NcSoft & ArenaNet, an offer to help with Worlds.com lawsuit

I suspect your advice dances dangerously close to the realm of libel.

The best thing anyone here can do is nothing. I'm sure NCSoft has hired or retains legal representation that it feels is competent and fully armed to fight this battle on their behalf. While it's all well and good that we have our opinions, the most anyone here should be doing is relaying the facts of the case and their personal opinions on the matter - with the understanding that it's their OPINION - to other people.

Writing or speaking opinionated statements in a factual manner about some other person or business risks accusations of libel or slander. Making statements of fact or appearing to provide advice about legal matters when you're not certified to do so can land you in trouble in many jurisdictions. Intentionally harming another person's business can, likewise, bring you trouble.

NCSoft got this 'yo. Just let the lawyers do their things. If you really feel compelled to get involved, write out a well-reasoned opinion and stick to the facts of the matter. If it really is an ugly or petty lawsuit, other people will see it for what it really is on their own by simply reviewing the facts and you won't have to resort to attacks, name-calling, or theatrics to convince anyone.

I was refering to blogs specifically because they are opinion. As for the term, many companies including worlds.com have been refered to in the media as patent trolls.
Overall, you are correct, but the discovery of previous art is the one area where we may be able to help. Someone out there may even have a copy of the software. I think I have a vrml application produced by microsoft back in 1995 but I am not sure where it is, still looking for it.

Well, let's see... At lest, their minamal target is accomplished: people now knows (worldwide !) that there exists some "Worlds.com". Not so bad way of self-advertising, huh ?

At least in the US, the truth is never defamatory (worlds.com is a patent troll); opinions are never defamatory (the term "patent troll" clearly contains the sort of value judgment that makes it an opinion); and statements on a public matter such as this can only be defamatory if uttered with "actual malice," meaning actual knowledge or reckless disregard of their falsehood (KZaske honestly believes worlds.com is a patent troll). So I'd say KZaske's advice doesn't come anywhere close to defamation by US standards.

Chthon is quite correct, straight out of the Restatement (Second) of Torts 652(e). The term "patent troll" is also not highly offensive to the reasonable person as it is a specific and accepted term of art.

HOWEVER, I wouldn't recommend using a term like "un-named" or "unknown" since that is just blatantly not true (the author knows it is worlds.com). Just don't name them.