Topic: Zenimax claims Carmack stole tech for Oculus

[idolminds]

Sad pandas everywhere!

Carmack said on twitter: "No work I have ever done has been patented. Zenimax owns the code that I wrote, but they don't own VR."

Which I take to mean "I'll rewrite all that shit this weekend. For fun. I'M JOHN CARMACK, BITCH!"

[Quemaqua]

Crazy times.

[Cobra951]

I'm no stranger to employers thinking they own everything in your head.  Crazy times indeed.

[gpw11]

The WSJ article on this is a lot more indepth and far better than the Engadget one.  They're not suing over the knowledge and experience Carmack brought over to Occulus but over actual research and documentation which they claim is Zenimax property rather than Carmack's or Occulus'.

According to WSJ, Zenimax (through Carmack) was granted an extremely early version of Occulus to develop in order to invistigate the technology's suitability for gaming.  They (Carmack) altered and improved it extensively and that's what became the Rift we now know.  They were in conversations with Occulus over at least a year discussing terms for licensing/approval for unrestricted use of this technology, and had been at a standstill for the last few months. This was all covered by a NDA. 

What spurred on the lawsuit was the sale to Facebook.  Zenimax claims that prior agreement says that they needed to be consulted prior to sale or licensing to any third parties.

I'm no stranger to employers thinking they own everything in your head.  Crazy times indeed.

My understanding is that it's actually the opposite of this claim.  Carmack/Oculus will probably defend themselves by claiming the improvements made at Zenimax were broad enough that they would have been implemented anyway and that Carmack rewrote the code.  You strictly can't claim ownership over an employee's knowledge or experience, but you can claim ownership of projects they created with your resources. 

Chances are it's just a tactic to rush an agreement.

[idolminds]

What a completely unexpected turn of events! /s

Interestingly, Carmack isn't specifically listed as one of the parties in the suit but they sure talk about him a LOT.

[Quemaqua]

It's funny, because I can't pick a side. I want both of them to lose. Zenimax for the blatant cash grab, and Facebook because ... well, fuck Facebook in the ... uh, face.

[gpw11]

It's funny, because I can't pick a side. I want both of them to lose. Zenimax for the blatant cash grab, and Facebook because ... well, fuck Facebook in the ... uh, face.

Honestly, I'd like Facebook to dive hard and have someone else buy out the technology.   That's just me though.

[gpw11]

I just want to elaborate that I don't care about Occulus at all and really have no interest in it. At the same time I hate that Facebook bought it out.  Why?

Look how he rolls his eyes up and doesn't know what to say when talking about long term strategy.  Just fucking admit it.   Couple that with this from Zuckerberg:

But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home.

All those things are not only examples of things that would be way worse than actually being there in person, they're examples of things that would be way worse with VR than with the current "low tech" alternatives.  I get good seats to games quite often.  The experience is great because you're actually there....with people.  Take that away and you're better off watching HDTV, with the commentary, better than "courtside" camera angels, and ability to divide your attention.  You know what's better than a VR doctor?  Probably fucking anything.  You know what's better than a VR lecture?  A web lecture....which is like exactly the same thing...just without a fucking helmet.  Oh, and the added ability to see the paper and pen when you're taking notes on your real life desk.

He's describing what people thought the internet would be used for in 1997.  I've also heard mention of visiting far off places and shopping districts.  It's seriously from an AOL ad from 20 years ago.  No one wants to do that shit. 

The thing is, they pretty much know no one wants to do those things.  They're blatantly going after the ad space and using the new medium to lock people into their existing eco system.  I just want them to admit it and move on.

[PyroMenace]

Not only that, but I also dont see how some of those things can actually be done. Like watching a sports game seat side... how would you do that? Not to mention all the costs of setting that up with sports associations and through TV network deals and all that mess and probably more tech to be invested into making a camera for a seat side view. It sounds as ridiculous as trying to force 3D on everything.

[Cobra951]

It sounds as ridiculous as trying to force 3D on everything.

That sums it up for me--another fringe gadget, much worse than LCD-shuttering 3D glasses.  There's no hope of mainstream adoption here, even after the tech advances to a useful level.

[scottws]

Didn't we already go through this in the early 90's?  I get that the technology has progressed since then, but you still have the problems of how to move around in the virtual world.  Either you have someone walking around and bumping into objects in the real world they cannot see, you have a huge open warehouse with nothing in it and a mechanism in the virtual world to keep them away from the walls, or you have some kludgy mechanism like a joystick or something out of Robot Jox to move around.  If you want people to explore climbing mountains virtually, well... forget it.

What I really want to know is: will there be another sequel to The Lawnmower Man?

One thing I think it could maybe work for is virtual skydiving.  Someone free-falls over a big fan setup and has a 3D VR helmet on that provides the visual experience.

Not only that, but I also dont see how some of those things can actually be done. Like watching a sports game seat side... how would you do that? Not to mention all the costs of setting that up with sports associations and through TV network deals and all that mess and probably more tech to be invested into making a camera for a seat side view. It sounds as ridiculous as trying to force 3D on everything.

Well, I'd guess you'd have to have some sort of 360-degree, 3D camera setup or a camera that swivels around in synchronization with your head at the seat you are "sitting" in that feeds back your your VR helmet.  If it is the latter option, there would need to be a camera robot setup for everyone experiencing the game this way, but if it was the 360 degree setup it could be done in software for many people.

It will never happen because it is stupid.  If there is a chance for that to become reality, we might as well just make the leap to the future portayed in Surrogate and have fully mobile robots used to experience the real world that we control from home.

[gpw11]

I know.  There is exactly one application for this type of thing:  Gaming.  The rest of it is just dumb.

[idolminds]

3D porn, too.

[Xessive]

Interactive Japanese 3D hentai porn!

[MysterD]

Bluesnews - News on Carmack/Zenimax lawsuit.

-- Both John Carmack & Zenimax have reached a settlement, over their personal disputes.
-- The disputes settled on were of John selling his shares of Id Software (John was still owed money) & Zenimax accusing John of stealing VR code on their time & dime.
-- Zenimax is still suing Oculus and its owner (Palmer Luckey) though. That lawsuit is not done yet.

[idolminds]

A John Carmack story on Blues News? I think I just fell through a time portal...

[Quemaqua]

Hahaha, I was thinking the same thing