
Microsoft buys AR headset patents for $100-150M – report - Aoyagi
http://www.totalxbox.com/74099/microsoft-buys-ar-headset-patents-for-100-150-million-report/
======
jessriedel
For those confused by the acronyms: A virtual reality (VR) headset would show
the viewer an image completely produced by the device. An augmented reality
(AR) headset allows you to see through the glasses at the actual world in
front of you, and just projects extra data or graphics onto of this. Think of
a heads-up display for a fighter pilot.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
As someone who is working on an AR project and has to constantly explain to
people WHAT AR is, I find it a tad disheartening that this is the top comment
in HN comments. I would have expected that the readership would have been well
versed enough that it would have been mid-level.

This does serve as a good data point about technology penetration though.
Thanks.

------
nealabq
This is more likely a response to Google Glass, not Oculus.

I assume Google has built a patent portfolio around Glass. This may even be a
defensive move by Microsoft. Still, looks like another tragedy of patent abuse
brewing.

I wonder about the upcoming patent lawsuits against Oculus. Maybe that's their
real reason for embracing FB -- protection.

~~~
sitkack
These patents look silly. I have done work in the AR/VR space and these
patents are chaff. Much of the stuff coming to market right now is not
patentable because this research goes back so far. Which is a _GREAT_ thing.

~~~
Excavator
Just in case, you have heard of Ask Patents prior art request 'section'¹?
There's a lot of 'unpatentable' stuff that gets through or almost gets through
the process.

¹ [http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-
art-...](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-request)

~~~
sitkack
I am going to get a migraine and an ulcer reading those. I think filing bogus
patent claims should be an actionable offense.

------
zackmorris
Gah, it didn't occur to me that the reason the Oculus sale was so expensive
might have been patent-related. VR tech is not all that complicated. I mean
really, if protocols like HDMI and Thunderbolt weren't so complex, DRM and
patent laden themselves, how hard is it to put an image on two screens and
sync it to gyroscopes/ultrasonics/infrareds? This is college-senior-project
level complexity.

Software patents are such an obvious incumbrance to programmers, but I wonder
if we should think about the toll that hardware patents are taking on
innovation overall Maybe it’s time to take a stance against all patents.

I’m hopeful that rapid prototyping might alleviate some of this because
hardware could be open sourced and then people could assemble it themselves.
Unfortunately they probably won’t be able to pay someone else to do it. That
strikes me as fundamentally wrong and when the law doesn’t fit the public
interest, we’ll probably see black market and bootleg manufacturing appear.

We need 21st century solutions for intellectual property, when the vast
majority of manufacturing is automated and even innovation itself has been
augmented by machine learning. Otherwise I see the end of innovation and only
the biggest megacorps being able to afford to play.

~~~
paulbaumgart
Patents are a fine idea in principle. There's little doubt that they promote
innovation in pharmaceuticals, for example.

The problem arises when the patents last much longer than the "innovation
cycle" in an industry. As software takes over the world, we're seeing cycle
times go down in many fields, but patent laws aren't keeping up with
technological reality.

~~~
_delirium
Yes, shorter patents would address a decent number of the issues.

To pick one area I'm somewhat familiar with, a lot of the patents in digital-
audio synthesis were _initially_ reasonable, in my opinion. Furthermore, the
system largely "worked" as it was supposed to to incentivize innovation and
ensure that commercializers of technology paid some royalties to those
developing it. A research group like Stanford's CCRMA would develop a new
synthesis method, patent it, and license the patent to a commercializer such
as Yamaha, who put it in their synthesizers and paid a royalty. Without
patents, there would be a strong incentive to do this monetization via keeping
things secret instead, rather than openly publishing them somewhere that
Yamaha could just read.

The part where it starts seeming unreasonable is when a 15-year-old synthesis
method, which is by that time ancient and textbook-standard material, is still
patented.

~~~
anigbrowl
20 year doesn't seem like such an awful term for a patent. You think 15 years
is too long, no doubt there are other people who thin 10 or 5 are too long,
just as there must be some people who think it should be 25 or 30 years. I
feel like 20 years has stuck because it's approximately the length of one
human generation.

~~~
lugg
What on earth gives you the idea that a generation is a good measure of time
for a monopoly? Patents are intended to promote innovation for society not
give protection to a racket. The _only_ reason to give people a monopoly on
production is to allow those who invested in the invention and research to
reimburse the costs of research and development to allow for further
investment in innovation.

After the time period the patent / copy rights should be released to the
public domain so that everyone may benefit from cheap economy of scale
production.

The only reason I could think you feel this way is that it is all you've
known. In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should
suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial
innovation.

~~~
_delirium
_In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should
suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial
innovation._

One tricky issue is also the lead time to market. In the synthesis example,
Yamaha came out with a synth within ~2 years of licensing the patent. But in
some areas (like medicine) it can be common for it to take 5-10 years for a
product to come out, in which case a 5-year patent would be worthless, because
it would expire before you can sell anything.

~~~
lugg
Sorry I should have probably continued on, there was a bit of an implication
here:

In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation [ _and
how long it takes to reap the return on that investment_ ].

------
higherpurpose
I think AR is at least 10 years behind VR in terms of mainstream adoption or
"usefulness". VR is almost there (I think with 4k resolution, it will be) to
provide incredible advantages over what we have now. AR on the other hand will
most likely be mainly a gimmick for the next 10 years or so, even if they can
show some pretty cool demos initially. Take Microsoft's Illumiroom for example
which is "sort of AR". The immersion is much greater in VR than what
Illumiroom offers, and I'd much rather be "present" in a VR world, than see
some light show on my walls, at much poorer quality and much lower realism.

~~~
kybernetikos
I've never been in an illumiroom, but I have been in a CAVE like environment
with 3d projected walls. Pressing a button on the motion tracked handset and
seeing (and hearing) a lightsabre blade come out of it was by far the coolest
technology mediated experience I've had. I've got a Rift, but I don't think
anything it offers will be as good as that.

------
nestlequ1k
How stupid. Microsoft pays a bunch of people who invented a bunch of ideas
that are now restricted from being used.

What a joke the patent system is. We're paying people to innovate ideas, and
prevent any product with those ideas from coming to market.

Patent holders should have to pay a substantial tax / fee every year to keep
their patents. If these ideas are so valuable, they should be building
products and benefiting society with them. Not stuffing them under the
mattress and waiting to sue some poor sap who actually wants to ship
something.

------
gfodor
I think the comments in this thread talking about AR and VR as if they are
different are misplaced -- AR and VR will converge:

[http://willsteptoe.com/post/66968953089/ar-rift-
part-1](http://willsteptoe.com/post/66968953089/ar-rift-part-1)

------
izzydata
I can't wait for AR similar to the show Dennou Coil to become a real. It seems
potentially feasible to be a real thing even if at the time the show was made
it probably seemed impossible.

------
gum_ina_package
Very interesting development. Personally I don't see AR being anywhere close
to VR in terms of usefulness, polish, and mass market appeal. VR obviously is
going to be a major player in the gaming/entertainment industries, while an AR
headset is more of a general use device for everyone. It'll be interesting to
see what MS comes out with.

~~~
kybernetikos
AR is potentially much more useful, but VR is much more likely to lead to
useful products in the near future. VR is hard, but AR has all the same
problems of VR plus a whole bunch more.

~~~
nealabq
AR will no doubt be helped along by VR tech. But I'd guess mass-market AR will
first appear in vehicle and building windows.

~~~
cinquemb
Some AR is already present in some vehicles. My mother has a "HUD" that
reflects off the glass that displays speed, and gas consumption in the direct
LOS while driving, but not intrusive enough to distract, mid 2000's car.

But if I abstract what you are saying a bit, I would have to agree that AR is
going to be an "easier" sell in b2b than b2c, it has been for a while. I think
the cross over will happen when consumers are more exposed to the ways
businesses leverage it.

Here's a scenario I can see before mainstream adoption: Imagine a sales clerk
or rep with it as you walk into the store to pull in data from across the web
about you from facial recog and be able to automatically point you to where
you might be interested, maybe even using
google's/microsoft's/facebook's/yelp's/some startup's "intent" api that pulls
in your latest queries that may be relevant to the store you just we're
identified in.

Then some people see such things used, and then want the same capabilities as
they navigate their cities around them seeing that it could be useful in their
life.

~~~
masklinn
> Some AR is already present in some vehicles.

If HUDs are considered AR (a valid viewpoint, as far as I'm concerned) then
they've been in warplanes since WW2.

I don't see AR getting mass customer adoption before it can be directly
grafted.

> Imagine a sales clerk or rep with it as you walk into the store to pull in
> data from across the web about you from facial recog and be able to
> automatically point you to where you might be interested

That sounds horrifying. And unlikely, that customers efficiently go through
their purchases in the least possible time is not really in most store's
interest.

~~~
cinquemb
> _That sounds horrifying._

Well, the technology is here, the behavioral patterns in the way people use
services are here, and with companies like foursquare[0], who are basically
doing the same thing (minus the facial recog, which the tech is present for,
but the challenge now is connecting disparate data sets available which can be
leveraged at scale for general purposes [which I'm working on], and not being
shackled to things large companies typically are [we don't have user accounts,
so we don't have "users" to appease, and we don't have $X billion in revenue
so we have to take chances/experiment in order to grow]), this will be a
growing market where consumers will be exposed to such technology and its
benefits (and drawbacks because not everything is rose colored through my
lenses).

My startup is working in the periphery of this area now, so I can't say that I
don't have financial/technical interest involved with this. From the issues
that we get notified now about our current product is basically people are
afraid because they don't have "control" over "their" data and don't
understand how others are able to technically leverage it (or anything
technical about how the internet works, besides the profitable skinner boxes
that make up most consumer tech companies). People make baseless legal threats
all the time against us, but it is always interesting how it is always
complaints about them as the individual and not about for others; those same
people are happy to observe/give up information about other people.

> _And unlikely, that customers efficiently go through their purchases in the
> least possible time is not really in most store 's interest._

Valid point for some stores, but I was thinking about this from the
perspective of the store rep trying to establish some kind of human touch to
the shopping experience more so than they do now, while leveraging the data
they have so they can more efficiently decide who they should focus their
efforts on rather than the stereotypes made from their experiences. I guess
what I'm saying is that it may not be as clear cut as what some make it out to
be, and in that ambiguity lies the opportunity.

[0] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/05/foursquare-
revenues/](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/05/foursquare-revenues/)

~~~
masklinn
> Valid point for some stores, but I was thinking about this from the
> perspective of the store rep trying to establish some kind of human touch to
> the shopping experience

I don't think this[0] is a "human touch". A creepy stalker touch maybe. And
your scheme would go even further.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-
habits.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html)

~~~
cinquemb
>[...] _creepy stalker_ [...]

Which are attributes usually assigned to human beings, no? Or do you enjoy
being trailed by officers/staff when you shop because of the color of your
skin, or do you not have to face nor think about such things when you shop or
in other interactions in your life? Because I don't particularly enjoy that
either, and I'm doing what I can to address it among other issues assuming
that if others could leverage information that is already out there about me,
maybe, just maybe I won't have to be treated as subhuman by some on initial
interactions, or at least while I patronize a store on occasion. What are you
doing to address the problems you have surrounding the use of technology in
such ways beyond vocalizing your displeasure? Do you still use social
networking, webmail, play apps via smartphone, purchase via credit cards
online/offline, etc…? If so, your behaviors are telling others otherwise.

I'm just stating that's the direction things are going in now, and for anyone
to avoid such realities means that they shall continue to be suspended in a
state of cognitive dissonance. Hardly just my "scheme", I'm just a piece in
the puzzle that was already being built before I was even born.

------
ChuckMcM
That is interesting, I wonder what patents or provisionals CastAR has in the
pipeline.

------
programminggeek
Not surprising. If you had the billions that Microsoft does, you'd invest in
patents too. At this point it's the software equivalent of buying out the
supply chain like Apple famously does with hardware components.

------
baby
I only thought about this for their Xbox division, until I saw the comments in
here.

But the idea of glasses that shows you ammo count, health and other infos
while your playing. Basically a HUD on your face. is really appealing to me.

------
rasur
Meta are the company to watch in the AR space.

------
shmerl
MS and patents? A very bad mix.

------
rikacomet
Am I the only one who saw the UPGRADE NOW banner ? despite Adblock?

------
nsnick
This website breaks mobile safari. The bar at the bottom does not appear when
scrolling up.

------
fabiofzero
It's 2014 and Microsoft keeps on being the "me too" of consumer technology.

------
rch
I love how the real MS shows up from time to time to remind us that all the
'new openness' and fair play talk is exactly that, and probably always will
be.

~~~
gnoway
I tend to agree with the sentiment, but exactly what ill-intent does acquiring
patents actually demonstrate?

~~~
rch
That's a fair question, and maybe I am jumping the gun with this particular
set of patents. But my interpretation is in context with other patent
licensing news (March 26th, 2014):

[http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2P1VC20140326?irpc...](http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2P1VC20140326?irpc=932)

So I was primed to read this as opening a new front in an ongoing,
contemporary effort to use patents aggressively. Maybe the downvotes are a
clear signal that I'm destined to be proven wrong in this regard. I guess
we'll see.

------
tzaman
Microsoft, as usual, following other's footsteps. Kinda sad since they used to
lead the game.

~~~
Shorel
> Kinda sad since they used to lead the game.

May be when they first made their Basic interpreter. And Word for Windows.

But everything else was an acquisition or a clone. DOS bought, Windows cloned
from Xerox and Mac, Excel cloned from Lotus-123, FoxPro bought, XBOX cloned
from playstation, Internet Explorer bought.

~~~
kenjackson
And iPhone closed from the Palm. And the iPod cloned from the Archos Rockbox.
And Linux of course cloned from Unix. And the Mac cloned from Xerox. And the
iPad cloned from tablet PCs. And the PlayStation cloned from Nintendo.
Nintendo cloned from Atari 2600. Atari 2600 cloned from board games.

BTW, Word cloned from Word Perfect. BASIC interpreter cloned from all the
previous BASIC interpreters that existed.

Being first or "leading" don't matter. It's about execution and a bit of luck.
Look at Android. It sure as heck wasn't first, but they executed. Windows
wasn't first, but they executed.

