Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post Reply
User avatar
brantlew
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Menlo Park, CA

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by brantlew »

As EdZ pointed out. Fab'ing the screens is only half the battle. Marrying those screens with the proper hardware and software to drive them from standard digital signals (ie. DVI) instead of custom embedded phone hardware is the other half of the battle. Unfortunately there is no real motivation for the manufacturers to do that.
losvedir
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:28 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by losvedir »

Okay, first post after lurking in this thread for the last couple weeks.

I'm extremely excited about the Rift. I'm a software engineer currently doing primarily web development and am getting so reinvigorated into programming just thinking about 3D HMD stuff I can hardly stand it.

What's the best way to get my hands on one of these puppies? I opted out of the Paypal preorder thing because I'm leery of using Paypal, so is it just waiting for Kickstarter at this point? When will we know when it goes live? I have this thread and oculusvr.com permanently open in two tabs and refresh periodically, as well as searching Kickstarter.

Will there be some sort of notification to us eager beavers? I don't want to miss out on the first batch because I didn't see that it was possible to preorder until too late. I'm standing by, credit card in hand, ready once Kickstarter goes live.
blitter
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:51 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by blitter »

I'm subscribed to the topic and check on it daily-- also hoping to get in on the ground floor with Kickstarter as I've got a game engine ready to be adapted to the Rift once I have a unit and/or enough specs to work from. ;)
nicolasbol
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by nicolasbol »

@losvedir: In the upper left corner you can subscribe to a topic and receive an email notification. There is also a newsletter you can subscribe to on the Occulus Rift blog, you need to enter the password you can find on this forum.

I feel just the way you do but I am sure once it is all figured out there will be a major post here or the newsletter will be notified.
User avatar
cybereality
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 11406
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by cybereality »

I believe Palmer said the Kickstarter is already approved, and will go up in a couple of weeks time.
User avatar
brantlew
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Menlo Park, CA

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by brantlew »

@losvedir: It seems to have invigorated a lot of people both within the gaming and VR communities as well as people on the fringes and has sparked a lot of software activity on this site directly related to the Rift and to related VR technologies. Check out the rest of the VR DIY forum.
losvedir
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:28 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by losvedir »

Thanks for the replies everyone. I am subscribed to this thread now, and I entered my address in the oculusvr.com newsletter thing.

Palmer did say the Kickstarter is approved and it would be two weeks.

I just don't know the best method of keeping my ears out to get notified when he makes it live. Don't want to miss out. I guess I shouldn't worry as it's extremely likely he'll either post here or send out to his email list, but I dunno, I'm just too excited and getting antsy.

@brantlew: You're right. I was linked directly to this thread and have been refreshing just this thread. I'll take a look at what else there is. Good suggestion, thanks.
hast
Cross Eyed!
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:16 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by hast »

I'm in the same situation of trying to patiently wait for the Kickstarter to start.

Anyways, Palmer said before that it would be about two more weeks, and that he wanted to run it for 30 days. Previously I believe he (or Carmack) has mentioned that the Kickstarter should still be active during QuakeCon (2-5 August). The reason being that they will demo the kit there with Doom 3 BFG so hopefully there should be more people who want to join in on the fun afterwards.

So putting that together it seems reasonable to assume that it should start around 4th of July or perhaps a few days later.

I'm just guessing though, so don't sue me if I'm wrong. :-) But I will at least personally not be wearing out my F5 button until about then. (I'll just rely on my subscription to this thread.)
DragonM
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by DragonM »

blitter wrote:I'm subscribed to the topic and check on it daily-- also hoping to get in on the ground floor with Kickstarter as I've got a game engine ready to be adapted to the Rift once I have a unit and/or enough specs to work from. ;)
I too have an engine I'd love to adapt to the Rift. Unfortunately I've been self-funding development on it for the past two years (a nice way of saying I'm unemployed...), so the money just isn't there. I'm following along so I know what's going on, and hopefully I'll ship in time (and enough people will like what I've done) to have funds for Rift v2.0.

Because there will be a v2.0. :)

DM
NickK
Two Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:59 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by NickK »

DragonM wrote:
blitter wrote:I'm subscribed to the topic and check on it daily-- also hoping to get in on the ground floor with Kickstarter as I've got a game engine ready to be adapted to the Rift once I have a unit and/or enough specs to work from. ;)
I too have an engine I'd love to adapt to the Rift. Unfortunately I've been self-funding development on it for the past two years (a nice way of saying I'm unemployed...), so the money just isn't there. I'm following along so I know what's going on, and hopefully I'll ship in time (and enough people will like what I've done) to have funds for Rift v2.0.

Because there will be a v2.0. :)

DM
Unemployment is a great opportunity to start or join an open source project with a public website. If you do something important it can land you a job to do what you love doing anyway. Also, you can file a patent application in your own name while being unemployed which is not always possible while being an employee.

Along the same lines, if this Palmer guy can deliver on his first RIFT project, I'm afraid we won't see the 2nd version. It's very likely that someone will buy him out.
PalmerTech
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by PalmerTech »

Nobody is going to buy me out unless it is on terms that benefit the VR community as a whole. I turned down a job offer from a Fortune 500 company (In the top 100) to do this on my own terms.

Stupid, maybe, but it felt like the right thing to do at this point in time. Maybe I can work with them in the future if we prove that VR can be great!
DragonM
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by DragonM »

NickK wrote:Unemployment is a great opportunity to start or join an open source project with a public website. If you do something important it can land you a job to do what you love doing anyway. Also, you can file a patent application in your own name while being unemployed which is not always possible while being an employee.

Along the same lines, if this Palmer guy can deliver on his first RIFT project, I'm afraid we won't see the 2nd version. It's very likely that someone will buy him out.
I've contributed to two different large open source projects and created a small one of my own (a GKrellM plugin, now obsolete). There are no employers on this part of the continent who hire developers because they have open source street cred.

And software patents are illegal. Or should be. You can't patent math. Even if they're technically legal in the US, I consider them immoral and severely damaging to any industry that depends heavily on software. Incidentally, John Carmack was a member of the IGDA patents committee that opposed software patents in general and game software patents in particular, so you should be ashamed to show your face in this thread, talking like that. :P

DM
NickK
Two Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:59 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by NickK »

PalmerTech wrote:Nobody is going to buy me out unless it is on terms that benefit the VR community as a whole. I turned down a job offer from a Fortune 500 company (In the top 100) to do this on my own terms.

Stupid, maybe, but it felt like the right thing to do at this point in time. Maybe I can work with them in the future if we prove that VR can be great!
If you can deliver on the RIFT project then it was likely a right decision. Your value should go up.

In addition, Carmack was right. You guys are so idealistic sometimes that it can damage your goal. Your idea of "no profit" is one of them. There is nothing wrong with being incorporated and making profit. "Company" or "patents" are just tools. It's what you do (good or evil) with these tools that matters. Not every company and not every patent is used to troll or vulture.

For example, you can sell above cost and use this "profit" to hire someone else to help you. In fact, startups rarely have profits. They reinvest all their cash flow into their own people and products to accelerate the project because it takes too long to accomplish anything working alone. If your goal really was to help the VR community, wouldn't it make sense to use your skills designing advanced VR hardware and have someone else, without those skills, spending their time over that bath assembling it?

In addition, have you thought about a possibility that some jaskass will sue you over RIFT with some spurious claims? If you are incorporated with limited liability, the company will take the legal and financial hit. Otherwise, it is your *personal* responsibility. He/she can go after your personal assets. In an ideal world you can trust people not to do that crap over a prototype kit like RIFT. In the real world, there are always jaskasses. How will the VR community benefit if you are swamped by legal paperwork?

I'm wondering if Carmack and ID software would be willing to help you with legal issues.
DragonM wrote: I've contributed to two different large open source projects and created a small one of my own (a GKrellM plugin, now obsolete). There are no employers on this part of the continent who hire developers because they have open source street cred.

And software patents are illegal. Or should be. You can't patent math. Even if they're technically legal in the US, I consider them immoral and severely damaging to any industry that depends heavily on software. Incidentally, John Carmack was a member of the IGDA patents committee that opposed software patents in general and game software patents in particular, so you should be ashamed to show your face in this thread, talking like that. :P

DM
I am also against software patents but I live in the real world. And in the real world there are other important uses to patents:
+ VC funding is a lot easier to obtain if you have a patent (even provisional).
+ Patents can be used defensively, i.e. discourage others from suing you.
+ You can donate your patent to the free software foundation to prevent others from patenting something similar.
+ And last but not the least - I didn't say it should be a software patent. There are hardware patents, you know?

I don't see why I should be ashamed of the above. For example, if Palmer comes up with a great idea to improve his RIFT hardware, he should definitely patent it. I personally know an entrepreneur who didn't do it and paid dearly for it: his business partners (a large corp) stole the idea, patented it behind his back and then killed his business through courts. Do you want the same to happen to your projects or RIFT? It may happen if Palmer is not careful.
User avatar
brantlew
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Menlo Park, CA

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by brantlew »

NickK wrote:I personally know an entrepreneur who didn't do it and paid dearly for it: his business partners (a large corp) stole the idea, patented it behind his back and then killed his business through courts.
Perfect example of why most of the world (and soon the US) is completely backwards on the fundamental purpose of patents. First-to-file patent law is an atrocity and has nothing to do with protecting inventors and everything to do with simplifying government procedures and satisfying corporate lobbyists.

DragonM wrote:And software patents are illegal. Or should be. You can't patent math. Even if they're technically legal in the US, I consider them immoral and severely damaging to any industry that depends heavily on software.
I think it should be valid to patent software and algorithms. The problem to me is that almost all software patents are derivative ideas. Patent regulators should be strict, hire knowledgeable reviewers, and only grant a handful of software patents a year that represent truly innovative ideas. But they continue to grant software patents for all manner of obvious, derivative, and useless dreck. I am personally listed on a couple of US patents that I can honestly say are just completely laughable and ridiculous - basically a few dozen if-then statements masquerading as "AI". In fact I argued with the CEO when they were being filed that the software in question was utterly devoid of anything novel. But again - the meaning of patents has been completely distorted into a corporate tool instead of an individual property right. First-to-file law just makes this worse.
Last edited by brantlew on Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DragonM
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by DragonM »

NickK wrote:In addition, Carmack was right. You guys are so idealistic sometimes that it can damage your goal. Your idea of "no profit" is one of them. There is nothing wrong with being incorporated and making profit. "Company" or "patents" are just tools. It's what you do (good or evil) with these tools that matters. Not every company and not every patent is used to troll or vulture.
While that's true, the implication running through all of Palmer's comments concerning the price point of the Rift has been that all of his predecessors have been overpriced. And they have been. $30,000 is a ludicrous price for a piece of equipment with basically no software support and definitely no established market. Even the $750 price of the Sony HMD is ridiculous. When you're trying to invent an industry, so to speak, there's a serious chicken and egg problem. You can't sell the hardware because there's no software to support it but you can't create the software to support it unless you sell the hardware. This has been a problem since the dawn of the VR concept, and it's still a problem.

Palmer is seeking to correct that problem by shaving his margins to the very thinnest and getting as many units as possible into the hands of tinkerers and developers. The best way to do that is to minimize the price. Not all of us have the kind of deep pockets Mr. Carmack has that lets him play with rockets as a hobby. On the contrary, this project attracts mainly hobbyist developers operating on a shoestring budget, precisely because Palmer has gone out of his way to minimize the price. And it's working. It's attracting interest and getting press attention. From there, chickens happen. (Or possibly eggs.)
NickK wrote:In addition, have you thought about a possibility that some jaskass will sue you over RIFT with some spurious claims? If you are incorporated with limited liability, the company will take the legal and financial hit. Otherwise, it is your *personal* responsibility. He/she can go after your personal assets. In an ideal world you can trust people not to do that crap over a prototype kit like RIFT. In the real world, there are always jaskasses. How will the VR community benefit if you are swamped by legal paperwork?
He has. If you read back (many pages back), you'll see him lamenting the costs of establishing an LLC. He knows the value of it and he's done it. No worries there. I'm under the impression that Kickstarter specifically encourages it.
NickK wrote:I am also against software patents but I live in the real world. And in the real world there are other important uses to patents:
+ VC funding is a lot easier to obtain if you have a patent (even provisional).
+ Patents can be used defensively, i.e. discourage others from suing you.
+ You can donate your patent to the free software foundation to prevent others from patenting something similar.
+ And last but not the least - I didn't say it should be a software patent. There are hardware patents, you know?
  • I don't want VC funding. I see no reason whatsoever to give the lion's share of my revenue, forever, to somebody whose sole contribution is being lucky enough to already be rich. If I wanted to do that, I'd get a damn job. That's practically the definition of a job.

    More to the point, it's blindingly obvious that Palmer doesn't want VC funding either. Hence, Kickstarter, and its very attractiveness in the first place. Kickstarter is a formalized way of soliciting donations, not investment, in order to implement a project. If Palmer succeeds, he retains total ownership of the Rift. If he fails, the donaters are out their money and that's too bad. But the point of Kickstarter is specifically to solicit donations small enough that even if a given project fails after achieving its funding goal, none of the donaters are significantly affected financially.
  • Patents are only useful defensively if you a) have a lot of them; and b) have enormously deep pockets capable of funding a multimillion dollar law firm to defend them. Without both a) and b), you're a paper tiger, and the trolls know it.
  • Donating to FSF does at least obviate part b) above, since the FSF has lawyers on staff, and if enough people do it, FSF qualifies under part a). But that doesn't help me (or Palmer) all that much.
  • Last, you were addressing me, so I answered. I'm a software guy. Software is my response. If you meant to include Palmer in that bit of advice, it might have helped to say so.
NickK wrote:I don't see why I should be ashamed of the above. For example, if Palmer comes up with a great idea to improve his RIFT hardware, he should definitely patent it. I personally know an entrepreneur who didn't do it and paid dearly for it: his business partners (a large corp) stole the idea, patented it behind his back and then killed his business through courts. Do you want the same to happen to your projects or RIFT? It may happen if Palmer is not careful.
That isn't an appreciable risk, for me. Nobody is using patents for hostile takeovers of games. The trolls won't bother me unless and until I have enough money to be an interesting target.

On the other hand, that's definitely a risk for Palmer. Especially now that the US is First to File, even when Palmer publishes the full specifications of the Rift as part of the project, those published specs no longer automatically torpedo a patent that claims what's in his specs (and it wasn't actually "automatic" before; it still cost a fortune in legal fees).

Unfortunately there's no cure for unethical and immoral business practices such as those you describe, short of shooting the perpetrators in the back of the head. The US courts have failed. They enable a thief in lawyer's clothing to bankrupt you, before or after the fact. Don't patent, and they'll patent ahead of you and bankrupt you. Patent, and they'll sue you with one of their patents and bankrupt you. Your only hope, as a lone inventor, is to not create something that a rich bully wants to own. The patent system is an utter disaster and has failed to achieve the goal of advancing innovation and the useful arts as stated in the Constitution. The cases where a lone inventor patents something new and successfully defends his patent are vanishingly rare, and cases similar to the one you described are legion. Better to save the filing fees and make more Rifts.

I'm just glad Palmer isn't afraid, and is innovating anyway, even though he's not only doing it without a net, he's doing it with a permanent looming threat out on the horizon. More power to him.

DM
NickK
Two Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:59 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by NickK »

DM,

I believe you somewhat misunderstood my post. I am not disagreeing with you on many of the items you talk about. My point was to explain that it doesn't make me EVIL or SHAMEFUL only because I propose that you or anyone else may consider filing a patent. Do you agree with this?
brantlew wrote: Palmer is seeking to correct that problem by shaving his margins to the very thinnest and getting as many units as possible into the hands of tinkerers and developers. The best way to do that is to minimize the price. Not all of us have the kind of deep pockets Mr. Carmack has that lets him play with rockets as a hobby. On the contrary, this project attracts mainly hobbyist developers operating on a shoestring budget, precisely because Palmer has gone out of his way to minimize the price. And it's working. It's attracting interest and getting press attention. From there, chickens happen. (Or possibly eggs.)
That's true. However, I don't believe that hobbyists will make a big difference (no offense to anyone on this board). Hobbyists have been tinkering with VR for a couple of decades already with no significant progress. It's the entrepreneurs that make a difference. What Palmer really needs is a small commercial market to start out small but profitable. Then, he can use the proceeds from that niche market to reinvest into improved hardware and higher volume production if possible. IMHO, until the *commercial* market picks this up, VR will remain a niche market.

Let me give an example of a small commercial market that may potentially work:
What: Hazard and accident training for oil rig employees.
Problem: When emergency happens people often panic, don't know what to do, or get lost. For example, after a BP oil rig explosion in Gulf of Mexico 11 workers were never found. You can't just give the workers a bunch of instructions and expect them to remember it when an accident happens.
Goal: Teach employees what to do and how to react when accidents happen, in the way that they can easily memorize their way out. Note that many of these employees are not computer guys. They are blue collar workers.
Proposed solution: Create a VR training program that emulates several different accidents. The oil company already has schematics of its rigs. All they need to do is to construct a 3D world of it and have workers *experience* accidents and find their way to lifeboats starting from different locations. Such experience is a lot easier to remember and follow when real accidents happen.
Cost: Compared to the cost of lives lost, lawsuits filed and monetary damage, $600 or $1200 for a RIFT hardware makes no difference for the oil company. There are also open source OpenGL engines that can be used to model accidents. Palmer + some OpenGL guy can sell this packaged system (software+hardware) to simulate oil rig accidents. Would that make them evil, greedy or shameful? I don't think so. Such a project can save lives of innocent people.

P.S. If anyone patents this idea I will use the Dragon's method detailed above to "shoot the perpetrators in the back of the head". Just kidding. :)
brantlew wrote: I'm just glad Palmer isn't afraid, and is innovating anyway, even though he's not only doing it without a net, he's doing it with a permanent looming threat out on the horizon. More power to him.
If the Kickstarter project gets successful funding it may be worth it for Palmer to spend some time with patent attorneys. He and Carmack can probably consider sitting down and discussing which hardware decisions can be patented by enemies. IMHO, a couple of weeks now can save him months or years of litigation down the road.
DragonM
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by DragonM »

NickK wrote:I believe you somewhat misunderstood my post. I am not disagreeing with you on many of the items you talk about. My point was to explain that it doesn't make me EVIL or SHAMEFUL only because I propose that you or anyone else may consider filing a patent. Do you agree with this?
I don't, no, and therein lies the crux of the matter. I see absolutely no redeeming value in the patent system. I question whether it ever had redeeming value, even historically. Certainly the quality of patents has neither improved nor degraded in the past 200 years. You've only to look at historical patents for examples of that. Often humorous examples. It's as bad now as it's ever been. It's also as good now as it's ever been, and that's pretty stinking foul.

The utility of the patent system rests on the assertion that an inventor will come up with something substantially unique. This has never happened, in the history of the world. Precisely the opposite happens--people tinkering around with the same problem at about the same time in history will always generate convergent solutions. I'll go even further. The moment in history leads people of an inventive nature to tinker with the same things at the same time. The combination of the popular zeitgeist and physics practically guarantees these results. Consider for a moment how we got here. Yes, right here. John Carmack and Palmer both took a look at the state of the art in electronics manufacturing and commodity computer components and, independently, decided that now is the time to take another run at this VR thing. This is not a unique occurrence. So the most fundamental claim about the patent system is nonsense, and all the rest is flimflammery and legal terrorism.

Patent litigation is solely a mechanism to provide employment and enrichment to lawyers. It does not and has never succeeded in fostering innovation. On the contrary, it stifles and crushes innovation at every opportunity, leaving behind it a trail of broken dreams and smashed hopes. Nor do I see any way to correct it. You are allowed precisely as much justice as you can buy, and no more. Giant corporations will always be able to buy more justice. Therefore patents filed by small business, the proverbial entrepreneur, range from a minor useless expense to a nightmarish bankrupting expense. If you are exceedingly lucky, someone wealthy might like to gently co-opt your invention, tossing a little money in your direction (very little money), in order to use it as a weapon against someone else. If you're unlucky, you will receive a legal punch to the face and still lose control of your work. More often than either of these scenarios, you will simply be ignored.

I could go on, and pile up citations, but we're wandering rather far afield from the point of this thread. I'll close with one final observation. I am supposed to be one of the people sheltering under the rubric of the patent system. I have an engineering degree and 15 years of experience and a fairly decent imagination. And after 20-some years of reading tech news, I believe the patent system is a trap. Doesn't that mean the patent system has failed to achieve its nominal goal, practically by definition? Admittedly it's somewhat circular logic, but there's a kernel of truth in there.
NickK wrote:That's true. However, I don't believe that hobbyists and tinkerers will make a big difference (no offense to anyone on this board). What Palmer really needs is a small commercial market to start out small but profitable. Then, he can use the proceeds from that niche market to reinvest into improved hardware and higher volume production if possible. IMHO, until the *commercial* market picks this up, VR will remain a niche market.
I believe hobbyists and tinkerers will make a big difference for two reasons: 1) Sony, giant megacorporation that it is, has a polished, assembly-line-pretty HMD available right this minute. And nobody cares. The tech news sites dutifully regurgitated their press releases and then it sank without a trace. Commercial activity is no guarantee of anything. 2) Palmer is a hobbyist and a tinkerer.

However, once again, refer back (many pages back) in this thread, and you'll see that Palmer has decided that the Kickstarter should buy him manufacturing equipment, so he can make the parts for Rifts himself. That's commercial activity, of a sort. It puts his feet on the road to continuing to make Rifts, refine and improve the design, and further cut the cost of the thing.

But he isn't going to try to write the proverbial "killer app" too. Someone else will probably do that. These things are notoriously unpredictable. The only thing we know from history is that it takes more than one person tinkering to generate the requisite snowball to get things rolling.
NickK wrote: P.S. If anyone patents this idea I will use the Dragon's method detailed above to "shoot the perpetrators in the back of the head". Just kidding. :)
Another fine example of why the patent system is useless and broken. What you described is in no way worthy of a patent to begin with. The concept is blindingly obvious to anyone who has seen a few episodes of Star Trek, or a whole slew of bad '80s movies. Yes, I know, it was an example, and the remark about patenting it was tongue in cheek, but it was too good of an example... to pass up the chance to pillory it. :P Implement what you propose and copyright it, if you like, but don't think you have a right to have the only oil rig instructional VR program in the country for the next 20 years.
NickK wrote: If the Kickstarter project gets successful funding it may be worth it for Palmer to spend some time with patent attorneys. He and Carmack can probably consider sitting down and discussing which hardware decisions can be patented by enemies. IMHO, a couple of weeks now can save him months or years of litigation down the road.
And I say it's a waste of time and money. Even if he follows your advice, even if he successfully isolates some rare bit of genius in what he's done, if a well-heeled commercial bully decides they want it, years of litigation is precisely what he can look forward to. Hell, I strongly suggest he be very careful NOT to do a patent search to find out if what he's doing now has already been patented. Because it probably has. Years of litigation is bad enough without triple damages for willful infringement. :roll:

DM
zoost
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:41 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by zoost »

As doom 3 BFG Edition will incorporate native stereoscopic 3D HDTV support for XBOX and PS3, will it be possible to connect the Rift directly to a console, or is the Rift only availble for PC?
User avatar
Chriky
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:24 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Chriky »

@ DragonM, NickK

While this discussion is quite relevant for the forum, as there are people working on innovative stuff, and there are several aggressive companies reading, and quite possibly major companies lurking... it really isn't relevant for this thread. A lot of people have email alerts for this thread waiting for news about the RIFT, so maybe a mod could break off the patent/legal discussion somewhere else?
petersmc
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:23 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by petersmc »

If I am not mistaken, the "open-source" nature of the project means that no company can own the rights to employing PalmerTech's approach. I would hope that once there is sufficient adoption of Palmer's "standard" that large manufacturers will fall over themsleves to deliver their version of RIFT. Perhaps we will finally see the VR I (we) have been dreaming of since the '90s. I just hope Palmer gets rewarded for his efforts somehow.
GL1zdA
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:02 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by GL1zdA »

Will the Rift be compatible with glasses? I've seen someone asking about it on oculusvr.com, but unfortunately there is no reply. My astigmatism is mild, but for obvious reasons I'd rather see sharp image.
hast
Cross Eyed!
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:16 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by hast »

GL1zdA wrote:Will the Rift be compatible with glasses? I've seen someone asking about it on oculusvr.com, but unfortunately there is no reply. My astigmatism is mild, but for obvious reasons I'd rather see sharp image.
It has been discussed previously in this thread. But the short answer is that there will be possible to adjust diopters on the lenses. So it should work if you wear glasses to correct for myopia. I'm not sure if it will be able to correct astimatism though.

A possible work around is to add padding and distance to the goggles so you can wear glasses underneath. I'm sure there will be several other people in a similar situation who will want to make that possible.
spyro
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by spyro »

@PalmerTech:

Are there any news about the 250 Hz custom firmware for the headtacking sensor? There were several questions about it but I've not seen a clear statement about this (sorry if I just missed it).

At the E3, John Carmack said he added additional sensor code from his rocket company Armadillo Aerospace to a custom firmware which lower latency just written for him directly from Hillcrest Labs.

PattrickRedeck told us here, that this custom firmware software (which is the base for JC's work) will NOT be available for the public.

So, where will it come from then? Will the RIFT just be shipped with the stock firmware (the high latency version)?

Maybe a FAQ about the project would be a good idea.

Keep on the good work and best wishes! :)

spyro
User avatar
DougWolanick
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:24 am
Location: Calgary, AB
Contact:

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by DougWolanick »

I just noticed that 10 hours ago a newsletter was sent from OculusVR.com but it went to my gmail spam folder.

In case you missed it, here is what it says:
Hi ,

I This is the first edition of the Oculus newsletter! They will not be too frequent, only when there is important information to put out there.

Here is the current status of the project:

1) Some big names in the industry are getting involved that will let me continue to work after the Kickstarter on a more consumer oriented device. It will take a long time to get to that point, so the low priced Rift kit is still going forward at full steam!

2) There is a lot of interest from several large game developers. Some of them will end up supporting the Rift, some will not, and I will update you once things are more solid.

3) The Kickstarter had to be delayed to allow for these new developments, but the length will be shortened from 60 days to 30 days, meaning that it will take no longer than it would before. So yes, the launch of the Kickstarter is delayed till early July, but the end of the project remains unharmed!

4) To answer a common question: The kit will not need soldering, it should be within reach of anyone who can fold, glue, and screw things together.

I will send out another update in the next week, tak to you then!


Palmer Luckey

Oculus
German
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:18 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by German »

spyro wrote: PattrickRedeck told us here, that this custom firmware software (which is the base for JC's work) will NOT be available for the public.
He did not say it would be unavailable to the public, he stated that it was "not something ready to release into the wild." Note the "ready" part of that, which implies that it may become available in the future.

I know it is exciting times but there's really no point sweating the details right now and picking apart every little bit of information. The kickstarter hasn't even begun yet, at which time we will be getting a lot more information just by virtue of being a kickstarter. It's just one more week or so.
Cyberqat
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:26 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Cyberqat »


If the Kickstarter project gets successful funding it may be worth it for Palmer to spend some time with patent attorneys. He and Carmack can probably consider sitting down and discussing which hardware decisions can be patented by enemies. IMHO, a couple of weeks now can save him months or years of litigation down the road.
if his only concern is protecting himself from malicious patents there are far easier and less expensive ways.

All he need do is publish the techniques he wishes to be open. After that, such publications become "prior art" that makes any attempt to patent same invalid.

Note: I am not a lawyer and this should not be construed as legal advice. It might be worth paying for a half hour of a real lawyers' time to make sure you do it right. This is still far cheaper then a patent search and filing.
User avatar
brantlew
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Menlo Park, CA

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by brantlew »

@Cyberqat: I don't want to start the whole patent discussion again so I'll just mention to look up first-to-invent (the old sane way) versus first-to-file (the new retarded way) which basically tosses prior art out the window.
Last edited by brantlew on Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PalmerTech
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by PalmerTech »

Without getting into the whole patents argument too much: I think our patent system is broken in a lot of ways, but it still has uses. I do not plan on making a huge portfolio of patents, because at the end of the day, they won't help me much if a huge entity with a lot of money decides to ignore them. I plan on continuing to do what I have been doing this whole time: not keeping any of my designs secret, and putting them out there for hobbyists to improve upon.

The current goal is to get these kits into the hands of as many enthusiasts as possible in the short term at the lowest price possible. Don't take this as anything certain, but I might even be able to ship the entire kit for $499 including the HMD, the tracker, and Doom 3! From there, Oculus will work on a slightly more expensive consumer targeted version and an SDK that developers can use to integrate support. The way I see it, there are two generally distinct outcomes:

1) Oculus wins a big chunk of the (relatively small) VR market, and continues to push forward with immersive technologies on their own.
2) Oculus proves that there is enough interest in VR for one or multiple large companies to throw their weight at making an even better product. That process might involve killing, acquiring, or just plain outdoing Oculus.

Either way, gamers win! ;)

zoost wrote:As doom 3 BFG Edition will incorporate native stereoscopic 3D HDTV support for XBOX and PS3, will it be possible to connect the Rift directly to a console, or is the Rift only availble for PC?
Not at this point. There is no easy way to get approval to hook up third party hardware to the Xbox or PS3, so head tracking is not possible. Without head tracking, you have a lot less reason to use an HMD.
spyro wrote:Are there any news about the 250 Hz custom firmware for the headtacking sensor? There were several questions about it but I've not seen a clear statement about this (sorry if I just missed it).
No clear statement yet, sorry. :P Things are not set in stone yet.
Enzo
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Enzo »

Howdy all, been following this since Carmacks interview, found new article with info that Sony and valve are both interested in this tech :woot :woot link below
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/John-Carmac ... 15618.html
User avatar
cybereality
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 11406
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by cybereality »

@PalmerTech: This sounds really promising, and seems like the exciting times are only getting better.
Jeremy
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Jeremy »

Enzo wrote:Howdy all, been following this since Carmacks interview, found new article with info that Sony and valve are both interested in this tech :woot :woot link below
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/John-Carmac ... 15618.html
I totally concur with Carmack there, and I love his likening the goal of VR to evoking the same feeling you had when you first played a FPS. Bring it on!

I had a couple questions maybe Palmer or someone could answer...

1) Any idea if the rest of the Doom classics included with Doom 3 BFG will support the Oculus? Resolution being what it is, I would think the older games would actually be right at home on the HMD.

2) Is the TrackIR5 the tracker planned for inclusion in the Kickstarter?
EdZ
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by EdZ »

brantlew wrote:@Cyberqat: I don't want to start the whole patent discussion again so I'll just mention to look up first-to-invent (the old sane way) versus first-to-file (the new retarded way) which basically tosses prior art out the window.
In interests of curtailing this discussion: your statement is completely untrue. First-to-file is still subject to prior art invalidation. In the case of America's switch to FTF (the America Invents Act, or AIA), the definition of prior art was expanded to include publishing and sale from anywhere in the world, and to allow submissions of prior art during the patent application process from anyone (not just the originator of the prior art as previously).
By making the design of the Rift publically available, it becomes public domain, and thus cannot be patented by anyone, including Palmer.
A company could still claim that the design infringes an existing patent, but they could do this no matter what the design or whether it was patented by Palmer or not. There is no protection from frivolous patent lawsuits.
User avatar
brantlew
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Menlo Park, CA

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by brantlew »

ok, I stand corrected then 8-)
User avatar
Okta
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:22 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Okta »

Enzo wrote:Howdy all, been following this since Carmacks interview, found new article with info that Sony and valve are both interested in this tech :woot :woot link below
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/John-Carmac ... 15618.html
I agree with Carmack but reading the replies there is a huge amount of anti-tech geeks out there that love the current status and just dont want VR of any kind until its the hollow deck. I dont know whats wrong with them but as i have treid to explain to people, fps games have progressed very little since Quake 1 and wont until we move into new interaction territory.
"I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."
Notch on the FaceDisgrace buyout.
WiredEarp
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:47 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by WiredEarp »

Thats because most people dont actually have any vision and are only able to understand that which they have already experienced.
Therefore, they can handle the idea of stuff like COD(x), with each version improving graphics/sound, but the concept of a complete shift away from what they are experienced with scares them simply because they have no terms of reference to understand it with.
Endothermic
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:50 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Endothermic »

I think the main problem especially with posters on a place like tomshardware is they're children (sure some may be in their 20's but sure don't act like it) that have probably never even SEEN an HMD before let alone use one or experience one with a high FOV.

Take for instance posts such as "we're not even close to VR gaming and I'm still waiting for near photo-realistic gaming on my 2D screen. Take Transformer's type CGI or whatever it was, and do that in real time on my single computer instead of pre-rendering it on a super-computer of sorts. Then do that in 3D. THEN we can tackle VR gaming."

They have no notion of what VR actually is, as far as they think VR means everything LOOKS real so if things don't look in real time like they are out of a movie then you can't have Virtual REALity. Try to explain to them that VR is all about "immersion" and not things looking real and they just flame you as a mook that doesn't know wtf they are talking about.

"VR is the future? lol? whos gonna wear that heavy spec while gaming." Post without even finding out what they actually weigh, whats the chances of ever explaining anything to them?

As far as i'm concerned i'd much rather play something with a full FOV HMD with simple flat shaded low polygon characters and sparcly textured worlds for graphics then play one on a tv or monitor with graphics that look like they are out of the transformers movies (ofcourse i'd rather they look like that on the HMD :P).

"I'd rather have super high resolution gaming than virtual reality." Seriously they have no idea what words mean or they honestly think that sitting on their couch a few meters away from the TV they'll actually be able to notice any changes with a higher resolution then 1080P (after years of reading toms it's become obvious even though its about computer hardware the majority of the posters are console gamers). Though i'm pretty sure that guy probably mean super high definition (rather then resolution) gaming so that polygon counts are so high and lighting is dynamic etc that everything looks like movie CGI so i'll stick with they don't know the mean of words in which case you have no chance of getting them to see what actual VR is.

Mention head tracking and you'll get swamped with things like you don't need a HMD for head tracking you can use it without one and many people do in arma etc!!! Try to explain it's not full proper head tracking and after all you can only look so far since if you look more then you can't see the screen!!! and they'll just say thats all you need to do so you don't need to fully turn your head around you just need to be able to move it a little so there is no need for an HMD and turn your head any further is ust stupid.

So like wired said the youth this generation are just so COD and movie CGI focused thats all they can see (and know) so the only way things will be better is if that gets better and thats just dependant upon how the graphics look.

I'm sure if they payed a visit to a university or somewhere that has a high FOV HMD even if it did only have something with those plain blocky graphics and tried it then 8/10 of them would change their tune.
Vaughanabe13
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:34 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Vaughanabe13 »

I'm 24 (I'm not sure if you consider that "children" or not) and I can certainly understand the difference between crappy 'video glasses' (vuzix, etc.) and a high-FOV HMD. And that's coming from someone who has never tried any of the "virtual reality" game setups from the 90's, or any expensive university HMD's.
But you're right, most people these days are idiots, and they don't know that they don't know what they don't know (say that 5x fast!). For some reason, and I have no idea why, people always assume the worst about new technology. New wii console with a second screen? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New 3D technology on the big screen? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New augmented reality concept from google? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New Halo game? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. New Thai restaurant around the corner? IT'S GONNA BE CRAP. And yet that same person will love the WiiU, love 3D, love the new google glasses, and discover that they love Thai food, and yet they will never go back and say, "hmm, I guess I shouldn't have been so quick to judge those things."

From generation to generation, you will always have the immature kids who act like idiots and don't know what they're talking about. However, the new generation of kids has the ability to spew all of it anonymously on the internet, where nobody will know how old they are. So they have gone from being the minority to the vocal minority.

But here are the things I see people saying in all of the various "John Carmack VR E3 Demo" threads around the web:
"Wake me up when they get 1080p displays in those glasses. Anything less is crap."
"Nobody wants to wear a huge visor on their head."
"Head-tracking has already been around for ages."
"We already have better motion gaming with Kinect".
"They tried and failed at virtual reality in the 90's."
"This will go the way of the Virtual Boy".
"It's way too expensive. Give it to me for <$100"

Basically...
Image
Last edited by Vaughanabe13 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
zino
Two Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:40 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by zino »

DougWolanick wrote:I just noticed that 10 hours ago a newsletter was sent from OculusVR.com but it went to my gmail spam folder.
Thanks for pointing that out. It want into my spam folder as well, so it's a pretty safe bet anyone using gmail will not have seen Palmer's newsletter.
petersmc
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:23 am

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by petersmc »

same here. Googlemail put Palmer's newsletter in spam. Cheers for the heads up
Cyberqat
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:26 pm

Re: Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by Cyberqat »

brantlew wrote:@Cyberqat: I don't want to start the whole patent discussion again so I'll just mention to look up first-to-invent (the old sane way) versus first-to-file (the new retarded way) which basically tosses prior art out the window.
Thanks for the reference. But from the wikipedia entry what I get is that his having built a prototype and then published the results, thus documenting the prototype, could easily qualify as "diligently reduces the invention to practice", which is the 2011 criteria. But as always its best to consult a good lawyer (one who isn't just trying to make the most work as possible for himself.)
Post Reply

Return to “Oculus VR”