Mr. FlipperPA Peregrin’s “Invention”
by Pixeleen Mistral on 18/07/07 at 9:53 pm
by Pixeleen Mistral, National Affairs desk
Barney Boomslang reports that some of the scary-smart brains behind the Second Life Community Conference (SLCC) have made an astounding breakthrough in virtual world technology – and have applied for a patent on an amazing “invention”. Stop the virtual tabloid presses!! According to a number of reports, Mr. FlipperPA Peregrin believes he may have had a patentable idea recently!!! zomg!!!!!
Sources suggest that Mr. Peregrin hopes to bring pay per view video to the metaverse – and if we are to believe the claims found in the google cache of the Virtual Worlds PPV site here he has a patent pending on this. While it is unclear why the web site owners took down the pages, we rejoice in the fact that google seldom forgets and bask in the glory of the completely non-obvious “invention” described on these glorious pages. Just being near this sort of greatness is the sort of thing that makes Second Life worth living.
Our meagre understanding of the incredible breakthrough is it will allow users “to view the media through a virtual rectangular screen located in the virtual world. The virtual screen will appear on an individual user’s computer monitor as a ‘screen within a screen.’ All virtual world participants within viewing distance of the virtual screen will be able to view the virtual screen”. Wow! We’ve never seen anything like that before. Not evah!!!!!!!
Herald staff enthusiasm was slightly tempered however, when the cat we keep in the offices started scratching in her litterbox and spelled out a message which said: Protip: it might have been better to make even broader claims – what about putting the video on a curved screen and calling it virtual Cinerama.
Oh noes!!! Since Flipper is only trying to patent flat rectangular pay-per-view, can our pet cat patent curved pay-per-view? Whoops! She just disclosed it though, didn’t she? Rats! – this is the just sort of thing that separates good mousers from good inventors. However perhaps other entreprenuers can work around FlipperPA’s patent – should it be granted – by applying a slight curve to the screen so that is is no longer strictly rectangular. Our cat thinks that might work – in the event that the patent office is proven to be insane
But we digress. The Virtual Worlds PPV site continues to describe the breakthrough, saying “The Virtual Viewer(TM) solution can accomodate a variety of payment methods, including credit cards, on-line electronic payment mechanisms, or even using virtual world currency. Once the user makes the payment, the solution transmits a signal from within the virtual world to the server housing the media to allow the requested media to begin playing on the virtual screen”. The office cat looked despondent – she never thinks to require payment for something in a virtual world. And the VIrtual Worlds PPV people will take Linden space bucks, too! FlipperPA really knows how to cover all the bases – except for that curved screen thing.
None of this comes as much of a surprise to the Second Life musicians we know, however. The redoubtable intellects who seem to be making *interesting* patents are also be involved in a certain amount of controversy around the SLCC conference. Perhaps Virtual Worlds PPV can mend those fences by “inventing” a virtual cover-charge?
Prokofy Neva
Jul 18th, 2007
Blogged about that already more than an hour ago but Barney was first!
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/07/flippay-per-vie.html
o See notecard of full description of “patent” — not really confirmed that there *is* a patent application but there appears to be
o rumours of Stroker involvement
o rumours of SLCC content-grab relationship
AND a contrarian opinion expressed, that even while The Community (the Sanhedrin? The Spanish Inquisition? The Kremlin?) has already decided this is an evil horrific stupid grab for a public utility, I can’t help asking…but why can’t you patent this if everybody else patents stuff related to SL LSL commands and SL itself? It’s a service, it’s a device, well, why not?
Prokofy Neva
Jul 18th, 2007
Oh, and read the Flip Flop:
http://forums.secondcitizen.com/showpost.php?p=351154&postcount=55
Jorus Xi
Jul 19th, 2007
“o rumours of SLCC content-grab relationship”
Sorry thats bunk. It is too late to market to be effective in SL for that particular medium.
That and since my teams behind providing the out of house content i.e. streams et al leaving SLCC…… and this is the first we’ve heard of it…. I can pretty much debunk that theory.
If flip DID want to utilize this to do such a thing with anything from SLCC he wouldn’t have been so liberal with giving us broadcast rights. It paints him into a corner and leaves most of any profit margin in our hands rather than his. It wouldn’t be an intelligent business decision. If there was a way to make money off that content from SLCC (which imho is wishy washy at best, I sure as hell wouldn’t pay to hear some folks drone on about their views on a virtual world, not when there are podcasts out there doing the same thing for the almighty free) why would we be interested in sharing a slice of that cake with him when we can just eat the whole thing? As a streaming host we have our own channels for distribution, and that channel would be very bulky to work through AND we would have to again share a slice of the pie that we could keep for ourselves by diving through channels and channel partners we already have in place.
I’m reminded of a certain beer commercial with guys that yell “GENIOUS!”
Now I’ll be happy to give an official interview saying “Hey we’re not a part of this” at any time, but strangely none of the “Journalists” around here seem to ever ask for such things….
Kahni Poitier
Jul 19th, 2007
“transmits a signal from within the virtual world to the server housing the media to allow the requested media to begin playing on the virtual screen”
Well, I guess that means that if it’s NOT hosted within the virtual world, it’s not covered by this patent.
Whoops! there I go, giving away trade secrets again….
Nina A
Jul 19th, 2007
I wanna patent bling jewelry in SL.
shockwave yareach
Jul 19th, 2007
Patents are invalid if anyone can prove pre-existing art – that is, if someone else was already using said technique whether patented or not prior to the patent application. Since video has been in SecondLife since before Oct of last year, his claims are groundless and he won’t get his patent. And even if he does and tries to enforce it, all it takes is LL showing their previous work and voom, all of flipper’s money and time in the patent application goes down the toilet.
Coincidental Avatar
Jul 19th, 2007
I see here Second Lie & Hearsay mocking innovative American entrepreneurs (lawyers?). This commie rag will stutter under the hatred of Prokofy Neva when (s)he will hear about this. [Additionally I've heard rumours that SLNN reported this earlier.]
American Anarchists will start to kill each others when others say that patenting is government interference and others support free entrepreneurs supported by the government. The American Anarchists will file complaints on each other to the government entity called FBI and sue each others in the government entity called “court”.
One reason why LL is so slow with web-on-the-prim technology is that it might enable circumventing LL billing processes, causing a decline in the expected revenue. For example naughty movies could be billed via the web page on the prim.
Stroker already has an open lawsuit in the court. A reason why LL doesn’t proceed with DMCA violations is that LL can’t validate the copyright of the complaint.
SqueezeOne Pow
Jul 19th, 2007
Whatever. I just want to log on, sit in my SL office and be able to watch YouTube on the 3 prim computer monitor on my SL desk. I want to be able to do all this from the comfort of my RL desk.
Get back to me when someone does that.
Victoria Kemsley
Jul 19th, 2007
Prok, why don’t you try and go out and “gasp” create something yourself, or actually try to contribute to society in a positive way for once in your life.
Are you green with envy, or is it just a feeling of inadequacy that causes you to do nothing but try and degrade others? Is your life that shallow? Oh and spare me the litany of all your alleged accomplishments in life, we have all heard them enough that it’s a broken record at this point.
anon
Jul 19th, 2007
I have my own patent project that will destroy the ideas of a closed single sided company virtual world such as SL.
Anyone remember when PEER TO PEER (old technology topology) became a real winner on the web? Does Napster ring a bell?
The future of vitual worlds will not be a system like Linden Labs currently has. It will be a Peer to Peer network of end users logging into a world created on their local machines. This network eliminates the need for what Linden has created and brings true vitual sharing to the masses.
Linden will have their place, albeit a very small technical corner in the
metaverse.
Anyone putting the millions into this technology will produce a real winner. And for your information… I believe it’s on it’s way.
Nina A
Jul 19th, 2007
—”Prok, why don’t you try and go out and “gasp” create something yourself, or actually try to contribute to society in a positive way for once in your life.
Are you green with envy, or is it just a feeling of inadequacy that causes you to do nothing but try and degrade others? Is your life that shallow? Oh and spare me the litany of all your alleged accomplishments in life, we have all heard them enough that it’s a broken record at this point.”—
Okay, what am I missing? The author of this article is called Pixeleen Mistral. Way to go with ignoring (or diverting?) Pixeleen’s points for the ubiquitous Prok swipe.
Hiro Pendragon
Jul 19th, 2007
If it’s such a non-patentable, bad idea, why give it publicity? It would seem that your last paragraph is revealing – you’re pissed at Flipper about SLCC (go talk to Randall Moss, he runs the non-profit, not Flipper) – and you are looking for any excuse.
This isn’t even tabloid-quality, this is Fox News level of “unrelated story” crap.
Jessica Holyoke
Jul 19th, 2007
I know I shouldn’t be posting here at this time but this is a very interesting issue.
Based on what I’ve read here and in other places, and what I already know of SL, it sounds more like Flipper is trying to obtain the patent for either the ability to change what would appear on a prim content-wise and/or the means or method to pay for the content to appear, not just video on a prim. Whether he will get the patent is another issue. (Benjamin Noble has discussed some of the issues better here: http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/07/19/ppv-patent-second-life )
Beyond the fact that software is usually not patented, the idea of seeking the patent goes against a dominant viewpoint of both the Lindens and the web. Basically, while most people are looking at being open and “information being free”, Mr. Peregrine is doing the opposite. I’m not saying either side is better or one side is good or one side is evil, just saying what the sides *are*.
And Pixeleen is right to tie-in the SLCC change in musician contract with the patent application because its a pattern. Controlling a musician’s performance by locking in a license is in the same vein, although not precisely the same, as seeking a patent on a SL script. Its still controlling content.
Prokofy Neva
Jul 20th, 2007
Anyone who argues that news like this is covered, or that criticism is made of people making big grabs like this are motivate by “jealousy” lose my attention rapidly. They’re letting me know what kind of squalid world *they* live in — one dominated by petty considerations and imaginations like that.
We can’t know if a patent will really take “years” — that’s not consistent with every experience. And just because it isn’t available yet doesn’t mean that it can’t be deployed now, like every cheesy plastic thingie on sale at the five and dime; as Desmond said, “patent pending” is the oldest gimmick in the book. Patents are more about trying to knock others out of the competition with fear of lawsuits, so it appears, than securing copyright, which is something different.
So FlipperPAY could well be hoping to GOM the SLCC stream and use it later, even much later, having a very read-made sale prospects list to use of people very eager to relive their memories of SLCC. The idea that he can’t do that today isn’t argument against him someday wishing to — and we never did learn why all these folks are after grabbing the content anyway. P.S. Jorus is an interested party, being part of the Phreak gang and SC regs.
Drake
Jul 20th, 2007
Um.
Yeah, I haven’t always been the most dedicated reader of the Second Life Herald, but I have read it frequently enough. I’ve read a lot of interesting articles; I especially love the ones focusing on the griefers, and the “anti” griefers, like JLU. They are all griefers in my eyes. Griefers who call themselves anti-griefers are just hypocrites as well.
This article is pointless. So he’s found a way for pay-per-view in Second Life, and you don’t think it’s a patentable idea? Who cares? Why? At least the griefer articles had awesome comments to read, and certain people’s wild conspiracy theories to read. This is just boring
Anonymous
Jul 21st, 2007
–>Okay, what am I missing? The author of this article is called Pixeleen Mistral. Way to go with ignoring (or diverting?) Pixeleen’s points for the ubiquitous Prok swipe.<–
Pixeleen Mistral is Prok.
Inigo Chamerberlin
Jul 21st, 2007
Apart from the very obvious fact that watching video on an inworld ‘screen’ has to be one of the most pointless occupations imaginable, and it’s not even patentable for reasons mentioned above – I really do fear for poor old Flip.
Strikes me that the dividing line between RL and SL has faded away for him. Sad.
Hypatia Callisto
Jul 22nd, 2007
“The future of vitual (sic) worlds will not be a system like Linden Labs currently has. It will be a Peer to Peer network of end users logging into a world created on their local machines. This network eliminates the need for what Linden has created and brings true vitual sharing to the masses.”
You’re like, many years late. Moove already has such a world. IMVU is another one. Moove’s started in 1997, so you’re … very… late…
It has its limits… in that you can’t host a large amount of people on your personal computer, you just haven’t got the bandwidth, unless everyone had T1 or better to their computers. Which, they do not
Client-server is still the only way to go if you’re going to have large shared 3d spaces on the net.
Hypatia Callisto
Jul 22nd, 2007
One needs to weigh the possibility that IBM may own this patent already…
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5983003-description.html
Also check out Sony’s Home trailer for possible future implementation of this concept -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyquAXKeEI0
pay close attention to the end, after “coming soon” and states:
Home will grow into an enormous 3d network with sponsored spaces, a cinema that caters to downloadable content…
Oops
I wish I knew what this patent was up to. If its patent trolling, I can’t see anything good coming out of this. It will be ugly, and to have firms the size of Sony and IBM against you isn’t pretty, not to mention LL itself.
But nobody really knows yet.