Evidence in Support of World's Inc Case against Activsion

7/30/2019 Evidence in Support of World's Inc Case against Activsion

1/7

Worlds 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'sclaims. The link I posted to theWhite Paper < Herefrom 1996 confirms World'sas the leader in the race to solve the problem involving Virtual Worlds. Thisplaced them at the forefront of this new and innovative technology. By betterunderstanding the concept and the process for which how the System andmethod for enabling users to interact in a virtual space works, from a technicaland professional standpoint I will elaborate. After delving into the patents furtherthe 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 willcontinue 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 seeanything pertinent or technical explaining so. I find it rather hard for anyone tomake claims that World's in the fact has no case due to the fact nothing else wasin existence or in operation tangibly such as what worlds had in place at thistime. There were other methods at the time but they can all be proven to showthat 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 thesame area at the same time. Before World's development of this concept thenetwork ran on a centralized server system.

World's concept was a decentralized and distributed network which notonly decreased the cost of bandwidth but fixed and solved the issues withthe lag and latency. No one else had solved this issue prior becauseWorld's conceptual design was drastically new and abstract.

In order to make simpler, the best example I can provide and explain is in myown interpretation on how both processes, new and old occur to better define theimpact 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, andenter a chat room and so on.

Next
http://www.scribd.com/doc/138436767/World-s-Inc-Most-Important-Documenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/138436767/World-s-Inc-Most-Important-Documenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/138436767/World-s-Inc-Most-Important-Documenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/138436767/World-s-Inc-Most-Important-Document


2/7

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 andthen transmitted back to clients B, C, D before that information can be translatedand 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 ina 3-D space. The old method was an inefficient method and was also not verystreamlined 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 interactin a virtual space was much different as it did the following.

In using a distributed network concept a centralized server is still being used butrather 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 clientsA, B, C, and D are. Now in doing this when Client A interacts, that data is sentdirectly to Clients B, C, and D and is bypassing the other steps in the oldermethod which in turn provides for less lag and the ability for more users in thesame space with more of the network able to be utilized. Such things like bettergraphics in a third dimension became the benefit in this case. The amount ofbandwidth needed for this method was cut drastically. This is also why World ofWar Craft and Call of Duty used and implemented this method because nothingthey had worked as well. ATVI had many issues in trying to resolve the problemwithout worlds method and without implementing what worlds had done there

were a number of customer complaints regarding the amount of lag their gameswere having.

Avatars essentially were now capable of having the ability to not only act as aclient but also play the role as the server as well. Worlds changed how avatarsinteracted 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 terminalequipment). The definition of a node depends on the network and protocol layerreferred to. A physical network node is an active electronic device that isattached to a network, and is capable of sending, receiving, or forwardinginformation over a communications channel.[1] A passive distribution point suchas 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 ofGoogle, Oracle, IBM, and Apple. IBM coincidentally contracted World's Inc. todevelop an, IBM specific Virtual World and was one of the first investors in the


3/7

company. See Link for confirmation of date in 1995.

IBM and Worlds Inc. extend 3-D technology for the Internet; VRML+ letsgroups 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. Worlds is also building strong international ties by establishing

partnerships around the world.

In my opinion the fact that the United States Government supported andimplemented the use of World's Software speaks volumes to the specificity andinventiveness Worlds had. Worlds Inc. was known as being the best and onlyone 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 EDVAreferred to as the "Grand Slam at the World Series". These patents, not only hadapplications filed prior to anyone, as they were also already in use, licensed anddistributed as a toolkit making it possible for anyone to use for a fee. All of thesestatements be documented, cited and visually represented in their design. Thisalso is by law what World's will be required by law in order to prove whether ornot if indeed Activision is considered infringing.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IBM+and+Worlds+Inc.+extend+3-D+technology+for+the+Internet%3B+VRML%2B...-a017118553http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IBM+and+Worlds+Inc.+extend+3-D+technology+for+the+Internet%3B+VRML%2B...-a017118553http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IBM+and+Worlds+Inc.+extend+3-D+technology+for+the+Internet%3B+VRML%2B...-a017118553


4/7

Interesting New Project based on World's Concept of a real virtual space atMicrosoft's R&D Lab Edison and a project called the Holodeck. Stryker hadmentioned the Holodeck and I was aware of it and wanted to post and examplebecause as he said that it may not seem far off, when in all actuality it is alreadyin 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 challengedboth in court and at

the USPTO.3 This article explores the new prior art provisions and offersstrategic 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 determiningpriority 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
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/29/microsoft-illumiroom-prev_n_3176674.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/29/microsoft-illumiroom-prev_n_3176674.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/29/microsoft-illumiroom-prev_n_3176674.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=%3Cdiv%20class=


5/7

"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 correspondingapplications 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 first-

inventor-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 102eliminates 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 [apublished 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 whoobtained 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


6/7

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 theclaimed 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. Underthe 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 thedate 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


7/7

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 validlyentered 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 nolonger 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 offers-

for-sale will continue to have prior art effect, particularly those occurring in the

United States.

Documents

Evidence in Support of World's Inc Case against Activsion