The Furious Angels
FA Discussion => VR Gaming => Topic started by: Lithium on December 10, 2013, 04:40:17 pm
-
First it was rounded corners... now 3d goggles.
http://www.slashgear.com/apple-granted-patent-for-portable-3d-media-goggles-10308293/ (http://www.slashgear.com/apple-granted-patent-for-portable-3d-media-goggles-10308293/)
-
I guess the rift guys are basically done until they licence.
Sucks to be them.
-
That's somewhat of a misleading title.
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/12/10/apple-granted-head-mounted-display-patent/ (http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/12/10/apple-granted-head-mounted-display-patent/)
Apple filed a patent for a 3D head mounted display that could be compared to the Rift, but they didn't patent the Rift's technology - it's actually closer to something like Sony's 3D viewer.
The question is whether Apply is considering getting into this field or not as a competitor. From what I understand, the technology and the way that it is used is different, so there's no conflict at the moment between the Rift and this patent.
-
From someone who develops technology for a living, this is going to be a huge mess that I'd be Apple will win because they will out litigate the smaller, less financially powerful Rift unless there was some clever public disclosures done by Rift.
What I would be afraid of is that the Rift goes public, sells 100 millions dollars and Apple says, "Nice work but we own that patent, you're infringing, and you owe us damages." This will essentially destroy Rift, unless they enter into licensing, which will require them to admit they're in violation of patent and just send Apple a check for each headset sold.
The legal mess will certainly cloud the issue and investors HATE, HATE, HATE uncertainty like this because they start asking, "Are we ever going to see our money back or is Apple going to get the first cut because of the IP issues?" That's when they bail out.
And it's no longer a question if Apple is in the field. You don't file if you're not interested at least from a licencing point of view and sadly for Rift, if they're in it, they'll win it.
-
But it's not the same thing. Apple patented a 3D media viewer, not a VR display. It's like claiming that Nintendo should get rewarded for the iPhone being a patent infringement on the Gameboy. You can play games on both, and they both fit in your hands, but they use much different technology and were conceptually much different.
-
I hope you're right but...
When you put the Rift on do you perceive the game in 2D or 3D?
Is a 3D (stereoscopic) display an important part of a virtual reality experience?
What important elements would you consider exist in a "VR display?"
I think the technologies are VERY similar and there could be a case to be made. If Apple even files so much as an injunction it's going to be "GAME ON" in a legal sense and the corporate lawyers from Apple (the whole army of them) will no doubt zerg the Rift team.
I hope I'm wrong here but I've seen it too often.
Cases in point .. Apple and Samsung.
-
Good'ol lawyers.
-
Fingers crossed hoping for the best.