Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[22na22]

Claim #2 of Patent #998:

Seriously, just read the language and text in claim 2 and tell me what you think?

A system for displaying interactions in a virtual world among a local user avatar of a local user and a plurality of remote user avatars of remote users, comprising:

a database storing information associated with one or more avatars, each user being associated with a three dimensional avatar;
a memory storing instructions; and

a first processor programmed using the instructions to:

- receive position information associated with less than all of the remote user avatars in one or more interaction rooms of the virtual world, wherein the processor does not receive position information associated with at least some of the remote user avatars in the virtual world, each avatar of the at least some of the remote user avatars failing to satisfy a condition,

- receive orientation information associated with less than all of the remote user avatars, wherein the processor does not receive orientation information associated with at least some of the remote user avatars in the virtual world,

- generate on a graphic display a rendering showing the position and orientation of at least one remote user avatar, and

- switch between a rendering on the graphic display that shows the virtual world to the local user from a third user perspective and a rendering that allows the local user to view the local user avatar in the virtual world.

Hard to not see tens of millions at minimum at stake with this language and validation.

Remember, ATVI came HARD at World's claims at the PTAB - multiple uses of prior art that the PTAB believed to invalidate many of WDDD's claims. But Activision FAILED to invalidate, IMO, the strongest (or at least one of the strongest) claims WDDD went into this infringement case with.

I think one of the reasons many people got out of this stock between markman, PTAB, and now is because they listened to people like Alpha who just said "look how many claims got cut! and the remaining claims are not independent!" without realizing that:

1) 20 of the 33 claims killed were ALSO DEPENDENT.

2) Of the 13 independent claims killed, I see about 5 which were almost exactly the same verbiage, but simply a different operational method (apparatus, method, medium, etc), as claim 2.

3) Claim 2 is at the HEART of WDDD's infringement claims in general.

4) A PTAB validation, meaning that there was no prior art, combined with a positive markman claim, makes claim 2 EXTREMELY valuable.

5) While we may have about 5-7 independent claims, we also have extremely important supporting claims that extend the breadth of damages that can be claimed.