGs and social worlds alike.   

For example, the abstract for first patent cited above says that

The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a      three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system.      A plurality of users can interact in the three-dimensional,      computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client      process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. The      virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors      of the user viewing the virtual world. In order that the view can be      updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars, motion      information is transmitted to a central server which provides position      updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client      process. The client process also uses an environment database to determine      which background objects to render as well as to limit the movement of the      user's avatar.

This is limited to 3D, not 2D, so Habitat might or might not qualify as prior art (I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but we have some terrific ones here, and I'm guessing MMOG and social world companies around the world have a few too).  On the other hand Habitat (and even many early MUDs) operated with graphical clients as described in these patents.  As for navigating with avatars in a 3D space, what about games like Air Warrior?  Are there other examples of 3D client-server games?  How about the early PLATO games and early 3D military systems?

The second patent appears similar to the first:

The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a      three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world      system. In a preferred embodiment a plurality of users interact in the      three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user      executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of      that user. The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users      who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual word. In order that the      view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars,      motion, information is transmitted to a central server process which      provides positions updates to client processes for neighbors of the user      at that client process. The client process also uses an environment      database to determine which background objects to render as well as to      limit the movement of the user's avatar.

I will be interested to see what happens as the result of  this effort by Worlds.com to cash in on what has become a multibillion dollar global industry.  Personally, I hope that Blizzard, NCSoft, Linden Labs, Electronic Arts, Microsoft and others bury this, just as Compton's attempt to enforce a poorly thought-out and overly broad patent on "any system that combined sound, images, and text" was eventually denied (nod to commenter Chris on Virtual Worlds News for that link).  Either way, there are a lot of dollars involved, so it's hardly surprising that we'd see a turn of events like this. 

If you have pointers to substantive prior instances of client-server systems involving 3D navigation and avatars, etc., feel free to post them. 

 

Comments

[wonderwhy-er]

1.

As far as I can say this patents have no real value outside of US. As far as I know you can't patent game idea, software solution idea or anything alike even in USA currently. All you can do is to patent software as part of some hardware solution with out which that hardware will not work. And even then if someone reverse engineers that software and then rewrites it with changes then it will be a big problem to prove something as such patents on ideas and software usually need very precise definition of what is patented that does not allow any interpretation till last bit because if you leave such field for interpretation then that means software that differs only in places that can be interpret may end up not breaking you patent.

I am not a lawyer but I am currently getting my Master degree in Computer Science in Europe and we have a discipline called IT laws where we had chapters both on European, USA, and World copyrights and patents laws. So for USA it was confusing with that for a while so some algorithms like LZW were patented this way for 20 years. But after some time laws were polished and and up being like above. Or at least that's what I remember. And in Europe this seems to be like that to but from the beginning of IT laws.

So from that point of view above Patents sound too abstract with too large possibilities to interpret them so possibility i very high that they will be canceled or something if they push too much. Plus I presume that they are USA only no?

[specter]

2.

In terms of publication of these ideas, a historical search of any of the relevant newsgroups from 1990 onwards would undoubtedly find this exact vision (3d graphical MUDs) discussed to death. I know that I certainly envisioned this back in my Diku days.

I think this is a cash grab that's destined for an epic fail.

[F. Randall Farmer]

3.

Heh. Turns out this kind of thing is now going on in Europe and Asia with other attempts to enforce at virtual world patents filed since the mid to late 1990s.

For the record and posterity, as a pioneer of many of the technologies in the late 80's and early 90s and concepts underlying such claims, I am available as a professional expert witness. In the last year have worked on several cases surrounding bogus virtual world patent claims. Most you haven't heard of because we overwhelm them with prior-art and the die long before trial.

Ask Will Harvey (IMVU) how Forterra tried to shake him down by asserting that they had a patent on the 3D-word balloon in virtual worlds. I had fun providing the prior art for that one! If he'd lost, I'm 100% that Blizzard was next in line. [I should really write a blog post up about this one - Will, if you're reading this, drop me a line with the latest status.] As it is, your word balloons are safe. :-)

I've also referred other lame claims off to other pioneers/Terra Nova regulars, such as Brian Green.

I've also just today faxed of a witness statement in an international case that's so dumb it makes my head hurt.

Here's the deal - much of the stuff people patented starting in the late 1990s was previously created and not patented because we didn't think you *could* patent software. Lucky thing for virtual worlds this is true.

Patent trolls aren't going to get away with claiming *my* virtual world prior art! I'm a pack rat. I have stuff you didn't even know existed, and I know where I put it. :-)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

4.

From what I read back then there should be some relevant published research on multi-user VR from the early 1990s, but I guess the "scalable" viewpoint might "kill" most of those prototypes as they were aiming for real-time performance (e.g. multicast implementations).

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

5.

(I assume the authors of DIVE know what was available at the time period you are interested in.)

[Richard Bartle]

6.

Mike Sellers>Are there other examples of 3D client-server games?

Well there's Cyberstrike, which won CGW's "online game of the year" award in 1993. There's also the 1990 BattleTech Centers stuff, where they had Amiga clients running in pods linked to a Mac server.

Richard

[Andrei]

7.

Very interesting indeed.

These Copyrights have a way of turning up just when the pot grows larger.

[Concerned Reader]

8.

According to the USPTO, the named inventor on the chat bubble patent is ... Will Harvey!
The plot thickens.

[F. Randall Farmer]

9.

I've posted over at Habitat Chronicles an expanded post on the topic of virtual world patent trolling - read The Demise of the Word Balloon Patent or How IMVU, Bruce Damer and I Saved Blizzard a Million Dollars and They Don't Even Know!

[Hypatia Callisto]

10.

Also there was Visual Compuserve, programmed by John D. Gwinner, currently CTO of DAZ Systems.

http://www.dazsi.com/

He was the forum sysop of Cyberforum on Compuserve and he did get a 3d interface running to some extent. I played with the demo back in 95. If you google his name and VisCIS you will find postings of his on the net from late 95 about it.

Randy might know more about this, but I remember way back when, talking to John in Worldsaway, that he was speaking to Fujitsu about doing a 3d interface for them too. I do not know how far it went.

[Jamie Palisades]

11.

Warm regards to Mr Farmer. It's often the "packrats" who produce the clipping -- or in this case, paperback book -- that proves the "prior art" needed to disprove a patent's alleged novelty.
Prior art does need to be published though, to be presented as a defense.
Speaking of old paperbacks on my shelf, here's a puzzler for you. Why isn't the 1984 novel "Neuromancer" (to name just one) a sufficiently fully realized description of 3D, avatar-centric virtual worlds to establish the nonnovelty of the Worlds.com patents?