Frivolous Patent Lawsuits Plaguing MMO Industry CEO Thom Kidrin claims that every MMO on the market today owes patent infringement damages. We take a deeper look at these frivolous lawsuits.

You might remember reading about a seemingly obscure company called filing a patent infringement lawsuit against MMO developer NCSoft (Aion, City of Heroes, Guild Wars) last spring. It was widely covered in the video games press, and widely criticized by most community members. The suit revolves around a set of patents filed by back in the late-90s for its Starbright World project; a "social network" for sick and terminally-ill children.

Around the same time, CEO Thom Kidrin announced he planned to go after other major MMO publishers like Activision-Blizzard (World of Warcraft) and Linden Labs (Second Life), essentially claiming that every MMO on the market today owes patent infringement damages. In addition, MMO developers and publishers would have to pay a licensing fee to use its"interactive virtual world system" technology (more on that later).

Meanwhile, another patent troll stepped up to the plate last week, hoping to make a quick buck at the MMO industry's expense, à la As we reported a few days ago, Paltalk Holdings Inc. filed suit against a handful of developers, including Turbine Inc., Activision-Blizzard and NCSoft, among others. The suit claims the MMO companies are violating its patents for its HearMe technology (an inconsequential, business-oriented "online meeting service"), which Paltalk bought the rights to in 2002. Will the MMO industry collectively stave off these lawsuits, or is this just the beginning of a multi-million dollar litigious gang bang?

Most of this began last December, when General Patent Corporation (an intellectual property enforcement team, described on its website as "helping cash-strapped independent inventors pursue their patent claims against the big guys") announced it had retained the law firm Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP to represent reported the announcement:

According to statements by Alexander Poltorak, General Patent Corporation's Chairman and CEO, "[t]he Worlds patents represent exceptionally valuable intellectual property," and "[w]e welcome licensing inquiries from the on-line game industry. Non-exclusive licenses are available on favorable and non-discriminatory terms." holds U.S. Patent Nos. 6,219,045 entitled "Scalable Virtual World Chat Client-Server System" and 7,181,690 titled "System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space". Thom Kidrin, the CEO of, stated that "[w]e are pleased to have the expertise and IP experience of General Patent and Lerner David to enforce Worlds' patent portfolio," and that "[a]s the number of virtual worlds and MMORG's (sic) continues to grow, Worlds has seen the space we pioneered in 1995 validated in techniques and methodologies we believe are defined in our patents."

At the time, hadn't actually filed suit against anyone yet, but as the reporting website pointed out, "the potential impact of this announcement will definitely be worth watching for."

Later that month, filed suit against NCSoft for patent infringement in an East Texas court, an area reported as notorious for siding with plaintiffs in these types of lawsuits (ironically, Paltalk recently filed its suit in the same area, a practice known as forum shopping). The story received even more attention later, in March, when CEO Thom Kidrin announced his intent to sue MMO developers that wouldn't submit to license negotiations with his company, including industry leaders such as Blizzard Entertainment and Linden Labs.

The source of his claims originates from a series of patents filed by that define "a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system," the first of which—patent 6219045—was filed with the U.S. Patent Office in 1996. Originally used by the Starlight Starbright Foundation to develop its Starbright World project, a 3D virtual chat room in which sick or terminally ill children could socialize from their hospital beds. It's similar to a modern-day game like Habbo Hotel or Club Penguin geared specifically for hospitalized children, funded by charity. later filed two more patents, 7181690 in 2000 and 7493558 in 2006, both of which appear similar to the original, but add more definition or refine the definitions and terminology to reflect today's technology more accurately. (For a quick chuckle, be sure to check out the pictures illustrating the patent definitions.) So as not to bore you to tears with technical jargon, I'll simply quote the abstract of the original patent in 1996, which defines a "Scalable virtual world chat client-server system":

The present invention provides a highly scalable architecture for a three-dimensional graphical, multi-user, interactive virtual world system. A plurality of users can interact in the three-dimensional, computer-generated graphical space where each user executes a client process to view a virtual world from the perspective of that user. The virtual world shows avatars representing the other users who are neighbors of the user viewing the virtual world. In order that the view can be updated to reflect the motion of the remote user's avatars, motion information is transmitted to a central server which provides position updates to client processes for neighbors of the user at that client process. The client process also uses an environment database to determine which background objects to render as well as to limit the movement of the user's avatar.

Next up, we have the aforementioned Paltalk, which named Turbine, Blizzard, NCSoft and other developers in its recent patent lawsuit, claiming these MMO companies are infringing on its uninspired "HearMe" technology. The patents in question are 5822523, filed in 1996, and 6226686, filed in 1999. Both titled "Server-group messaging system for interactive applications," the first patent in 1996 defines the technology as (abridged for brevity):

A method for deploying interactive applications over a network containing host computers and group messaging servers is disclosed. […] In its most simple implementation, the method consists of the group server receiving a message from a host containing a destination group address. […] In an interactive application, many messages will be arriving at the group server close to one another in time. Rather than simply forward each message to its targeted hosts, the group messaging server aggregates the contents of each of messages received during a specified time period and then sends an aggregated message to the targeted hosts. The time period can be defined in a number of ways. This method reduces the message traffic between hosts in a networked interactive application and contributes to reducing the latency in the communications between the hosts.

Unlike, Paltalk has already successfully settled a previous lawsuit on the same grounds as the one currently filed against the aforementioned MMO companies. Back in September of 2006, Paltalk filed an infringement suit against Microsoft, claiming the communication technology used in Halo 2 and Halo 3 on Xbox Live violated its patents. Unfortunately for the rest of the gaming industry, Microsoft settled the case in court back in June for an undisclosed amount.

By doing so, Microsoft did what many opponents of these cases have feared; it set a legal precedent. Microsoft did what many wealthy companies do in civil court, which is to"bite the bullet" and settle the case for less money than the plaintiff originally requested in damages. Sure, it can save you millions of dollars in the long run—especially if you're in the wrong—but it also sends a message to courts trying similar cases in the future. As described in the previously-linked Boston Globe article:

[Boston attorney Christopher] Donnelly said that Paltalk's victory over the world's biggest software company "certainly gives them crowing rights.'' It also means that Microsoft has conceded the validity of Paltalk's patents, making it tougher for Turbine and the other defendants in the current lawsuit to challenge them.

It's not my intent to dissect the and Paltalk patents word-by-word, judging the merit of either patent. To that end, there are plenty of gamers in the community speaking up in forums and in blog comments. You can find some examples here, here and here.

These are classic cases of frivolous litigation, with no other justification than pure greed. It's about smaller companies thinking they won the lottery because they filed a patent sometime in the past for a vague idea or technology similar to one that's successful today. But instead of getting off their asses like they should have, and actually created something fantastic of their own, they would rather use the legal system to hedge their bets on settlements to make free money.

It didn't come as a surprise to me that most of the gaming community—fan and press alike—had never even heard of either of these companies before they filed their respective lawsuits. Neither did it surprise me when I learned that reported a net earnings loss of $242,441 at the end of March (the same quarter it announced its intention to sue every MMO within reach), or that the company's stock hasn't been faring too well.

I'm a firm believer in a free market economy, and some people don't realize that governmental oversight protecting the rights of that economy's citizens is part of a free market. It's not a socialist attitude to disagree with the motives of companies like and Paltalk though, especially when you consider the courts that cases like these are being tried in. Can you imagine a 65-year-old judge trying to issue a summary judgment, based on a defendant like Blizzard's deposition, in which it's trying to explain that the concept of "virtual worlds" was collectively introduced to the masses, just like social networking sites, or even multiplayer BBS games in the late 80s? You would think the mere existence of AOL's Neverwinter Nights—the first graphics-based MMORPG, from 1991 to 1997—would prove that didn't "invent" the virtual worlds found within thousands of websites and dozens of MMOs.

The Paltalk lawsuit is brand-new, so there probably won't be any new developments to speak of for quite a while. As it stands today, NCSoft is still tied up in the lawsuit with, although the case was recently moved to a California court, in the interest of thwarting the plaintiff's forum shopping.

It seems as if the only glimmer of hope for NCSoft and the MMO industry lies in establishing examples of "prior art." In patent law, the concept of prior art is defined as "all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality," according to Wikipedia's patent law section. "If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."

Back in January, shortly after files suit against NCSoft, a "patent research company" called Article One Partners offered a $50,000 reward to anyone offering proof that's "virtual worlds" concept already existed before 1996. The group's primary goal may have been to boost community involvement and support, but it wasn't long before someone stepped up and claimed the bounty, offering a possible example of prior art. "With verification of outside counsel, Article One Partners has identified prior art that can show the patent to be invalid," according to the company's press release. The person who identified the prior art wished to remain anonymous, and the example itself is still undisclosed.

As AOP mentions in its press release,'s patent can only be invalidated by the courts or the U.S. Patent Office. AOP has successfully validated prior art in past cases, but it's still up to the court to decide if this newfound evidence constitutes a valid example of prior art in the lawsuit.

Until then, the MMO industry is waiting with bated breath. Will major MMO publishers like NCSoft, Blizzard and Cryptic lose millions of dollars in legal battles, thereby costing consumers more money when they try to recoup their losses? Will every MMO run on a proprietary technology,"licensed by," driving the price of future MMO development up even more? I wish I had more faith in the notion that only the courts—and time—will tell.


Post Comment
here is a thought
# Sep 27 2009 at 5:27 AM Rating: Decent
I would like to add that after discussing this with my gf of all ppl, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Microsoft more than likely settled with PalTalk to keep from having to release there code in to court. They had done so previously with another case. Now if they would come out and say that this was the case publicly it would change the game for these companies filing lawsuits.
nonsense lawsuits...
# Sep 23 2009 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
44 posts
It's depressing that these nonsense lawsuits even get to see the inside of a courtroom.
Most of them are so vague they could be describing anything.
It's like trying to patent the wheel, or the internet, or suing bic because you had the idea of 'a stick that draws lines'.

These people should get laughed out of court, but only AFTER paying for the wasting the courts time.

They are only doing this because they think the companies they are going after will settle instead of fighting. They just want a quick $$.

Check out released in 1974!
Looks like a multi player 3d game to me.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2009 5:16pm by angahran
Shut down!
# Sep 23 2009 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
If the information is correct at the Massively site in the comments, then there's no way the lawsuit will fly. Massively sates that a public beta had begun in 1995 for Meridian, which completely shuts down the patent (filed in 1996).

"In 1995, The 3DO company began a public beta test of Meridian 59 -- the first 3D online RPG. 25,000 players signed up for the beta, and the game launched in 1996. Meridian 59 differed greatly from games that came before it or since."

Good luck with that
# Sep 23 2009 at 6:51 AM Rating: Decent
Sorry, i dont think he is going to have a lot of luck with this, other than get a lot of the MMO community extremely pissed at him. We have 3d worlds existing prior to 1990 with Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss which was one of the games that Wolfenstein 3D pulled ideas from. Neverwinter Nights was a graphic MMO that started up in 1991.

Or even Meridian 59, which was released to the public in 1995, so im sure that it had been in development for a longer period of time

Here is a screen shot of Meridian 59. Amazing that Kidrin's proof of concept looks like this game that had already been released to the public. Sorry, you didn't have an original idea.

There is more on the history of MMOs at Massively

Edited, Sep 23rd 2009 10:58am by RandomReponse

Edited, Sep 23rd 2009 11:00am by RandomReponse
# Sep 23 2009 at 6:46 AM Rating: Decent
45 posts
It's going to depend (in part) on people establishing "prior art", but keep in mind too that in order to safely (note that word) patent an idea, you have to have sufficient material on-hand at the time to support your idea. Just patenting a one-liner will get your suit thrown out in a second - if is serious, they probably have a lot of architectural designs laid out in their patent material, which could make it far more difficult to contest.

To explain, it's not enough to patent "a digital realm where the avatars of multiple users are displayed and can communicate". There's sufficient evidence of multi-player gaming technology previous to their patents to challenge that. Even adding "highly scalable" won't help - you can challenge that just by saying how logical it is to want your games to scale well. If this does go to court (and I doubt the MMO publishers will want to be PAYING monthly fees), will be trying to prove that the MMO publishers copied their architectural designs, and the MMOs will be trying to prove either that their architecture significantly differs and that copied other people.

The judge will make a difference - I'm not going to suggest that they're all perfectly impartial and all-comprehending - but most judges are sincere, no-crap, protect-people kinds of people. And, let's be honest - if the lawyers and witnesses aren't explaining these things clearly, whose fault is it when the judge misunderstands? So many times when a judge rules in what seems a ludicrous manner, it's because the "experts" are either in the hands of one side, or they use such obtuse and technical language without explanation that only other experts can understand. Judges can't know everything, and in highly technical cases rely heavily on the information they can obtain in their courtroom.

I do think the fact that they refiled after WoW was launched, and waited this long to attack, suggests that their patents previous to the rise of the MMO were too weak to challenge it in its infancy, and they had to wait until the ink was dry.
Here's to...
# Sep 23 2009 at 2:36 AM Rating: Decent
30 a month to play said MMO....

Once these lil sprites win their lawsuits they'll charge a hefty sum of money to license their idea*.

*damn, I wish I could go back in time and tell my great great grandparents to patent the idea of putting rubber tires on cars.....we'd be rich
# Sep 22 2009 at 9:48 PM Rating: Decent
In my opinion, most MMO's used original programming to create what they have. To say "I hold a patent" on an idea of something is not the same as actually having the ability to create said idea. If you can not show that you have actively pursued the developement of the content, then you do not deserve to profit from someone that has. I am sure that there are legal basis for thier claims, but that does not necessarily make them right. On the flip side, if someone did knowingly base what they developed on thier original ideas, they should make something from it, but it should not be anything other than a tiny percentage of what the developer made off of it.
# Sep 22 2009 at 6:46 PM Rating: Default
It seems as if the only glimmer of hope for NCSoft and the MMO industry lies in establishing examples of "prior art."
Either that or admit that they did in fact appropriate technology and fail to research ownership on things they 'saw' in other games and liked so much they used. I'm not saying the plaintiff isn't a patent troll, but do you think for ONE INSTANT that Blizzard, SoE or NCSoft would have acted differently or would in a future incident if they thought they could strong arm their competition in that manner ?

"If you came up with an idea in '96, but have nothing 10+ years later (I've not heard of either of the 2 companies) than nothing like this should be able to come to."

I agree but the rules should apply to everyone equally, say like Disney or the music industry, and until we clean up the system this is the price we pay.

"WTB a smart judge..."
That kind of attitude and behavior is what got us in this position in the first place...
# Sep 23 2009 at 5:03 AM Rating: Decent
Actually not having smart judges is what got us where we are. Judges who abuse their position to push an agenda instead of following the laws in making a decision.
let me rephrase that...
# Oct 30 2009 at 10:04 PM Rating: Default
Actually I was referring to the BUY a judge part :) A smart Judge would be really nice, do you know of any ??
Patent Process
# Sep 22 2009 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
I hold patents myself ... For writing. It isn't expensive or too terribly time consuming to file for one. However, I believe we need to address litigants in the fashion that many in Europe do concerning the creativity of another. That being, unless the item or creation in question actually exists in some form it is not granted a patent. Sueing others and strongarming people over an "idea" is outright scandalous. Fortunately there is a bright spot for those which uphold ethics and decency in their business dealings and handling of others... They will not be spending eternity with these wretches and their lackeys.
# Sep 22 2009 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
111 posts
Patents are given out way too freely if you ask me. I mean seriously...that patent describes just about any multiplayer game created in the last 15 years alone. WTB a smart judge to throw this case out of court.

multi-million dollar litigious gang bang
# Sep 22 2009 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
To me, it is just a bunch of people who failed at life and want money because of the stupid laws that are linked to patents.

If you came up with an idea in '96, but have nothing 10+ years later (I've not heard of either of the 2 companies) than nothing like this should be able to come to.

Money hungry losers is all they are.
Sandinmyeye | |Tsukaremashi*a |
# Sep 22 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Default
It is called free market economy that USA based firm’s crash under legal costs.

Post Comment

Free account required to post

You must log in or create an account to post messages.