4 ms·

Here's the most reasonable disaster scenario I can foresee: Zuckerberg is not personally invested in the technology, but believes a general audience can make it

Here's the most reasonable disaster scenario I can foresee: Zuckerberg is not personally invested in the technology, but believes a general audience can make it very profitable. Technical execution of version 1 is perfectly successful. Core gamers generally buy the product, but the larger market is uninterested because of usage limitations (headset size and portability and/or lack of compelling enough uses outside of gaming). However, the number of sales is not large enough to justify continued investment. Facebook needs to find a large buyer to divest themselves of the technology profitably. If they do not, the patent cache they hold chills any potential competition for fear of developing a market being ripped out from under them.

1457389 13y ago
That's depressing. I completely overlooked the importance of patents for VR. I'd be interested in finding out the major VR patent holders other than Oculus and what they are sitting on; it has been argued here and elsewhere that the requirement for deep pockets for patent suits was one factor driving the deal with Facebook. Rephrased for clarity
- forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  Well, one of the reasons we hear a lot about VR, like 3d printing is that key patents have expired. What are they going to patent? Having a gyroscope in your head? A screen attached to your eyes? low persistence screens(valve idea)?
thenomad 13y ago
I'm also worried about this outcome. However, John Carmack is on the record as being an extremely outspoken opponent of software patents. He's also a smart guy. So, chances are a) he's already thought of and discussed the patent issue with FB, b) FB aren't intending to own the entire VR sector with patents (or at least, if they are, they did a damn good job of lying about it) and c) any attempt by them subsequently to patent everything that's not nailed down will have considerable internal resistance. None of this rules out the "FB patents key elements of VR, VR is screwed" scenario, though.
- tsycho 13y ago
  :) a) 2 billion b) Zuck lying about anything? c) The hordes of FB employees who have quit over previous privacy violations
jamornh 13y ago
Out of curiosity, as I'm not aware of any patents that oculus actually owns on VR, do you happen to have any information on that?

1457389 13y ago

That's depressing. I completely overlooked the importance of patents for VR. I'd be interested in finding out the major VR patent holders other than Oculus and what they are sitting on; it has been argued here and elsewhere that the requirement for deep pockets for patent suits was one factor driving the deal with Facebook. Rephrased for clarity

forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
Well, one of the reasons we hear a lot about VR, like 3d printing is that key patents have expired. What are they going to patent? Having a gyroscope in your head? A screen attached to your eyes? low persistence screens(valve idea)?

thenomad 13y ago

I'm also worried about this outcome. However, John Carmack is on the record as being an extremely outspoken opponent of software patents. He's also a smart guy. So, chances are a) he's already thought of and discussed the patent issue with FB, b) FB aren't intending to own the entire VR sector with patents (or at least, if they are, they did a damn good job of lying about it) and c) any attempt by them subsequently to patent everything that's not nailed down will have considerable internal resistance. None of this rules out the "FB patents key elements of VR, VR is screwed" scenario, though.

tsycho 13y ago
:) a) 2 billion b) Zuck lying about anything? c) The hordes of FB employees who have quit over previous privacy violations

jamornh 13y ago

Out of curiosity, as I'm not aware of any patents that oculus actually owns on VR, do you happen to have any information on that?