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:
>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.
Wait. There's a huge gulf between Bolas' 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?
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.
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.
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?
Perhaps because everything is built on top of everything, so an interesting story can always be made of someone responsible for the building blocks.
Thought experiment. I remember FOV2GO (very cool project), but the iPhone was arguably integral to its creation. Was it though? I'm sure the members of the iPhone team would think "yes" (as 99% of the actual manifest technology is iPhone in this device), but the "creator" might think "no" (as the last 1% is what differentiates it). The "true" answer here is not important, rather the understanding that everyone probably overestimates the value of their own contribution, and underestimates the value of others' contribution. Especially because when you discover/invent something that afterwards seems obvious (arguably the most important discoveries/inventions), then it seems silly to give someone credit for it. The Oculus guys may think of the FOV2GO stuff as "obvious" in retrospect, and the actual hard work being the device they shipped with the better sensors and associated toolkit.
If I now choose to make an Oculus competitor to take on Facebook, should I pay the original Oculus team "to give thanks"? Should I pay the professor? I think a lot of people at this point would say "no", which is strange because it doesn't seem like a different case than Oculus vs. professor.
I am not sure if the professor is actually a founder, but more like the basis of the foundation. I don't know if the students ever paid their professor and the lab for the experience and idea. I would, honestly. Giving back a few million dollars back to the lab and give some equity to the professor, invite him to the board.
I suspect a few reasons:
1. The professor is not interested in the profit. He just loves what he does. Or he has no intention of taking any credit. When you are a famous inventor in your field you don't need anyone to back up your title.
2. He did get his fair share. Or he's working on other things with Oculus behind the scene, but not publicly acknowledged (which is weird).
3. Like most tweets the notice/rewteet count is often zero. We just don't hear about it. (Though in the case of Professor Bolas his website doesn't mention a thing about Oculus).
4. I don't know anything about FMX conference but maybe the professor wasn't invited?
5. Companies don't feel they are obligated to release everyone's name. In particular, they probably think basing on public works (published papers and blog posts) holds them no obligation to credit anyone.
But do we know if the founders ever credit the professor in public? I am not going to watch every interview, but my feeling is yes, at some point. I don't think anyone could say "they invented Oculus out of the blue".
This is also a private matter. Maybe they had problems with each other, or they settled this privately already ("I don't want any share", "don't mention my name", etc)
Inventors might not want fame. The entrepreneurial, publicity-seeking ones are unusual; but the ones we hear about.
If he patented it, he'd get licensing fees (I'd go royalties myself). Usually, anyone called an "inventor" patents their inventions (especially if they like wealth). Even Buckminster Fuller did.
Probably because it complicates the discussion of the product or company. Don't introduce people to the public if that person has no interest in being a public figure or engaging with media.
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.
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.
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?
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.
From the link provided by chasing above (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many commercially-plausible ideas coming from research labs are in fact patented and owned by the university. Companies which use these ideas are required to pay licensing fees or to purchase the patent. (Most research universities have a "technology transfer" office for this purpose, which famously are said to either lose money or make all their profit from only one or two patents.)
As a grad student, I was required to sign documents stating (in effect) that discoveries made by use of the university's resources were owned by the university.
That doesn't work very well at all for undergraduates, where they are formally paying the bill, vs. those who are being paid like hard subject graduate students, post-docs, faculty and staff.
E.g. MIT undergraduate theses are owned by the student.
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.
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
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).
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?
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?
What's wrong with the sentence as it stands? The student who built Oculus Rift and sold it Facebook is now wealthy. The professor who had the original idea is not now wealthy; this is in contrast to the student, who is.
It's an unusual construction, but I think it's valid. To say "now not wealthy" would imply that he was wealthy before, which is not the case. To say "now wealthy" would imply that he is currently wealthy, which is also not the case.
edit: look at this square, deleting his comments. He was sassing the author about the phrase "not now wealthy", wondering if it was supposed to be "now not wealthy", or "now wealthy".
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!
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...
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.
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.
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.
Quote: "So yes, I understand why Mark is not getting the financial payoff here. Still, in all the hype in the press and elsewhere, shouldn’t the primary inventor of the technology at least be mentioned?"
You seem to be accepting the article's claim that Mark Bolas was the "primary inventor" very uncritically. The idea behind VR goggles is decades old and has been commercialized in the past in things like the Virtual Boy (1990s). I don't see what Dr. Bolas invented that was so interesting or novel, although his lab may have been good at throwing together prototypes cheaply.
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.