World’s Inc.

Analysis and Evidence Supporting Claims against Activision By CBanalyst April 30, 2013 Recent changes to patent law in 2011, in my opinion expand upon World's claims. The link I posted to the White Paper < Here from 1996 confirms World's as the leader in the race to solve the problem involving Virtual Worlds. This placed them at the forefront of this new and innovative technology. By better understanding the concept and the process for which how the System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space works, from a technical and professional standpoint I will elaborate. After delving into the patents further the case at hand for World's Inc's behalf becomes more evident and clear. World's was the first to develop this process and I am sure that some here will continue to doubt the fact that World's has a valid patent. I have only seen weak attempts dispelling the prior art of World's Inc claims, and I still have yet to see anything pertinent or technical explaining so. I find it rather hard for anyone to make claims that World's in the fact has no case due to the fact nothing else was in existence or in operation tangibly such as what worlds had in place at this time. There were other methods at the time but they can all be proven to show that they are considerably different (worlds being better) and that World's Chat, World's Server, and World's player were, and still are incredibly revolutionary. For the first time avatars, (you, me, I ) could interact in large numbers in the same area at the same time. Before World's development of this concept the network ran on a centralized server system. World's concept was a decentralized and distributed network which not only decreased the cost of bandwidth but fixed and solved the issues with the lag and latency. No one else had solved this issue prior because World's conceptual design was drastically new and abstract.

In order to make simpler, the best example I can provide and explain is in my own interpretation on how both processes, new and old occur to better define the impact and improvement the World's concept had on the industry. Prior methods and Worlds method initially both do the following first step. Client A- gets online to a network server to play a MMORPG, surf the web, and enter a chat room and so on. Next

Client A enters a room with Clients B, C, and D. Client A says, hello, moves, or "interacts". Client A's interaction or "data", is then sent to a centralized server and then transmitted back to clients B, C, D before that information can be translated and then shown on their screen, the process of transmission from A to the central server and back to B, C and D caused latency and lag issues when interacting in a 3-D space. The old method was an inefficient method and was also not very streamlined either. We can now refer to this as the old method.

The New method or World's Inc's System and method for users to interact in a virtual space was much different as it did the following. In using a distributed network concept a centralized server is still being used but rather than having to first receive data from client A, the central server only tracks who is in the User Space or virtual space and monitors locations of where clients A, B, C, and D are. Now in doing this when Client A interacts, that data is sent directly to Clients B, C, and D and is bypassing the other steps in the older method which in turn provides for less lag and the ability for more users in the same space with more of the network able to be utilized. Such things like better graphics in a third dimension became the benefit in this case. The amount of bandwidth needed for this method was cut drastically. This is also why World of War Craft and Call of Duty used and implemented this method because nothing they had worked as well. ATVI had many issues in trying to resolve the problem without world’s method and without implementing what world’s had done there were a number of customer complaints regarding the amount of lag their games were having. Avatars essentially were now capable of having the ability to not only act as a client but also play the role as the server as well. World’s changed how avatars interacted by turning a client into a node. [In communication networks, a node (Latin nodus, ‘knot’) is a connection point, either a redistribution point or a communication endpoint (some terminal equipment). The definition of a node depends on the network and protocol layer referred to. A physical network node is an active electronic device that is attached to a network, and is capable of sending, receiving, or forwarding information over a communications channel.[1] A passive distribution point such as a distribution frame or patch panel is consequently not a node]. Similar to what we are seeing in use with Cloud computing used by the likes of Google, Oracle, IBM, and Apple. IBM coincidentally contracted World's Inc. to develop an, IBM specific Virtual World and was one of the first investors in the

company. See Link for confirmation of date in 1995. IBM and Worlds Inc. extend 3-D technology for the Internet; VRML+ lets groups communicate, share experiences in virtual worlds.
Quote: LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 8, 1995--Click on the Internet and begin an exciting journey with other people through a virtual environment.

link here In 1996 World's had also licensed their product stated in the following article.
Quote:

Worlds Inc. has negotiated a partnership with the United States Information Agency to create a Digital Resource Center for USA libraries. The Smithsonian Institution and Library of Congress have announced their support of this platform. In addition, the Department of the Interior is developing a section of Yellowstone National Park, the Old Faithful area, in Active Worlds technology. World’s is also building strong international ties by establishing partnerships around the world.

In my opinion the fact that the United States Government supported and implemented the use of World's Software speaks volumes to the specificity and inventiveness Worlds had. World’s Inc. was known as being the best and only one utilizing this method at that time. In conclusion it seems that when taking into consideration all of this information, ATVI looks to have been in violation based not just on obviousness but also anticipation,(Treble Damages brought to you by "Max Tribble-Treble") as EDVA referred to as the "Grand Slam at the World Series". These patents, not only had applications filed prior to anyone, as they were also already in use, licensed and distributed as a toolkit making it possible for anyone to use for a fee. All of these statements be documented, cited and visually represented in their design. This also is by law what World's will be required by law in order to prove whether or not if indeed Activision is considered infringing.

Interesting New Project based on World's Concept of a real virtual space at Microsoft's R&D Lab Edison and a project called the Holodeck. Stryker had mentioned the Holodeck and I was aware of it and wanted to post and example because as he said that it may not seem far off, when in all actuality it is already in existence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/29/microsoft-illumiroom-prev_n_3176674.html

Updated Patent Law on Prior Art 2011 I. Introduction On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") into law with the stated goals of promoting innovation, improving patent quality, and streamlining application processing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").1,2 The AIA represents the first comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. patent system since 1952, and changes fundamental patent law tenets including the scope of what constitutes prior art and how patents and patent applications can be challenged—both in court and at the USPTO.3 This article explores the new prior art provisions and offers strategic guidance in navigating these uncharted waters. II. Prior Art Under the AIA A. First-Inventor-to-File The United States long stood virtually alone among industrialized nations in using a "first-to-invent" system in which the right to a patent is granted to the first inventor. The first-to-invent system rewards the first inventor rather than the winner of a race to the patent office; however, determining the first inventor can be difficult and the administrative proceedings at the USPTO for determining priority of invention (called "interferences") can be costly and time-consuming.4 Most other jurisdictions use a "first-to-file" system, in which the right to a patent is awarded to the first person to file a patent application for an invention. The AIA seeks to blend U.S. practice with that of other nations by establishing a "first-inventor-to-file" system.5 Under this first-inventor-to-file system, the

"effective filing date" is paramount in determining whether an invention is patentable. The effective filing date is defined under amended 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(1) as the earliest priority date for a claimed invention or the actual filing date if there is no priority claim to an earlier application.6 Priority dates can come either from parent applications in the U.S. or from earlier-filed corresponding applications filed abroad.7 However, the AIA's first-inventor-to-file system also provides inventors with the benefit of a one-year grace period intended to encourage early disclosure of new inventions.8 Notably, the shift to a firstinventor-to-file system means that patent applicants can no longer use earlier inventive work to antedate earlier-filed applications by another. To effect these changes, the AIA rewrites 35 U.S.C. § 102, which defines what is prior art.9 Before the AIA, § 102 defined some types of prior art as related to the application filing date and some related to the date of invention. New § 102 eliminates this distinction, instead defining prior art exclusively in terms of the effective filing date. Specifically, § 102(a) recites that a person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective date of the claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in [an issued U.S. patent], or in [a published U.S. patent application or a published PCT application designating the U.S.], in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.10 Standing alone, § 102(a) would establish a strict first-to-file system. However, new § 102(b) provides limited exceptions that establish a one-year grace period for certain activities by the inventor.11 In particular, § 102(b)(1) exempts from § 102(a)(1) any disclosure from an inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or joint inventor— provided such disclosure occurs within one year before a claim's effective filing date. Similarly, § 102(b)(2) exempts from § 102(a)(2) disclosures appearing in published applications and patents if: the subject matter was obtained from the inventor or a joint inventor; the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the

inventor, joint inventor, or another who obtained the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or joint inventor, before the effective filing date of the published application or patent; or the subject matter disclosed in the published application or patent and the claimed invention were owned by or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.12 The AIA also revises 35 U.S.C. § 103, the obviousness section of the patent statute, to change the date on which to assess the obviousness of an invention from "the time the invention was made" to "before the effective filing date of the claimed invention."13 The rewriting of §§ 102 and 103 generally expands the scope of available prior art that can be used to reject patent applications and invalidate patents. Under the old statute, an offer for sale, sale, or public use in a foreign country, unlike those in the U.S., could not be used as prior art unless it appeared in a publication, patent, or patent application. New § 102(a)(1) abolishes this distinction by removing geographic limitations from what constitutes prior art. As stated in the relevant House Report: Prior art will . . . typically include all art that publicly exists prior to the filing date, other than disclosures by the inventor within 1 year of filing. Prior art also will no longer have any geographic limitations.14 The AIA also expands the scope of available prior art by abolishing the so-called Hilmer doctrine, in which the foreign priority date of a U.S. patent could not be used as prior art under § 102(e).15 The Hilmer doctrine disadvantaged non-U.S. inventors who filed an application in their home country prior to filing in the U.S. under the Paris Convention, because the foreign application was not effective prior art against any other U.S. application under § 102(e) as it was not "filed in the U.S." New § 102(d) eliminates this distinction by providing that a published application or patent is "effectively filed" for the purposes of § 102(a)(2) on the date of actual filing in the U.S. or the date that an application under §§ 119, 365(a), or 365(b) was filed.16 Prior art under new § 102(a)(2) is broader in at least two respects than current practice under the European Patent Convention ("EPC"). Under § 102(a)(2), prior

art patents and published applications can be used for both novelty and obviousness analyses. Published PCT applications fall within the scope of § 102(a)(2) provided that the U.S. has been designated, irrespective of whether or not the application has validly entered the U.S. national phase. In Europe the prior art under Article 54(3) EPC is available only if the application has validly entered the EPO regional phase, and then for novelty purposes only. A fascinating and unresolved question is the treatment of private offers-for-sale and sales under the AIA. Under established precedent, offers-for-sale and sales in the U.S. need not be public to invalidate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), even if kept secret until after the critical date.17 However, new § 102(a)(1) states that a person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was "in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public."18 If "available to the public" is read to modify "on sale," then private sales and offer-for-sales may no longer be construed as prior art. Nevertheless, until the courts clarify this legal question, the prudent course of action is to assume that private sales and offersfor-sale will continue to have prior art effect, particularly those occurring in the United States.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful