Okay, so the patent application was filed in 1996 and Doom
came out in ~1992. I believe that qualifies as previous art.

I believe the only proper response to the current chain of events is not to question the motives of World.com. As any business exists to make money, World.com has positioned itself to generate large sums of it (and lawsuits). Anything said to the contrary would be an attempt to win over people who do not fully understand the issues at hand.

The battle here is left to the industry and the U.S. Government. Unless the industry defines itself, the government shall define the industry. As the case has arisen here, our industry is now being defined by someone(U.S. Government) who isn''t part of it. We are taking offense to the idea that someone within our industry is taking something we failed to define as belonging to the entire industry and now is attempting to use this as an avenue to create revenue.

It is up to the industry as a whole to begin to formulate a response not only to this attempt by World.com to take something which doesn''t belong to it, but to the U.S. Government which continues to attempt to mold our industry without the proper forethought and knowledge.

Unless the individual voices here join together and form a consensus voice, we will be left to allowing someone else to define our industry from the outside.

I''m not an expert on this situation or on all of the issues currently within the industry. However, I''m a part of it. Before I propose any short sighted ideas that are beyond my perception, I think something should be started to prevent any more of this nonsense from occurring.

---------------------------------
The ability to make judgments beyond our perception is rarely prevented and often encouraged.

I believe the only proper response to the current chain of events is not to question the motives of World.com. As any business exists to make money, World.com has positioned itself to generate large sums of it (and lawsuits). Anything said to the contrary would be an attempt to win over people who do not fully understand the issues at hand.

The battle here is left to the industry and the U.S. Government. Unless the industry defines itself, the government shall define the industry. As the case has arisen here, our industry is now being defined by someone(U.S. Government) who isn''t part of it. We are taking offense to the idea that someone within our industry is taking something we failed to define as belonging to the entire industry and now is attempting to use this as an avenue to create revenue.

It is up to the industry as a whole to begin to formulate a response not only to this attempt by World.com to take something which doesn''t belong to it, but to the U.S. Government which continues to attempt to mold our industry without the proper forethought and knowledge.

Unless the individual voices here join together and form a consensus voice, we will be left to allowing someone else to define our industry from the outside.

I''m not an expert on this situation or on all of the issues currently within the industry. However, I''m a part of it. Before I propose any short sighted ideas that are beyond my perception, I think something should be started to prevent any more of this nonsense from occurring.

---------------------------------
The ability to make judgments beyond our perception is rarely prevented and often encouraged.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
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...]

Check out this article:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/07/02/FFX0ADFPLOC.html

The title reads, "Melbourne man patents the wheel."

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
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...]

Check out this article:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/07/02/FFX0ADFPLOC.html

The title reads, "Melbourne man patents the wheel."

Yeah they can keep dreaming.

And I have a patent on wiping my butt.

Although the patent may be blatently stupid at first glance, the fact remains that they were awarded it.

If you think that it will fail in court, yu may be right, but are you ready to go to battle when the average cost of litigating a patent is US$1.2 million!!!

When the USPTO starts granting patents on such obviously pre-existent technology, the days of the "2 guys in a garage" indie developers are numbered. It will be extremely hard to do business when you have to make room in that garage for another partner who does absolutely nothing to produce product...namely a patent attorney.

My thoughts...fuck em.

Sony has much to lose because of it. I'm sure their lawyers are already working on it.

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/25/1942240.shtml

1. In a system for interaction between a plurality of users in a three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where the system includes at least one server coupling a plurality of clients where each client addresses a client display, a method of representing interactions among the plurality of clients on a display of a target client comprising the steps of:
2. identifying a position of a local avatar of a user of the target client, the position being a position relative to the graphical space;

That's how every 3D game works so it's not enforcable.

3. determining a maximum displayable avatar count for the target client;

I don't know about the current MMOGs but that's not how I do it.

4. determining a total avatar count for the server, wherein the total avatar count indicates the number of clients connected to the server;

Everquest has NPCs which count as Avatars but that count doesn't match the clients connected count. I had 1800 avatars running around but only 3 connections used.

5. when the total avatar count is greater than the maximum displayable avatar count for the target client, limiting the number of avatars processed by the target client to the maximum displayable avatar count, wherein the step of limiting is performed at the target client; and
6. displaying, on the client display, the avatars processed by the target client.

Basically that the client only displays a certain number of characters in the viewable space despite how many are actually there. Some characters blink in and out of existance. I don't do that either and I doubt this covers Distance Culling.

So I don't think anyone has much to worry about.

Ben
http://therabbithole.redback.inficad.com





Edited by - KalvinB on July 7, 2001 5:23:26 AM

KalvinB
(snip)
Basically that the client only displays a certain number of characters in the viewable space despite how many are actually there. Some characters blink in and out of existance. I don't do that either and I doubt this covers Distance Culling.

So I don't think anyone has much to worry about.
(/snip)


Lol! If that copyright isn't broad enough, then neither is that!


Avretam
(snip)
The battle here is left to the industry and the U.S. Government. Unless the industry defines itself, the government shall define the industry. As the case has arisen here, our industry is now being defined by someone(U.S. Government) who isn't part of it. We are taking offense to the idea that someone within our industry is taking something we failed to define as belonging to the entire industry and now is attempting to use this as an avenue to create revenue.
(/snip)


That's awfully general. Our industry can't say what it is like that. Has anyone here actually sided with the copyrighter? The government gives the final definition. Someone probally didn't know what they were reading and approved it. It's way too general.

It's a very basic representation of reality (first person /more than one person) combined with another extreamly basic technical idea (a central server). The combination adds nothing.




Edited by - redboshi on July 8, 2001 10:44:58 PM

Edited by - redboshi on July 8, 2001 10:45:42 PM