That's a very interesting attack on me.cybereality wrote:Funny how the Rift is nothing like LEEP, expect for being an HMD.
It's like people don't even bother to get the facts straight before making an accusation.
Single close focus lens is obvious to any PHOSITA. That improvement has been taught to us many times in many different HMD patents, some of which I outlined here: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=18231cybereality wrote:If I'm not mistaken, the LEEP using multiple lenses. The Rift uses only one. Two different things.
Your "single close focus lens" URL appears to be incorrect at your linked web page.blazespinnaker wrote:..
Single close focus lens is obvious to any PHOSITA. That improvement has been taught to us many times in many different HMD patents, some of which I outlined here: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=18231
...
Follow the links (yes, I know they're the same, the patent reads like FOV2GO) and search on close focus lens. And read the final rejection notice. It's all in there.geekmaster wrote:Your "single close focus lens" URL appears to be incorrect at your linked web page.blazespinnaker wrote:..
Single close focus lens is obvious to any PHOSITA. That improvement has been taught to us many times in many different HMD patents, some of which I outlined here: http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=18231
...
Also, I think that these battles are not worth having just yet, at least not until the real patent wars begin...
Unless you are attempting to prevent just such a war...
Maybe you missed my last post:blazespinnaker wrote:The fact is, the Oculus Rift is at its core, just a modern LEEP + better IMU. Sure it has included a few obvious tweaks that have been done in other HMDs, but there is no real original IP here.
That is Me Getting My Facts Straight.
What about the Rift makes it a LEEP clone? I agree with you about there being lots of prior art in the VR space, but it is misinformation to say that it was a clone of anything LEEP did.PalmerTech wrote:I don't know what you mean about the Rift being a "LEEP VR clone" though, the old LEEP headsets are very, very different from the Rift. They were dual panel, triple lens, mechanically tracked, did not correct for distortion, and had large weight balancing mount points. The only thing they share with the Rift is a wide field of view, along with the radial compression artifacts you get with any kind of high magnification lenses in any optical system.
Beware of a combination of lawyers and technical stuffs. Better play russian roulette. Then you will at least know why things went to hell.quietboy wrote:i think its better to leave patent arguments in the court, among law men.
No, that's precisely what we don't want to do.quietboy wrote:i think its better to leave patent arguments in the court, among law men.
Well, yes and no. I think you can try to do something relatively new.colocolo wrote: Its impossible to invent somthing without the inspiration of some previous inventions someone has seen. that would be insane.
The USPTO let Amazon patent the "Buy Now" button and I think over the years they renamed it to "One Click Buying." That should not be able to be patented but some petty bureaucrat didn't know the implications of rubber stamping the application and thusly made it so that anyone with a commerce site that wants to aid in someone's immediate purchase has to pay Amazon royalties for "using their IP/technology."quietboy wrote:a company has patented ambient light for hmd, apple? for me it's not much inventions, but they patent it anyway, and the patent office did not complain
when you invent sth new you aren't constantly aware of how your subconscious is putting ideas together. the neurons subconcsiously combine all IPs together and create sth 'new'.blazespinnaker wrote:Well, yes and no. I think you can try to do something relatively new.colocolo wrote: Its impossible to invent somthing without the inspiration of some previous inventions someone has seen. that would be insane.
I think what Jan did with the shoe configuration on the Omni is pretty new. I have to admit, I haven't seen that one before... on any kind of ODT.
hm ?blazespinnaker wrote:The LEEP is the grandaddy of HMDs. There hasn't really been any particularly incredible strides in HMDs since the LEEP. What has improved is the technology of the underlying components.
In other words, people have simply made iterative improvements which mostly just followed obviously as new technology improved:
-Lighter weight
-Higher res single LCD panels (which allow for close focus lens)
-IMU head tracking / sensor fusion
Using these technologies wasn't something that required careful R&D but rather were obvious conclusions because this was the tech that was available.
For example:
Why would you use mechanical tracking when cheap IMUs and sophisticated sensor fusion algs are available?
Why use two lenses when LCDs are high res enough (well almost) to use close focus lenses?
Why have balance weights when the HMD is light enough that you don't need it?
You didn't have to do careful research to develop these ideas. Indeed, you'd have to work pretty hard to avoid these conclusions because this was the material that was out there and available.
So why was the Rift so popular if not innovation? A part of it is timing, a part of it is Carmack, a part of it is that you're a talented ambassador with an interesting story, and of course a part of it is that Kickstarter is a successful platform for launching exciting new tech. And of course, the Rift was nicely packaged. But original... no.
In order to have original IP, you need to do something significant that hasn't been done before or wasn't apart of of some other patent on VR HMDs / peripherals. Wireless and positional tracking are already been done for VR tools.
If you want to have something to patent, you guys will need real innovations, and preferably something thats not already being done by the community here (such as cutting down motion sickness with more sensors).
TBH, I don't think there is really anything to patent in the HMD. I think all the interesting work won't be in the HMD for OVR. I think the heavy lifting there will be done by LCD / IMU / wireless manufacturers. They will be writing the interesting patents and doing the tough R&D that HMDs will use. Tooling up to compete with them makes no sense because they have a much greater economy of scale than you ever will.
And there is no competitive moat you can patent / build just being an assembler of LCDs and IMUs.
The interesting work / heavy lifting for VR will be in the SDK. And not just a basic SDK for games to use, but going all in and doing what Highfidelity.io is trying to do or what SL was trying to do.
Someone needs to create Oasis. It's a hard problem, no doubt, but that's what makes it a good problem.
Something to keep in mind: the guitar hero people did not succeed on the basis of their plastic guitars, but rather the games and content they developed which accompanied the peripheral.
Actually, science says you are wrong, but close. It is not impossible for those who are "almost" insane: the ones we call "genius". Here is the proof:colocolo wrote:It's impossible to invent something without the inspiration of some previous inventions someone has seen. that would be insane.
I have proven myself to some. Palmer Luckey has proven himself to many. John Carmack has proven himself to just about everybody. We are not insane, despite some claims to the contrary by those of small mind and simple self-interests.http://www.summatix.com/insane-proven-genius/ wrote:“The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.” – Bruce Feirstein
We hear it all the time: genius borderlines insanity. But to really understand the true meaning behind the words, we first have to distinguish between the two – which is often debatable. To be insane is to be unsound of mind, and to have difficulty dealing with reality. To be genius is to possess exceptional intellectual ability and creativity, and to think beyond the scope defined by reality. ... Geniuses are people who are recognised as introducing a creative innovation of value. The consequence of such a successful innovation is usually that society makes an adjustment, sometimes loving and embracing the new creation. ... Insane people can’t deal with reality. Geniuses can’t stand reality. Normal people try desperately hard to fit within reality. The difference between genius and insanity then is that geniuses have succeeded in changing the parts of reality they hate, whereas insane people have failed. Normal people do nothing and accept the belief that the world cannot be changed (at least by them). ... For as long as I fail to push my visions upon this world, I shall be classed as insane. Once I have proven my worth by improving society through my ideas, skills and determination, then, and only then, shall I be classed as genius.
Although I have not previously seen a reference to Einstein's thought processes, that description closely fits what I have documented in various posts about my coding trance experiences. This also seems to explain my high posting rate in these forums, and my broadly variable interests, which I (mostly) share freely (which some here call "trolling"). I go wherever my experimental muse leads me, rather than following a single project path to completion. Bouncing between many projects leads to more novel discoveries, IMHO. The quoted information also suggests that I can teach others to think creatively like me, if they read my posts and try my experiments.http://www.creativitypost.com/create/how_geniuses_think wrote:How do creative geniuses generate so many alternatives and conjectures? Why are so many of their ideas so rich and varied? How do they produce the "blind" variations that lead to the original and novel? A growing cadre of scholars are offering evidence that one can characterize the way geniuses think. By studying the notebooks, correspondence, conversations and ideas of the world's greatest thinkers, they have teased out particular common thinking strategies and styles of thought that enabled geniuses to generate a prodigious variety of novel and original ideas. ... Genius often comes from finding a new perspective that no one else has taken. ... In order to creatively solve a problem, the thinker must abandon the initial approach that stems from past experience and re-conceptualize the problem. By not settling with one perspective, geniuses do not merely solve existing problems, like inventing an environmentally-friendly fuel. They identify new ones. ... Once geniuses obtain a certain minimal verbal facility, they seem to develop a skill in visual and spatial abilities which give them the flexibility to display information in different ways. When Einstein had thought through a problem, he always found it necessary to formulate his subject in as many different ways as possible, including diagrammatically. He had a very visual mind. He thought in terms of visual and spatial forms, rather than thinking along purely mathematical or verbal lines of reasoning. In fact, he believed that words and numbers, as they are written or spoken, did not play a significant role in his thinking process. ... Einstein derived and explained many of his abstract principles by drawing analogies with everyday occurrences such as rowing a boat or standing on a platform while a train passed by. ... Too many fail to answer opportunity's knock at the door because they have to finish some preconceived plan. Creative geniuses do not wait for the gifts of chance; instead, they actively seek the accidental discovery. ... Creative geniuses are geniuses because they know "how" to think, instead of "what" to think. ... six of Enrico Fermi's students won the prize. Ernst Lawrence and Niels Bohr each had four. J. J. Thompson and Ernest Rutherford between them trained seventeen Nobel laureates. This was no accident. It is obvious that these Nobel laureates were not only creative in their own right, but were also able to teach others how to think creatively.
So science is telling us that the future will contain novel inventions, unlike ANYTHING that has come before, inspired by geniuses who think almost the same way as insane people do, because they share the same genes. But luckily, these thought processes that come naturally to genius and madman alike, can be taught to "normal" people. And we call that a "renaissance". Welcome to the renaissance of VR!http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6243747/Fine-line-between-genius-and-madness-scientists-find.html wrote:There is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes, scientists have found. ... Psychologists have discovered that creative people have a gene in common which is also linked to psychosis and depression. ... The gene, which is called neuregulin 1, plays a role in brain development but a variant of it is also associated with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. ... "Molecular factors that are loosely associated with severe mental disorders but are present in many healthy people may have an advantage enabling us to think more creatively."
How do you "detect" this feeling, in enough accuracy to make such a judgement of what you found "being used by people"? Do you know their actual purpose and self-intentions, or do you "often" form that (apparently negative) opinion about others based on your own thoughts and experiences?colocolo wrote:i often detect that this 'mixture between genius and insanity' argument is often being used by people for the purpose of self-regarding.
)Not genius as I see it. Not at all. Merely obvious (to me). What makes it different is when people tell me that the dreams that I am following are "impossible" or a "waste of time" when I already have the intuition telling me that I can do it, and is giving me occasional hints (especially in my dreams, or while showering or shaving). Some (many) of my projects have been called "genius" by others (long before the internet, and after too). I have learned to trust my intuition, which gives me access to other parts of my brain not used in "normal" rational thought. Therein lies the genius and the madness. It takes work to sort the wheat from the chaff, and the brilliance from the BS. Not all experiments are a success, but they can often lead to success in completely unrelated ways.colocolo wrote:I hope you will share your genious VR inventions soon with us.
3devious wrote:The USPTO let Amazon patent the "Buy Now" button and I think over the years they renamed it to "One Click Buying." That should not be able to be patented but some petty bureaucrat didn't know the implications of rubber stamping the application and thusly made it so that anyone with a commerce site that wants to aid in someone's immediate purchase has to pay Amazon royalties for "using their IP/technology."quietboy wrote:a company has patented ambient light for hmd, apple? for me it's not much inventions, but they patent it anyway, and the patent office did not complain
That is how you end up watching a patent war between Apple and Samsung while thinking "a grid of buttons? seriously?"
I really want to thank the mods for not closing this thread and Nateight|Geekmaster for much needed entertainment.
I understand Palmer's defensiveness. There are so many of us who really don't take the time to examine things. We read a few sentences in the beginning and some in the middle then "yeah yeah, I got it." What's funny is that in my haste and skimming, I thought "Carmack worked on this... sweet! If I get the autographed one, I can get his autograph without having to get my lazy butt up and leave the house. Awesome. Then near the end of the Kickstarter, I actually had the presence of mind to read the whole thing. I thought "Damn, no Carmack... Who is this guy again? Well, it does sound pretty cool and they don't want a whole lot of money, oh well. It'd be kind of lame to go back and not get the autographed one now. Besides, if they actually pull it off it's a total win."
When I got my Rift it was even more immersive than I had dared to hope and I'm glad I got the autographed one because it's excellent and I'm really glad to have the team's autograph. I just hope the PTO doesn't give someone a patent on something simple like using a screen in a HMD or something.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013- ... culus-riftI frequently credit the community and the companies that came before us. If you don't see that, just watch more of my interviews. It does not make it into a lot of print articles because that is not what the press wants to write about.
It was the Philco in 1961, but it's often credited to The Sword of Damocles by Ivan Sutherland in 1968. But you could have found that easily by going on Wikipedia...colocolo wrote:what was the first VR headset by the way? that would interest me.
to the average man on the street, depending on how far up the heights of new and forward thinking the new understandings may be....both truth and lies are seen as equally painful.colocolo wrote:i see. i have missunderstood your intention.
But i ve seen this too often that people self regard themselves for their 'evil ingenuity' with which they often try to seduce normal people. (you know, those people who always tell normal people that
humanity is evil, will never change and that the good is sth non-existent
In your case it must be very different. There aren't that much people who 'really' analyze their own mind and share the benefits of it with others.
I hope you will share your genius VR inventions soon with us.
The LEEP was only a specific arrangement of lenses that offered a wide FOV at the expense of weight for stereoscopic photography. It's the NASA who created an HMD using these lenses, saying the LEEP is the grandaddy of VR doesn't make much sense to me. It's almost like saying the aspheric lenses in the Rift are the essential part, it may have been at the time, but it's no longer the case today.blazespinnaker wrote:The LEEP is the grandaddy of HMDs. There hasn't really been any particularly incredible strides in HMDs since the LEEP.
Small-minded people are potent weapons to be yielded by such evil manipulators. Such people can be convinced to become human bombs. This is why education is forbidden for large portions of some populations, and why free speakers are shunned, punished, or even executed. People are told to believe what they are told to believe, and to buy what they are told to buy, whether products or ideas, by such manipulative media moguls, corporations, political and ideological leaders, and tyrannical sociopaths. People who think small are much more likely to let others do the "big thinking" for them. This is why we ourselves must learn to think big, for ourselves.KBK wrote:to the average man on the street, depending on how far up the heights of new and forward thinking the new understandings may be....both truth and lies are seen as equally painful.
The person of rough attitude and evil thinking, they can pass off lies as truth, by engaging this above stated situation, by adding points of potential comforts to their projected lie. points of potential comfort that fit the mind and desires of the average person.
...
If you look around you, this is what you see in the world today.
"Getting out" can apply to the box we find outselves in, either literally (our home or office) or figuratively (our frame of mind). We do need to "go out of our minds" in order to expand them into a larger frame of reference, expanding possiblities. Not only insane madmen go out of their minds, but so do geniuses, to explore the unknown and bring the best of that back to reality with them. That is where our future lies. But yes, we need to care for our bodies too, which means getting out and exploring nature (a source of much of my inspiration) in that "big blue room" outside.strangedays wrote:You dudes need to get out more.
My words are but a mere trickle of my thoughts. That is part of being who we are. Some share. Some conform. Some create. Some consume. Some just go along for the ride.Likay wrote:Lol. NOT lost for words!
I would count Palmer Luckey and John Carmack first and foremost, followed by the authors of the most popular threads here. I think the thread viewer count could indicate what we may define as local celebrity status. But the OP had just lost two recent disputes with me when I corrected his misuse and misinterpretation of terminology, and he was vehemently against accepting any such corrections. I may have been fresh in his mind just before his disagreement with Palmer. So it all depends on if you count real celebrities (of which I am just a recent minor player here), or people fresh in the OP's mind when starting this thread (and why he made "celebs" plural). Definitions can be a bit fluid, but it is pretty clear when they are just plain wrong.Namielus wrote:I would like to see the list of who is a forum celebrity
I wouldn't use the Wikipedia for researching prior art. Check this out though:Fredz wrote:The LEEP was only a specific arrangement of lenses that offered a wide FOV at the expense of weight for stereoscopic photography. It's the NASA who created an HMD using these lenses, saying the LEEP is the grandaddy of VR doesn't make much sense to me. It's almost like saying the aspheric lenses in the Rift are the essential part, it may have been at the time, but it's no longer the case today.blazespinnaker wrote:The LEEP is the grandaddy of HMDs. There hasn't really been any particularly incredible strides in HMDs since the LEEP.
These lenses were later used as the base of expensive professional HMDs in the 80s to the mid-90s (Nasa VIVED, Cyberface, Flight Helmet), but they had nothing to do with consumer HMDs from the VR craze of the mid-90s (Virtuality, VFX1, Cybermax, i-glasses), nor today. LEEP is not even mentioned on the page about Virtual Reality on Wikipedia.
Yes, definitely, there is a bigger story as well. I have seen this pattern many times on Kickstarter. Where forum communities rally around a leader, test out prototypes and contribute ideas, and the leader talks about sending out kits on Kickstarter, and a new company is born.Neil wrote: This is a good example of a journalist misrepresenting an important time in VR history. It was so threatening to credit the actual linkable source, he decided to paraphrase and hide it instead (at least that's how I'm reading it - correct me if I'm wrong). It's sad because as innovative as Palmer's work is, it's an equally big story that a community of no budget hobbyists demonstrated an ability to get together on a really big idea and inadvertently turn gaming on its ear. When this bright spot of VR history happened, there were no commercial interests or hidden agendas, no three year plans to commercialize VR and create a market where none existed - just a bunch of guys who are excited about VR that were shooting the breeze for the fun of it. It's crazy to even think something like this was possible...and yet...here we are. If we think beyond the confines of VR, that's a really big story; and it's a shame writers feel a need to hide it or dismiss it.
Regards,
Neil
Have you ever designed something? As in, had an idea and then worked out the kinks all the way to fruition? I can't imagine anyone who has saying what you are! Innovation is not just about ideas, anyone can have those. It is about refining them and perfecting them. The Rift took years of research from many people to get right, you think it does not take any careful work to design optics systems? No R&D to build good sensor fusion code? Never mind the mechanical design, ergonomics, and myriad of other things that have to be carefully considered and traded off! I can understand your claim that everything in the Rift has been thought of before, but saying that it did not require any R&D is just ignorant.blazespinnaker wrote:Using these technologies wasn't something that required careful R&D but rather were obvious conclusions because this was the tech that was available.
---
You didn't have to do careful research to develop these ideas. Indeed, you'd have to work pretty hard to avoid these conclusions because this was the material that was out there and available.
Exactly right about ideas, which lack inherent value of their own without significant R&D leading to successful execution.PalmerTech wrote:... Innovation is not just about ideas, anyone can have those. It is about refining them and perfecting them. ... No R&D to build good sensor fusion code? ...
I have. I also have patents to my name. Searching on Palmer Luckey doesn't show much. Anyways, let's leave the personal attacks out of this. They're not relevant. I have much respect for you, Palmer. Everyone here does. There is no doubt on that here.PalmerTech wrote:Have you ever designed something? As in, had an idea and then worked out the kinks all the way to fruition? I can't imagine anyone who has saying what you are!blazespinnaker wrote:Using these technologies wasn't something that required careful R&D but rather were obvious conclusions because this was the tech that was available.
---
You didn't have to do careful research to develop these ideas. Indeed, you'd have to work pretty hard to avoid these conclusions because this was the material that was out there and available.
Fair point. However, as I've said, this particular improvement has been taught us several times over in other HMDs.Also, FYI, the LEEP systems used three lenses, not two, and your argument about "close focus" does not make any sense. The resolution of screens does not impact focus, it only impacts the pixels per degree that you have for a given field of view.
Palmer needs to patent that along with his patented forum respect.