Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[22na22]

Impressively intelligent commentary

I suppose sharing facts about WDDD that people don't like invokes anger and vitriol

Perhaps its time to realize you didn't know the risks of wddd and you are not invested on logic but rather emotion?

getting mad at me won't change that

All he was asking you to do was comment on your following quotes:

a) Alpha: "I was under the impression the ceo was selling that stake (merimed) anyways?"

b) Also Alpha: "I am aware they own merimed stock but it doesn't appear as though the company is looking to sell it any time.....clearly, if the notes are in default and the only way to pay them back as stated is an offering or cash from a court award."

While I agree that it is more likely that they make a public offering, even you yourself admitted it is also possible they sell a stake of MRMD to cover the notes in default. Why can't you speak to your contradictions?

1. Again, 101 has NOTHING TO DO WITH COMBINATORY PATENTS

How are you going to say 101 has nothing to do with combinatory patents when VRNG - the case you cite every time you talk about 101 as a risk - lost because their patents were combinatory and obvious?

Whether patents are combinatory or not, and obvious or not, isn't the only thing that plays into a 101 ruling. I have continuously said the opposite!

But again, my point this entire time was that while 101 is certainly a major risk, it makes more sense to look at VirnetX than VRNG because of the inherent reason that VRNG's patents were tossed -
because they were obvious and combinatory. The obviousness and combinatory nature of a patent had something to do with the VRNG 101 - not sure how you're arguing that.

101 DOES NOT REQUIRE COMBINATORY PATENTS THIS WAS A FALSE ARGUMENT BY PATENT PLAYS.

They do not, as I have acknowledged many times. But the specific risk that VRNG ran into does not directly apply to WDDD, as the patent facts are completely different.

101 is still a risk, but impossible to know why or how a judge would incite 101 against WDDD. If you want to specifically speak to the language or technical details that could kill WDDD's patents using 101, I'd love to hear it.

1. NOWHERE HAVE I SAID THAT BECAUSE WDDD IS A NPE THAT OTHERS CAN WIFULLY INFRINGE - I HAVE NEVER STATED AS SUCH, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP SOME ARGUMENT I HAVE NEVER STATED

An NPE is a patent troll in substance, no? So by saying WDDD is an NPE, you're arguing that they never tried to develop any products because they generate no revenue/profits, have no R&D, etc. But that is simply not the case. WDDD has developed a bunch of software and products, that although not successful, still exist. They weren't able to develop their patents into the final products that Activision, Disney, Naughty Dog, etc. have been able to do. But that doesn't mean those products don't use the technology that WDDD rightfully has patented.

So when you say WDDD is a patent troll because WDDD technically only has one employee (even those Worlds Online has more, and WDDD is just the holder of the patent now), you're ignoring all of the software and products they developed in the early 2000s that were unsuccessful and didn't allow them to further develop more software/products. They never got the cash/profits to re-invest, and never had the capital upfront to take advantage of the benefits that could have been had, which is why I assume they attempted to make a deal with ATVI to license their patents, which was rejected.

That doesn't mean Activision, Disney, Naughty Dog and the likes haven't been infringing on their technology in their products. And it doesn't mean WDDD is a patent troll. It simply means they were unsuccessful.

Prominent Boutique Law Firm taking this case on 100% contingency after 9 months of research and deliberation into the facts, the same firm and lead attorney (Max Tribble) who has successfully beaten ATVI in court before.

Why have you never touched on this point despite being asked about it many times?