2 ms·

As I already mentioned, patents aren't supposed to concern themselves with ideas and there is no fundamental effort or risk beyond initial idea when it comes to

As I already mentioned, patents aren't supposed to concern themselves with ideas and there is no fundamental effort or risk beyond initial idea when it comes to slide-to-unlock or bounce scroll, they are both extremely simple implementations. A bit of freshman high school math at best. And as far as your Oculus example goes... actually lots of people cared a great deal about VR back in the 80s and 90s. VR was a huge deal back then, it just kinda sucked. The brilliance of Oculus/Palmer Luckey (which I don't mean to diminish in any way via this post) is recognizing that fundamental technologies (mostly in the form of advancements made for the smartphone market -- which Oculus didn't create themselves) had finally caught up to the point where convincing VR was possible. But the idea of strapping some head-mounted displays onto a system with various gyroscopes and such is very old and the early systems for it looked quite a bit like the Rift at a high level, they just performed much shittier because the fundamental technology wasn't ready yet. This is similar to tablets where various players like Microsoft and Apple themselves put a lot of effort into them a decade before the iPad came around.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
I swear you guys are intentionally missing my point with the Occulus example. It wasn't an example of something that should be patented, it was an example of how things can seem obvious after it has been done. No one cared about VR 2 years ago, precisely because it had already been tried and failed numerous times before. That was a central part of my argument. Now that Occulus has proven VR ready for prime time, everyone claims they have a competing headset on par or better than the Rift. Some would use this as evidence that VR tech is "obvious" (again this is simply an analogy, nitpicking on the particulars is the wrong way to address this argument). My point is that this is not evidence for obviousness when your vantage point is after it has been shown it can be done. In fact it will only bias your judgment.

hackinthebochs 13y ago

I swear you guys are intentionally missing my point with the Occulus example. It wasn't an example of something that should be patented, it was an example of how things can seem obvious after it has been done. No one cared about VR 2 years ago, precisely because it had already been tried and failed numerous times before. That was a central part of my argument. Now that Occulus has proven VR ready for prime time, everyone claims they have a competing headset on par or better than the Rift. Some would use this as evidence that VR tech is "obvious" (again this is simply an analogy, nitpicking on the particulars is the wrong way to address this argument). My point is that this is not evidence for obviousness when your vantage point is after it has been shown it can be done. In fact it will only bias your judgment.