As reported in GameDeveloper, July 2001 in the Industry Watch colum "The United States Patent and Trademark Office has awarded a patent covering scalable 3D server technology. 3D virtual reality entertainment portal Worlds.com has been granted U.S. Patent #6,219,045 for its scalable architecture for a three-dimensional, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. The technology covered by the patent is described as allowing multiple users to interact in a three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user, with avatars representing the other users in the virtual world and the user''s view updating to reflect the motion of other users by way of a central server processor that provides position updates to client processes." It gose on to say "Not unexpectedly, Worlds.com believes that its patent may aplly to currently existing multiplayer games and has indicated its intention to review offerings that may be infringing on its new patent." Reflections, thoughts, ideas?

This is really stupid. Does the patent extends to things like Quake or UT? The idea is vague enough for that...


War Worlds - A 3D Real-Time Strategy game in development.

How did they get a patent on that? Is it possible to infringe on a new patent if you had the technology before? It sounds like they put a patent on the idea more than the technology.

__________________________________________
We get signal.
There are bombs exploding all around us!!

If that actually holds up under scrutiny we may as well just hang ourselves now.

How long until the US Patent office gets a clue?

I can''t express the level vehemence I feel about this type of stupidity.... Argg!

I think the main catch on how much of an impact this will have will be based on the how "to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user" is interperated. It obviousely has impact on any client/server FPS, and any other game that has a First Person view. However, it could also, while being slightly harder to argue, be interperated as covering 3rd person/over the sholder views that most MMORPG are takeing.

PFFFFFT.

The Patent Office awards all kings of silly patents everyone knows won''t hold up in court. If this stands up to a legal challenge, (and it sounds like it won''t) THEN worry about it.

They MIGHT have originally applied for this patent some time ago, if the application process took a while (it''s the application date and not the award date that''s important) but I kind of doubt it, since this wording even includes VRML web browser junk, that has been available for a very long time.

Is it really possible to patent such broad things/ideas that others have already implemented numerous times. For example, imagine the following scenario:

I walk into the patent office and say: "Behold, I have created this round, disc-like thingy, which I call ''Wheel'', now I want the patent."

I don''t think they would agree . So how can a company get a patent for such a vague idea/thing as a "virtual multiplayer environment" (as described above) when many others have been implementing them for years?

The US of A is a crazy place. Good thing I don''t live there .

[Of course, one shouldn''t jump to conclusions without having read the complete statement, but still. It sounds strange to me...]

Just so you know, the application date was November 12, 1996, and the patent was awared in April of this year. This, among other reasons, is why I say that patents shouldn''t be allowed in computing. Technology changes too quickly to be allowed to have a 7 year blackout on a process after taking 5 years to grant.

Although it would be interesting to see if they could even try to enforce this patent...it''s not like id "stole" the process from them when making Quake.

I agree that this is stupid. So Worlds.com basically has the ability to try and stop multiplayer gaming in its tracks. How pathetic. This could easily turn out to be another Hasbro vs. the World kind of thing, though I really hope not. And 5 years to grant a patent? They should have special rules for computer technology related patents, because Silvanis is right, computing advances way to quickly for the US government

==============================
"Need more eeenput..."
- #5, "Short Circuit"
==============================

Oh god... it''s another RAMBUS.

If the company has actually done anything, then I say that they deserve some kudos for thinking ahead, but I don''t recognize the name and they deserve the same treatment that the people who bought cocacola.com and mcdonalds.com got.