Replies to post #22920 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[stark12]

The concept of man travelling to the moon is common sense--of course mankind would want to reach and explore earth's satellite. Achieving this demonstrates there is often a gap between concept and reality.

I'm not a computer scientist, but the "generic computer science algorithms" you allude to were not generic at the time Worlds patented them. (That, at least, is my understanding.)

I remember the old Commodore 64 gaming system. Video graphics, multi-user game platforms, and the various now generic algorithms which allow these things to work have come a long way since the days of Atari and Commodore.

To play with words, your argument is not only conceptually wrong, it is patently absurd.

[StockAlphaDave]

Were you aware in the VRNG / ZTE case ZTE hired people to spread misinformation and fear on stock message boards? It is in the court documents! Fun fact.

Any views on a similar situation occurring with WDDD and ATVI? My gut feeling says it's highly probable, what do you think?

I know the VRNG case was different but an example of what occurs in these patent cases so it's related to WDDD and clearly on topic!

Thoughts?

[StockAlphaDave]

Actually that is incorrect.

The term "avatar" in this case has been defined as 3D as per the markman hearing with judge Caspar in a district court of the United States of America. That information is publicly available on pacer.

Given that definition, it will provide a significant hurdle for BUNGIE to overcome at the ptab as witnessed in the oral hearings - one is welcome to read those transcripts to see the discussion in the hearing.

As most here are aware, it is up to BUNGIE to actually prove that wrong vs Wddd having to prove that definition correct. And given the judges comments on this it appears at least to an objective person that BUNGIE may actually not have done so!

Good luck!

[DataStream]

You don't seem to understand the difference between the amount of data required in handling a 3d avatar vs. a 2d avatar, the data difference is magnitudes greater. These avatars are much more than sprites, the had thousands of polygons textures mapped on wireframe models with large amounts of animation data for articulation.

In addition the patents are not about reducing clutter rather selectively filtering avatars out of the field of view of specific users based on various criteria to reduce processing load and enhance user enjoyments at high frame rates based on different processors and internet speeds.

This was not a commonly understood and a novel inventive concept for VR back in 1995.

[DataStream]

In addition this is not a proximity filtering technique solely. you really should read the patents, prior art and PTAB transcript to grasp this concept.

[DataStream]

Finally, by definition, there is a difference between avatars and objects. Avatars move with articulated movement thru the 3D specs while objects are stationary. Each have different values of priority with the avatar usually the top of the food chain.

There is nothing in the prior art that speaks to these different values nor the notion of filtering specific avatars while keeping others within the 3D scene.