So if it holds up in a US case but not in Europe does that then mean we'll see cut down versions of some games between regions.  I doubt anyone on here is qualified to say whether a patent can hold or not, my money is that its a specualtive effort that they hope will stick but you never know how these will pan out for sure.

That is completely wrong. It doesn't matter who comes up with the technology first, it matters who patents it first. For example coca-cola have not patented their formula because no one can figure out how to duplicate it. However if someone does figure out the formula for coke then coka-cola can no longer produce coke in the same method they do today. The reason they haven't pattented the coke formula is because after a set amount of time (20 years I think?) the original patent is made available to the public so that anyone can recreate the product. Since no one can figure out the formula for coke, coca-cola has no need to patent it and give away their formula after however many years.

Just thought I'd give you a little lesson on patents. So basically the point of my entire post is try to figure out the formula to coke and become a multi-billionare over night :)

For someone giving a lesson on patents, you're fairly ignorant of the matter. 

Please research "first-to-file" versus "first-to-invent" before your next post in this thread or any other on this topic.

Words of Wisedom has spoken.

PS your coke story has nothing to do with patenting first hahah :)

MS would likely back down worldwide if it lost a related case in Europe.  After all, the US justice system hasn't been very friendly to MS, to say the least.

Anyway, the whole patent just seems silly.  Maybe MS patented a certain way to program it or something but it is too similar to too many other things for me to take seriously.

I know. The patent system sucks ass. It makes NO flipping sense.

Money and bribery speaks loudest in the country where the US dollar makes the most difference.

"A squad-based shooter video game allows players to dynamically join and leave the game, while that game is in progress, without the players having to save and restart the game." That's pretty clear cut,....what exactly do you feel that is too similar too?

You don't have to take it seriously. Likewise, you are not the justice system of the US so your opinion that "it won't hold", is just that, your opinion.

lol your so arrogant you really don't even bother reading do you? First of all almost every country besides the U.S. uses a first to file system. Secondly you clearly have no idea what the first to invent system is, you probably just read a little excerpt on wikipedia and think your an expert. The first to invent system only applies if the inventor works to make a patent statement directly after making the invention. The inventor can not create the invention make no effort to patent it and then decide he is going to declare his right to a patent after somone else patents his method. The only real application for the first to invent system is to protect the inventor from having a larger corporation push through a patent for his invention faster than he could due to having far more resources and lawyers.

Now please go do some research before you ever bother responding to my posts again, I don't like talking to ignorant people.

Yes it does. If I find the formula for coke and decide to patent it now coca-cola can not file for a patent after and win because they have not been in the process of filing a patent for the last hundred years! All first to invent means is whoever starts the patent process first, not who actually invented it first.

Hence why if someone invented drop in split screen before but did not bother to patent it they would not win the patent, please do some research.