| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (8)

Posted: Mar 30th 2009 10:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RE: IGE, the court case only affected IGE US, which had been spun off into an irrelevant company before the lawsuit. The IGE gold selling part of IGE.com is owned by a guy named Jonathan Yantis; he got it as part of a settlement deal from its original owners when they went pretty much bankrupt. Yantis was a big name in currency selling with games like Everquest and IGE was its main competitor until they imploded and he got the company.

So Hernandez' lawsuit amounted to little because it only barred IGE US from doing gold trading, and they weren't involved with it in the first place. IGE.com isn't based in the US anymore, so similar lawsuits would be more difficult to manage.

Here's a really good story about IGE, but the part that relates specifically to that case is at the bottom (starts with On May 30, 2007)

http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-12/ff_ige?currentPage=all

Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Regarding Worlds.com, since they only officially entered their patent in 2000, it will most likely be ruled invalid, due to prior art already existing (Meridian 59, UO, EQ).

If we really want to go all the way back, we also have Neverwinter Nights on AOL.

Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
AOL's Neverwinter Nights didn't (as far as I am aware) use the algorithm that worlds.com is claiming.
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2009 1:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2009 10:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I want to play whatever text based Penguin mmo theyve got in that presentation! lol

Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One way to avoid problems would be to beat the snot on out world.com in court for having the audacity to try to "patient" an idea that clearly was not unique to them. The idea had been explored in the 80's by others... true it was not on the internet. but it was a very large dial in network that handled many many users simultaneously as avatars in a virtual environment.

I expect world.com will lose this law suit.

Posted: Mar 31st 2009 12:09AM Tanek said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The second, and more recent part of the ruling basically determines that functionally end-user-license-agreement violations constitute copyright infringement. "Circumvention" under the DMCA."

I really m ust have missed something. Because I did not see any rulings or conclusions that would support something this broad. I have seen other claims of it, though, usually attached to a bit of hearty fear-mongering.

Please cite exactly where this is in the ruling that does not specify *how* glider acted as opposed to applying to general "all EULA violations".

Posted: Mar 31st 2009 8:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed with many of the comments above (and outstanding article, btw), but can we please file Worlds.com under:

fail, wtf, orly?

Featured Stories

Global Chat: Through a monitor, darkly

Posted on Sep 30th 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW