Worlds.com Files Suit Against NCsoft for Patent Infringement

On Christmas Eve, Worlds.com filed a complaint against NCsoft for infringing on its virtual world and MMO patent. Worlds.com, which was one of the early virtual world developers from the '90s, made waves earlier this month when it announced that it had selected an intellectual property firm to defend its two patents related to scaling virtual spaces and enabling users to interact and chat in 3D environments.

Specifically, the suit claims that NCsoft has infringed on patent 7,181,690, "System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space" through its games, including City of Heroes, City of Villains, Dungeon Runners, Exteel, Guild Wars, Lineage, Lineage II, and Tablula Rasa.

The complaint seeks to recover damages for the infringement and asks that NCsoft be prevented from infringing on patent 690, which covers scaling.   Based on NCsoft's headquarters in Austin as a source of the infringement, the complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.

Worlds.com Inc. v. NCsoft Corp is Civil Action No. 6:08-cv-508. You can download the PDF of the complaint here.

For more information, check out our Worlds.com v. NCsoft update.

Comments

[Chris Hurley]

Talk about ridiculous. What's next suing everyone from M 59 to modern mmo's? The suit claims multiple mmo's who use differing server architectures and client architectures are all patent infringements? Not to mention the patent was made to be broad. Probably specifically for this purpose. I hope there's a counter-suit for legal fees, time and effort, and attempted public discrediment of the company.

[Thom Mathes]

The suit states the patent was issued on Feb. 20, 2007. The patent is not valid as prior art existed prior to this issuance and the patent office failed to do due dilligence (as it often does) in ensuring this. The games, not just of NCSoft, but every MMO publisher (Blizzard, Sony, Mythic) all predate the patent issuance, in many cases by a decade (for EQ and Ultima Online). The suit will be thrown out and the patent rendered null and void. I would urge NCSoft to countersue for defamation and legal fees.

[Gedece]

Well, it was filed in the year 2000, so it might be that prior art is hard to come by, unless some judge is made aware that this methods were implemented in the first M.U.D.s, that's plain text Multi User Dungeons, played by Telnet in the old computing ages.

[John Surette]

The infringement accusation does seem extreme. As previously stated, the patent age is too young to encompass the entirety of NCSoft's games. If the lawsuit covers any of the games, it might have precedence on Tablula Rasa. If NCSoft can prove that the system was implemented before the patent was made then the lawsuit could be thrown out. I think what World Inc. is trying to prove is that NCSoft knowing and willingly infringed the patent during the pending patent process. Either way, it should be interesting to see the outcome.

[Vicky]

The lawsuit is pretty much standard patent infringement litigation language. No real surprises in it. And at least they aren't claiming wilfull infringement, which means treble damages and attorneys fees.

The original parent patent application, which determines what is prior art, was filed in 1996. That does pre-date the modern MMORPG.

This is how patents work. The first one in the queue gets broad coverage, and everything afterwards is considered an improvement on it.

What one cannot tell from just reading the patent is what the applicant said to the Patent Office to get it approved...that is available to the public, and it limits the breadth of the patent's coverage.

The patent is presumed valid unless NCSoft can prove otherwise, and that is hard. This should be a very expensive battle, and could cost millions of dollars to defend. The typical response is to pay a royalty to make them go away.

[kenter]

this is compleatly rediculas they wont win and they will be loseing big the patants should just be voided for trying this stunt they are just doing this for the press

[Jonathan]

I guess when their stock is down to .19 cents a share, they need to take desperate measures to make money.

[Sue Baskerville]

If they'd make that new version of Worlds that's been advertised on their web site for years maybe they'd have a source of income other than litigation.

[sdwinder]

What i would love to know is what moron approved this patent? its like putting a patent on the wheel....what the heck? are they serious? all the major mmo companies lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one, ittle be the biggest ass kicking fiesta of all time.

[Jessica Mulligan]

Posted by Vicky:
"The original parent patent application, which determines what is prior art, was filed in 1996. That does pre-date the modern MMORPG."

Actually, there is probably plenty of art on this prior to Nov. 12, 1996, the filing of the original patent claim. Some MMOs that are probably prior art, off the top of my head:

Air Warrior on GEnie, launched in 1986-87 on the Mac and subsequently launched on various platforms, including PC, Amiga and Atari ST, before 1993;

Habitat on QuantumLink (an early incarnation of AOL), first available in beta test in 1986, later became Club Caribe on QuantumLink in 1988. This is the game that probably sinks the patent all by itself, as the drawings in the patent match the interface of Habitat fairly closely and the architecture and claims pretty closely match how Habitat worked (anecdotal from memory; I was with AOL in 1988-89);

The original AD&D Neverwinter Nights on AOL, launched 1993;

MultiPlayer BattleTech on GEnie, in open Beta test on GEnie in 1992, launched in 93, u0pdated and put on AOL in May, 1996;

AD&D Dark Sun, launched on TEN in mid-1996;

Ultima Online: public Alpha and Beta test begin in May, 1996, with the distribution of the client to hundreds, then thousands of players. Not sure if this counts, since the game didn't launch until Sept. 1997.

Meridian 59, launched by 3DO to the Internet in August, 1996.

[Wanderer]

For once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane. -- Rudyard Kipling

[Casey]

Patenting software... Rediculous concept in the first place.

But as long as there's money at stake and the system is open to abuse, things like this will keep happening.

[Tommyd]

Sounds to me like a sinking company just looing for some cash to stay afloat.
I agree this patent is stupid. it should be tossed out of court and NCsoft should counter and put the final nail in this washed up companies coffin based on principals.

[Greg Bulmash]

Their claim is not a patent on MMORPGs but on a method for scaling them to handle the massive number of people using them. Let's face it, some of the early MUDs on Telnet and Compuserve were not handling nearly the kind of traffic or complexity of interaction successful modern day virtual worlds do.

If they came up with a novel way to handle that scaling, it might be worthy of a patent. Don't dismiss every patent just because it sounds silly after the news media has dumbed it down into a sound bite.

That said, I haven't read the patent or complaint. It could be completely stupid, but I'm not going to judge just based on a story.

[F. Randall Farmer]

Some related cross-links:

My own - http://tinyurl.com/wordballoonpatent

and

http://www.brokentoys.org/2008/12/29/our-legal-system-continues-to-suffer-from-random-drooling/

[Hamilton]

Anyone remember about the PanIP Lawsuits back in 2002-2004? PanIP claimed to have owned patents for e-commerce systems, which basically any website that had a shopping cart required licensing. PanIP went after many small business websites to help build up its case and money to then go after bigger companies. Thankfully, 11 defendants pulled together and defeated PanIP.

This lawsuit by Worlds.Com is just like the PanIP case.
If you are interested, please review the following links, or search the web with the words: PanIP, patent, youmaybenext (the defense website no longer in use)
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/05/15/020515hnpangea.html
http://wps.aw.com/aw_laudon_ecommerce_1/1/373/95676.cw/index.html
http://www.itworld.com/040330panipsuits

[vetted]

Research revels that this company, Worlds.com, has been around for a long time (<95) and were one of the founders of multi-user graphic online domains. I couldnt find much in the way of financials but I would imagine based on my experience working in start up companies that maybe 10s of millions have been invested to develop this particular flavor of a virtual online player/browser.

If one accepts these facts, it seems a bit more valid that several (or many) of the multi-million dollar corporations profiting from client-server architecture patented more than a decade previously should be accountable. After all,Its not the case that many of these companies (ie Blizzard, Sony, Mythic) are giving their software away either.

The intricacies of the patent will be argued by very brilliant legal minds at a later date (if it goes to trial). From what Ive heard from layers over the years regarding patent law it is one of the most complex and challenging divisions of law. IMHO, this particular case doesnt seem to be the proverbial "Patent Troll" as the company has been around for ever.

[Hamilton]

That is all well and good, however, the technology of such MMO platforms (even in 3d format) have existed before the patent was submitted in 1996. Meridian 59 is one example of this, Alpha in 1995 and released in 1996; along with the other list of examples as pointed out by sdwinder from above.

Additionally there are prior written articles, presentations and works about such environments and it will be interesting if there is any additional copyright or patent infringements, not by the other companies, but by Worlds.Com

Hard to have a process patent when the work has already done before submitting.

[vetted]

With all due respect, citing prior art is not sufficient to dispute the nuances of a software patent of this type. In fact, my observations were mainly directed towards the apparent emotional uproar this thread contains as opposed to any debate over the legalese which would quickly reveal my ignorance in such matters.

I am certainly not an evangelist for corporate power brokers but my interpretation (after digging around a bit) yielded a rather polar conclusion to some of the more 'flamey' posts in that:
1. Worlds seems to be a pioneer in the industry.
2. They have been in this for the long haul.
3. They are a small company seeking their due from the titans in the industry.

Thats all...