
The disappearing inventor - Impossible
http://blog.kenperlin.com/?p=14708
======
DanAndersen
I'd be more concerned about this if the complaint was coming from Bolas
himself rather than someone else posting out of concern on behalf of someone
else. It may be a press-release-style post, but it would be good to see what
USC's MxR lab itself had to say about Oculus VR's success in the past:

[http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/blog/it%E2%80%99s-alive/](http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/blog/it%E2%80%99s-alive/)

>A goal of the MxR lab is to broadly disseminate its research. While the
promise of personalized immersive virtual reality has been on the horizon for
more than 20 years, the FOV2GO project has been publishing open source designs
for ways to make it low cost and broadly available.

>Today, the bold actions of one entrepreneurial former member of the FOV2GO
team - Palmer Luckey – is kicking this into high gear via this Kickstarter
effort.

>We are impressed with Palmer’s gumption to make the Oculus Rift happen and
helping to provide a widely disseminated platform. We wish Palmer all the good
Luck in the world.

------
chasing
Wait. There's a huge gulf between Bolas' viewer
([http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/diy/fov2go-
viewer/](http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/diy/fov2go-viewer/)) and the Oculus
Rift. One's a cute little DIY project. The other is a substantial piece of
technology -- one that seems to build more on virtual reality helmet concepts
from the 1980s and 1990s than on Bolas' project. Bolas might have inspired
them to go down this path and explore VR hardware, but isn't that what
teachers are supposed to do?

~~~
acgourley
Exactly! I've build that prototype and I can tell you it's not very useful.
Palmer started working on his own HMD (occulus) because he saw how limiting
that research prototype was. Impossibly poor FOV, poor response and poor head
tracking. But beyond that, I was led to understand he has one of the largest
personal collections of VR headsets and has been into it as a hobby for a long
time. This whole article is garbage.

------
galvanist
The phrase “Oculus Rift, which added an orientation tracker” glosses-over the
chief technical accomplishments of the team. The Rift is defined by the
affordable very low latency head tracking. We’ve had head-mounted 3D displays
at least since the invention of the stereoscope in the 1800s.

It's like writing that Alexander Graham Bell* should get Apple stock because
“iPhone, which added a multi-touch computer” just made $56 billion dollars.

* or whoever

~~~
spiritplumber
Antonio Meucci.

Bell stole the telephone from Meucci and the hydrofoil from Ferrarin.

The joke at my old uni was "Italians invent stuff, Chinese make stuff,
Americans get the money". (And yes, I know Bell was Canadian)

~~~
CmonDev
Popov invented radio, but Marconi gets most credit outside of Russia. It's not
just Italians.

------
MattGrommes
Almost every important company I know anything about seems to have a "hidden"
founder or vital mentor figure who gets left out of the story. Is it just
greed (for money or personal fame) or is there some kind of legal reasoning
why they can't even mention the other people in the story?

~~~
midas007
The courtesy of asking should've happened though.

Because it looks really bad to the public face person to not give credit where
credit is due.

~~~
subdane
You're assuming there was no ask. We don't know. I'm also wondering if advisor
shares would've been possible.

------
general_failure
Agreed. Maybe oculus should give the professor a few shares. For example,
Linus was given shares by RedHat (I am told that's how he became rich).

~~~
midas007
That's the honorable thing to do and it prevents sour grapes, bad press.

------
riemannzeta
The Wire had a great summary of where things now stand in our culture.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5d4hH1CPQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5d4hH1CPQ)

I understand that ideas are not nearly as important as the action taken on
them to bring them into reality. But the idea has to exist before any action
can be taken, and good ideas don't simply think themselves. I'd prefer to live
in a world in which inventors got more credit for their ideas than they do
today in most places.

~~~
CocaKoala
I have some ideas; I will sell them to you for 50,000 dollars and half your
profits.

It's only fair; I'm an ideas guy and I deserve to be compensated for my work.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
I used to see that more before than now. But having spent decades on actual
implementation it is often quite easy to show that ideas are mostly cheap and
plentiful. Implementation is hard and it I what matters, mostly. There are of
course exceptions.

~~~
CocaKoala
Exactly; ideas are only worth the work you put into them.

If I have a great idea, and somebody implements it and goes bankrupt, am I
liable? Why do idea guys deserve to get compensation for the successes of
their ideas without shouldering any of the risk of the failures?

------
eaurouge
The way this usually works is that the inventor would inform the university's
technology licensing office of the invention. The licensing office would
sample the industry and decide whether or not to file for a patent. The bar
for filing a patent is often very low. Interested companies can then approach
the licensing office to license the technology.

In some cases, one (or more) of the researchers may decide to start a company
and license the tech. Often, the researcher is a student that worked on
polishing the original invention; sometimes (rare) a professor takes a
sabbatical to build a startup based on the invention. Many tech companies get
started this way, including the likes of Google. It's also one of the ways
Stanford gets filthy rich.

I'm surprised USC's office of tech licensing were unaware of the original
invention and/or that they decided against filing a patent. Perhaps there's
more to the story.

~~~
pcrh
From the link provided by chasing above
([http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/diy/fov2go-
viewer/](http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/diy/fov2go-viewer/)), it appears that
the commercial potential of the original idea was recognized. If the patent
was properly written, then almost certainly there would be royalties payable
to the inventors. They may not be large, though, depending on which bits of
fov2go were "obvious" and which innovative.

------
Jupe
I deeply respect Ken Perlin and what he's done for Computer Graphics. Perlin
Noise is as ubiquitous as it is fascinating. He basically "gave" it to the
world - and eventually received much recognition (in certain circles),
including an Oscar for advancements in computer graphics (IIRC).

Perlin Noise embodies the best of "open source" in my mind; a simple, elegant
solution with virtually no patent/copyright/trademark baggage. Source freely
available - just google it.

While the algorithm Ken Perlin produced doesn't make a motion picture or a
computer game - the contribution is not only "mentionable" \- it is admirable
and down-right important for these media.

I hope the original creator of this VR tech gets some attention for what they
helped spark.

------
tezza
Thomas Edison didn't invent the Light Bulb

Marconi didn't invent wireless telegram

Watt did not invent the steam engine

\----

Also you now buy versions of the device:

[https://www.durovis.com/dive.html](https://www.durovis.com/dive.html)

and a review of it:

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/31/review_durovis_dive_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/31/review_durovis_dive_htc_oculus_facebook/)

------
TrainedMonkey
I agree, every car manufacturer should laud inventors of the wheel, combustion
engine, glass, rubber, and electricity. My point is, there is nothing truly
innovative about rift. What they did was mesh existing technology in a
remarkable way.

~~~
mcantelon
Cars aren't a new thing. Given that the rift is the first VR rig with the
potential of gaining mainstream traction, the story of the invention of its
core tech is notable.

------
pnathan
A cursory review of inventors throughout history suggests that generally
credit goes to the businessmen and the popularizers, not the inventors.

Obnoxious, but oh well.

------
drawkbox
Good points, he should definitely get credit and this blog post was a great
start. Contains a link to construct your own FOV2GO Model D Viewer:
[http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/diy/fov2go-
viewer/](http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/diy/fov2go-viewer/)

------
dzink
The inventor is disappearing in another context as well. The patent and
trademark office considered first to invent as the rule of who gets Patents
for decades in order to protect individual inventors. The US was the only
country doing this and the burden of proof led to a ton of expensive
litigation. With just 10% of patents claimed by individual investors lately,
however, congress overturned the rule. First to file is now the only option
and if there are individual inventors left, they have learn how to file
quickly and cheaply before trolls and/or corporations take monopoly rights on
their work for 20 years.

------
jgmmo
Why don't professors make students sign IP agreements before bringing them in
on research?

~~~
ggchappell
Professor here.

There are many reasons, but mine is that that is not what I signed up for. The
goal of my research is not to make a huge pile of money. It is to advance
human knowledge. So when I discover something, I give it away. That's the
_goal_. This is how universities are traditionally set up. With a few high-
profile exceptions, it's largely how they are still set up.

This means I am unlikely to get rich. OTOH, I don't have to limit my ideas to
those likely to make money, which is hugely freeing. I get to work on nifty
stuff for _decades_ without ever worrying about being even "Ramen profitable".

If I were in the position of Mark Bolas, I'd certainly be wistful about the
billion dollars I might have had. I would probably be very unhappy that some
work that built on mine did not even mention me. (In academia, we _always_
give credit to those whose work we build on. It's an unbreakable rule.[1])

However, I would not be indignant or -- except for the lack of credit -- feel
mistreated or owed anything. As I said, that is not what I signed up for.

[1] I personally get very annoyed when, as often happens, companies break this
rule. I used to get into arguments about this with people at booths at
conferences. I've mellowed a bit since then, I think, but it still annoys me.

~~~
ISL
That's an excellent perspective. :).

At least in my field, in order to remain both functional and employed, we have
to work on ideas that attract funding. For us to make effective use of our
skills, there's a small but meaningful burn rate in hardware and machining
costs.

An aside: It's totally possible for Oculus to make a substantial thank-you
gift to Bolas.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
One of the Linux distros (Red Hat, maybe?) did that to Linus when they went
public.

------
ChrisNorstrom
We don't celebrate inventors we celebrate money-makers because we ourselves
want to be money makers. This is why the men that made the Internet, the MP3
player, the Television, will never be held up to the same level of worship as
the men who made money off of the internet, mp3 player, and television.

Who invented the car? Dunno, I had to google it. Who is famous for making
massive amounts of money off of the car? Mr. Ford.

This goes deeper. We celebrate in others what we want to have or "be"
ourselves (beauty, money, power, tall, strong). We hate/dislike in others the
characteristics that we ourselves don't want to have (ugly, short, bald, dumb,
gay). This is where a lot of phobias and disliking of groups of people come
from.

~~~
marcosdumay
The car was incrementally "invented" by a huge number of people, while Ford
created alone an entirely new kind of industry.

~~~
shubb
To be fair, if the innovation we are crediting Occulus is successfully
popularizing VR, I think we are being premature.

There have been VR headsets available for years, at comparable prices. They
were less immersive, but we will see the Occulus as unimmersive in a few
years.

Whether it actually popularizes VR, or is just a fad will depend on whether
comparable products are common in 5 or 10 years.

For instance Nintendo did not popularize power gloves. They were cool, but it
turned out people didn't want to play games like that.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Glove](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Glove)

------
hyp0
The original sounds more suitable for me, personally: in effect, a larger
display, without larger/heavier/mAh device.

Bonuses: you don't have to hold it; get the angle right; block sunlight
reflections; clean fingermarks. I'd use it with a bluetooth keyboard (maybe,
problems if you can't see the keyboard, possibly?)

I don't want motion tracking VR (latency is a huge problem, incredibly
challenging to fix, which I'm not convinced Occulus has - despite Carmack's
support).

I don't film everyone all the time, freaking them out, nor speak to myself in
public, nor look like a cyborg (i.e. Glass).

Apple will probably nail what works. Typical.

------
javajosh
Acknowledgement is one thing, but remuneration is another. Not sure if there's
much you can do about the former, but the latter is the raison d'etre of the
patent system, no?

~~~
spiritplumber
The problem is that even acknowledgment is discouraged by CYA types in case it
leads to litigation later.

------
nine_k
I will just repeat: "An idea is worth nothing. Execution is everything."

Oculus Rift has solved a huge pile of technical problems that makes the
original idea actually _useful_.

If you think that an idea is worth anything, go sell someone the idea of time
machine — without an implementation in sight.

~~~
to3m
But equally, credit costs nothing to give.

------
subdane
Hmm. I wonder if one of Facebook's competitors would be interested in funding
the professor that invented this tech to start a competing company? Or is it
that the implemented tech, team and market awareness are the thing that's
valuable?

------
spiritplumber
As arguably the person who first sold Android-based robots, I understand the
gripe very well.

People just aren't interested.

They'll praise Tesla once they know who he was, but they still buy Edison.

------
transfire
If the original idea for the Oculus Rift came from this man, then they should
make sure he gets a share of the pie. It is unconscionable that someone would
take his idea, run with it (regardless of how much more work they had to do)
and then not give back after making the big time.

If this indeed proves to be the case then I have yet another good reason to
avoid this product!

------
higherpurpose
I think the Patent Office and the people backing patents would disagree with
that - we have more patents than we've ever had and the rate of new patents is
_increasing_ \- therefore that must mean inventions are on the rise...

~~~
mullingitover
> therefore that must mean inventions are on the rise...

Or that the level of incompetence at the patent office is on the rise, or that
people are getting better at gaming the system...

------
PeterisP
Well, you could argue that the proper split of wealth between having the
initial idea of "let's do X", and actually figuring out how X can be done and
making it work _is_ 0% vs 100%.

The concept of VR goggles is decades old, but going from goggles that work in
theory to goggles that work in practice takes a lot of real innovation - and
whoever _implements_ that is able to patent the innovated concepts and earn
money for it.

If the concept of "two really inexpensive lenses, put a SmartPhone screen a
few inches away, and wrap the whole thing in an inexpensive housing" is novel
and invented by prof. Bolas, then Oculus Rift will likely be paying him patent
royalties. If that concept wasn't novel, or the implementation (i.e., actual
invention) was performed by someone else, then nothing should be done.

~~~
rprospero
I didn't read the article as being about wealth, but being more about credit.

I'm about to start work on an academic project that, if it goes spectacularly
well, will make someone else a couple billion dollars. I'm not going to see
any of that money and I know that going in. I just get the credit.

I'm okay with this arrangement. I don't want to run a billion dollar company.
They get their money and I get my credit. However, I'll find it very unfair if
they get the billion dollars and I get stiffed for my credit.

~~~
femto
Just make sure you publish, and do it loudly.

I was part of a university group that designed and built the first real-time
baseband processor for 802.11a wireless LANs. In the timeline, we were
sandwiched between the patent holders (CSIRO) and the start-up (Radiata). We
removed the risk, by figuring out that it was possible to actually build the
idea that CSIRO proposed, and filling in the details, such as how one built a
real-time FFT (in 1995) and how to do the error correction. The result of the
research was a paper in IEEE Micro [1], so we got the "credit", but how many
people mention the Macquarie University team in the same breath as CSIRO
(Prime Minister's Award+$1b royalties) and Radiata ($560 million)? When money
is involved, people don't like complicated structures, with too many names
attached.

[1]
[https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=624067](https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=624067)

~~~
gone35
Wow... Credit or not, you and your team built something huge and arguably far,
far more valuable to humanity than $1.5bn+. Inspiring.

~~~
femto
Thanks.

