Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[madprophet]

I have been willing too put my money down, I have heavy skin in the game.

The claims we have are not rudimentary 2+2=4 simple software solutions.
The methods and highly scalable architecture used to build massive online gaming worlds are what we are talking about. Not "here are the players, here is where they are in the world" we are talking about problem solving here. I suggest reading the article I put in link below

"Favorably citing DDR Holdings, the Motio court found that the software disclosed in Motio’s patent “does not simply use a computer to automate what was previously done, but rather improves upon what was previously done with computers by solving a computer specific problem.” Motio at 4. Motio’s abstract idea involving business intelligence software was thus found to contain meaningful limitations that created an inventive concept."

Even the DDR Holdings court had found that the disputed claims were abstract under the first step of the Alice analysis but represented an inventive concept under the second step of the analysis because the claimed solution is “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,”

Although the Enfish court does not cite it, the opinion of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (the predecessor to the current Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) in In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1400 (C.C.P.A. 1969) had stated that software can represent patent eligible subject matter. For example, the Bernhart opinion stated that the combination of a general purpose computer and a particular software (our emphasis) forms a particular machine consistent with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101:

[I]f a machine is programmed in a certain and unobvious way, it is physically different from the machine without the program; its memory elements are differently arranged. The fact that these physical changes are invisible to the eye should not tempt has to conclude that the machine has not been changed. If a new machine has not been invented, certainly a “new and useful” improvement of the unprogrammed machine has been and Congress has said in 35 U.S.C. § 101 that such improvements are statutory subject matter for a patent.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/09/enfish-decision-light-end-tunnel-software-patents-since-alice/id=69733/