×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

118 comments

Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (-1, Troll)

KinkyKing (2728719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314195)

Microsoft sure knows how to tease us with new technology. More baby, more!

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (1, Funny)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314369)

how good will a flight sime be now... o wait

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315201)

Another Microsoft post, another Microsoft shill...

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (1)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year and a half ago | (#41320151)

I'm not so sure. I can't speak for OP but I don't imagine I'm the only one around here who has softened their stance with Microsoft over the years. I went from hater to neutral and was genuinely impressed by the Kinect. I have high hopes for this one after the Kinect went pretty well. (aside from my room being too small to play without crashing into things...a lot. :P )

If it's a patent issue, btw, I guess I'm not bothered much by large scale, high risk, research heavy patents. I'm more bothered by the stuff I could code in less than a typical work day. (which is probably >95% of software patents floating around)

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315481)

Why am I not surprised with a UID like "KinkyKing" you are posting "more baby more"?

As for TFA, who in the hell is gonna have a room so perfectly uncluttered and whose walls are all bare enough to make this worth using? I think a more workable idea was that one I saw awhile back where they had the VR helmet and a little treadmill like thing that allowed 360 degree movement. At least with that the player could stand in one little spot and not have to worry about having perfectly clear walls to project their games onto.

Frankly though with all the patents that all the big corps are getting nowadays it seems to me more like they are just throwing shit at a wall and hoping that something sticks. Since patents last for 20 years and the USPTO lets you be vague as hell when it comes to them I wouldn't be surprised if anything involving games and projection for the next 20 odd years will be getting a phone call from a MSFT lawyer with their hand out. We really need a "use it or lose it" clause where if you don't actually use the patent to make some product, at a reasonable price and offered at a reasonable number of locations to keep them from just making a one off and asking a million bucks for it, then you lose the patent, simple as that. That would help get rid of all the patent trolling and might even keep companies from spamming the USPTO by making them think about having to actually make a product of some kind out of what they are filing for.

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316577)

I think you saw that in a dream.

Think about making a 'treadmill' that allows 360 degree movement. You are ether standing inside a ball or on top of one.

That said, I own an old VR helmet. You're going to want to sit and have solidly mounted controls in your hands. Less pukey that way.

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41318785)

It was for some show where they tried to cook up a "dream rig" of absolute cutting edge and they had a bunch of Hollywood SFX guys helping out. The thing used some sort of belt system that was able to switch direction, don't ask me to explain the thing but I can tell you they did have a small harness to keep him from going too far on the system and taking a header. They had rigged up this lightgun M16 that would work in game and track his fire so he could just blast, along with a set of infrared lasers that allowed him to duck and lean.

It was wicked cool to watch but afterwards the guy using it said he felt like he was gonna have a coronary when bad guys came flying out from around a corner and that the tracking did leave him with a sick at his stomach feeling so while it might be cool in small doses i kinda doubt its something you'd want to have a marathon CoD session with. Still looked cool as hell to watch.

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (2)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#41320325)

Think about making a 'treadmill' that allows 360 degree movement. You are ether standing inside a ball or on top of one.

There is one system (Russian) that does put you in a giant transparent sphere. (Saw this at Nextfest)

However, there are some other systems for doing this that work pretty well...

One is a treadmill, actually two, set at right angles, one sort of "riding on" the other (don't know the exact mechanism, just saw the video) As you walk, say north, the N-S treadmill runs south. If you turn west, the E-W treadmill starts moving you east. If you move on a diagonal they both run in opposition to your movement to keep you near the center.

There is a cute one with motorized roller skates that slowly roll you back to center.

There is also an interesting psychological approach to this problem. One system actually keeps changing the map layout so you gradually keep yourself centered. This works well with a map with a lot of turns, of course. It works by making your turns "not quite" or "a little more than" 90 degrees; and then changing the layout behind you. As I recall, most people were unaware of the changes.

That said, I own an old VR helmet. You're going to want to sit and have solidly mounted controls in your hands. Less pukey that way.

I've been using an HMD for about 8 years. The 'pukey' years were back when I couldn't refresh the display fast enough to keep the display up with head tracking. So, my inner-ear and visual cortex had to fight it out. Now I'm getting a good FPS, no more puke. I run freestanding with a hand controller. If you think about it, you walk though real-life without nausea. If the head tracking and refresh are solid, it just looks like RL.

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41320997)

i've seen the treadmill and the ball version, but to me they both have the same problem, you're always on a flat surface. So what happens when you reach a set of steps or a hill in a game, you have to walk through it but magically float up as you do it. My solution would be an iron man suit suspended in the air then you just match the suits limits with the terrain. Want to lean against a wall, as you get close to the virtual wall all the servos in the suit lock up and you can't move in that direction any more. it should also take up much less space than the treadmill, or even the ball.

Re:Oh baby, Microsoft sure knows how to tease (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41321051)

I think you saw that in a dream.

Think about making a 'treadmill' that allows 360 degree movement. You are ether standing inside a ball or on top of one.

Yeah, an omnidirectional treadmill would be totally impossible in any other way...

Omnidirectional treadmill [wikipedia.org]
CyberWalk [youtube.com]

Fahrenheit 451... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314275)

here we come.

Re:Fahrenheit 451... (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314605)

So, prior art?

Though from looking at the patent it looks like they have some substance there and they aren't just patenting the concept, but an implementation.

Re:Fahrenheit 451... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315291)

"My wife says books aren't 'real.'"
"Thank God for that. You can shut them, say, 'Hold on a moment.' You play God to it. But who has ever torn himself from the claw that encloses you when you drop a seed in a TV parlor? It grows you any shape it wishes! It is an environment as real as the world. It becomes and is the truth. Books can be beaten down with reason. But with all my knowledge and skepticism, I have never been able to argue with a one-hundred-piece symphony orchestra, full colour, three dimensions, and I being in and part of those incredible parlors. As you see, my parlour is nothing but four plaster walls. And here " He held out two small rubber plugs. "For my ears when I ride the subway-jets."

so.. A holodeck? (4, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314315)

so.. A holodeck?

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314439)

my thoughts exactly.
daddy want. daddy likey.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314763)

It'd probably be the end of mankind.

Who would want to leave when you can stay in your holo-fantasy world with your holo-fantasy GF.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314825)

holo-fantasy drugs dont have the same effect, so the occasional drug run will be required.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315355)

If it were a Star Trek holodeck, the drugs would have the same effect since they'd be replicated. Besides, who needs drugs if you have a fucking holodeck? You could "go" anywhere you wanted with anyone that you wanted.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41321149)

If it were a Star Trek holodeck, the drugs would have the same effect since they'd be replicated. Besides, who needs drugs if you have a fucking holodeck? You could "go" anywhere you wanted with anyone that you wanted.

What makes you think that people use drugs as an alternative to travel? Most people use drugs for fun, not because they are bored or can't deal with life. Yes, I realize that doesn't match up with what the government propaganda office has told you. That's because it's bullshit. A holodeck would be the perfect place to get wasted, actually, and if you want to "drive home" from the "club" while you're completely shit-housed then go right ahead.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315751)

Knowing real life, the maker of the product would probably prohibit porn.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41316159)

Oh yeah, that'll stop them.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#41320339)

Knowing real life, the maker of the product would probably prohibit porn.

You gottta be kidding. That's usually the killer app!

Didn't anybody see "Brainstorm?"

Re:so.. A holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41317319)

Or you can stay in your real-world fantasy with your RealDoll GF.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314477)

No... A projector.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (2)

Andrewkov (140579) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315359)

They had a full 360 degree room projector at Disney World like 20 years ago.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319851)

But did they play a game on it? You see, it's all these innovative details like apple finding ways to talk but "on a phone or tablet" which makes it novel and patentable. ;klrng.. Oh excuse me, I just sneezed. Now if someone could do that as part of playing a game or perhaps on a phone, they could get a patent and rule the world.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316087)

As far as I can recall, holodecks were supposed to use planar images for the (distant) background or something like that. Of course, they had other components in addition that we don't have but still...

Re:so.. A holodeck? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314819)

Not really. A small step towards a holodeck, maybe but not a holodeck. More like a 360 projection. People have built rooms like this for various purposes (usually scientific projects), although not usually using a single device to project the whole room. Aside from technical difficulties with distortion in doing that (which MS claims to be working around), the shadows of anyone standing in the room prevents that from being a really reliable method, although it might work for a game system where the whole-room projection is just an add-on feature and doesn't need to be 100% reliable.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

pellik (193063) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315545)

Another example of patents and copyrights grabbing at everything from star trek.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315891)

I wonder if maybe it's just a natural progression of technology.
We have monitors then projectors so why not a four way projector? And at the time TNG was on we had primitive VR technology.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41316183)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environment

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316343)

Fine, as long as Professor Moriarty doesn't develop self-awareness.

I came to loathe the holodeck stories on the various ST sequels. Some of them were OK, but mostly the holodeck was used as a lame device for generating bogus dramatic tension. And the thing was always malfunctioning and threatening to destroy the ship or station or whatever. The first or second time that happened, you think they'd unplug it, dismantle it, and tell people to find another way to recreate.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#41317947)

And the thing was always malfunctioning and threatening to destroy the ship or station or whatever.

And now we finally know why!

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41318563)

If Microsoft had been the vendor for Star Fleet holodecks, there would have been an obnoxious musical chord playing every time a simulation began.

Re:so.. A holodeck? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year and a half ago | (#41317337)

I though this too at first, but it's not really so close to a holodeck. The holodeck had holographic proyections (ie: 3D stuff), this talks about 2D proyections on the walls. So this is closer to "big screens on your sides" than a holodeck.

Graphics cave (3, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314349)

So, a personal game graphics cave circa 1990? That sure is MS innovation for you.

Re:Graphics cave (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316005)

Yes, because since a game cave has been created, there's absolutely nothing else that can be done with it. Well, except make the image respond to the player's position, adjust for distortion and countless other things.

Re:Graphics cave (3, Interesting)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316241)

CAVEs, or CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment, come with devices called trackers. One tracker is located on a pair of shutter glasses that the user wears. This one tracks the location of your head, which then adjusts the screens for distortion. The other tracker is located in a device called a Wanda, which is much like a Wii-mote but about 100 times more accurate. The trackers use a magnetic field that fills not just the sides of the CAVE screens it self (10x10x10 foot cube), but beyond that.

Microsoft's innovation appears to be that it does the same thing, but with just one projector, that uses the walls around the room for peripheral vision - a highly useful feature (just ask any hardcore FPS gamer who has changed his FOV setting). It's probably not as accurate or as pretty, and it's likely going to be somewhere below the half a million you need to build a legitimate CAVE.

Sincerely,

Former University of Arkansas at Little Rock CAVE lab assistant

Re:Graphics cave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41317331)

Yes, there are many obvious things you could do to improve upon the idea. Problem is, obvious things aren't supposed to be patentable.

Re:Graphics cave (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#41320911)

Obviousness is about implementation. Not just the idea. The two I mentioned require a fair bit of development to get to work.

Unfortunately (1)

MBuhrow (979212) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314379)

I don't think this will work in my living room. It's not really just a big empty white box.

Nothing New (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314405)

I skimmed the patent and saw nothing new. Sigh :(

I'm a MS in CS student and I know the basics of how to do everything they claim. I just don't have the time or resources to do it all myself (was actually working on a project doing smaller subset of their features - turning off projection where the user is standing. Will I get sued for that now?). I also never even considered patenting it or anything else I produce :/

You can patent anti-improvements now? (1)

Zerth (26112) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314425)

So it is a crappy version of CAVE except with a TV display in it to show better quality images?

Re:You can patent anti-improvements now? (0)

inputdev (1252080) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314535)

apparently the "novel" aspect is using a depth sensor (Kinect, for example)... This is just another sign of the increasing worthlessness of patents.

Re:You can patent anti-improvements now? (0)

inputdev (1252080) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314583)

replying to myself to continue my rant - can't we all agree that it is obvious (in every sense, patent law and otherwise) to connect new peripherals to existing systems... if I invent a new mouse, sure, let me patent the mouse, but don't let me patent every single application where the new mouse is plugged into a computer... it makes me sick.

Re:You can patent anti-improvements now? (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315999)

But then the big corporations won't get the patents. Small inventions mostly come from individuals or universities. The corporations incorporate them with other existing technology and patent them. We mustn't let the corporations starve!

New excuse (2)

Chemisor (97276) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314461)

But mom, I can't make my bed until I kill the zombies guarding it! And I can't possibly clean up my room until they stop bleeding on the carpet.

Re:New excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315817)

Okay fine, but make sure you pick up the mini gun shells you just left scattered all over the hall last night. Or no pizza pops!

Re:New excuse (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41317189)

Just project a scene from Better Homes and Gardens on top of all the crap lying around.

now that would be fun (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314501)

You know those fake flash games that pretend to be a maze or something and then a gigantic scary face pops out and screams and freaks you out? Hehehehehehehe.

projection is 2 merged projections, TV + secondary (1)

RichMan (8097) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314509)

Whole room projection has been in scifi forever and a whole bunch of researchers have done it before some with moving floors.

Where this MS patent is different and where it becomes patentable is "main display" and "secondary display" and merging the two.
It envisions your TV as your main display, with some sort of secondary projector to do the rest of the room and the secondary projection will merge with what is on the TV.

Flight simulators have used multiple merged screens for years. But the MS idea of primary and secondary is slightly different.

Re:projection is 2 merged projections, TV + second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314653)

A professor of mine was doing this back in 2004, I wonder if that counts as prior art, or he could have been working with microsoft I guess.

Re:projection is 2 merged projections, TV + second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41321173)

A professor of mine was doing this back in 2004, I wonder if that counts as prior art, or he could have been working with microsoft I guess.

It only counts as prior art if anybody bothers to mention it to the patent office. I think their "examination" process boils down to flipping a coin until they get "heads" 100 times in a row, then stamping "approved" on the application. And that could take some time, so plenty of shitty beer is drank and a lot of cheap pizza is eaten during this process.

Re:projection is 2 merged projections, TV + second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315931)

The real innovation is using the kinect to automatically track and align the secondary projected image, so you can just set up the projector and go - without spending hours fiddling, aligning, tweaking keystone, etc, etc.

How do I claim prior art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314559)

I've done this with a good projector, two cheapie projectors, and some old laptops for Doom of all things. Who do I talk to to invaldate the patent? There are pictures but there is no video.

Prior Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314591)

Fahrenheit 451, Star Trek, Gamer? Any other TV show or movie that has had a Holodeck of sorts? Come on, how do you patent something like that?

Re:Prior Art? (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314865)

When you figure out how to build a teleporter and a replicator, you too will get to patent them.

Re:Prior Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41316091)

If you invented either of those things. Why would you ever need to patent them?

Teleporter and replicator would be the end of all human businesses and govts.

Why would i listen to any of you anymore if i can teleport your ass to the center of the sun? Defend my patents? Why i just moved all the infringing companies into deep space! And my replicated clone army says fuck off i'm now in charge of the world!

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41317817)

You assume that your teleporter will allow you to accurately target someone from very far away....and that you will be able to do this quickly enough to fend off an entire strike team (and that you will have some way of knowing and tracking the movements of every member of said strike team at once). Same for bombs and such that may be sent your way. You also assume that you will have an independent power source...so nobody can just cut you off.

I find your assumptions dubious.

Re:Prior Art? (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41317131)

When you figure out how to build ...

Not a requirement for a patent in the USA.

Re:Prior Art? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314955)

I'll give you a hint: part of the patent is the actual implementation of it, not just a description of "wouldn't-that-be-cool".

Bribery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41316391)

You bribe the patent clerks, or otherwise use your money to bribe ... cough ... legislate the process in your favor.

Imagine if Star Trek Producers Patent Trolled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314735)

They could tie every tech company in court for eons.

Re:Imagine if Star Trek Producers Patent Trolled (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316603)

Interestingly, Rodenberry's contract w/ Paramount actually specified that if any device described on the show were to actually be invented there would be an allowance to use the trademarked name and no lawsuit.

Re:Imagine if Star Trek Producers Patent Trolled (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316689)

They would still lose out to whoever they stole the idea from. This is ST we are talking about.

Prior art http://www.mechdyne.com/cave.aspx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41314791)

Prior art http://www.mechdyne.com/cave.aspx

Meh. Danger Room as prior art (0)

oliverk (82803) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314893)

What was that...1979? Chris Claremont/John Byrne? Colossus throwing Wolverine like a ball? Screw you, Microsoft. Y'ain't got nothing on this one.

Re:Meh. Danger Room as prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315683)

Prior art does not mean 'came up with idea'. It means you made something with it...

For example I had something sketched out like an iphone in the early 80s (I know I was not the only one thinking like that). I made 0 with it. Just a notebook full of wishes. Even now they do not live up to my wishes... :)

A rather neat idea (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315073)

This is a rather neat idea. It is intended to present the effect of a CAVE system, but without a dedicated room. The new ideas here involve using something like a Kinect to profile the room in terms of both geometry and color, then adjust the projected images to compensate. The room wall display comes from a projector atop the main monitor, a projector with optics set up to display a 360 degree image. (Aim a projector at a shiny sphere, and you get half a sphere of projection. Two such rigs facing each other will cover a whole sphere, except for the area behind the projectors. Or you can use fisheye lenses on projectors.)

All this stuff has to be aligned. When you have a wide-angle Kinect-like device, control all the projectors, and have modern CPU and GPU power, alignment will be a few seconds of flashing patterns as the room model is built. Thereafter, as long as you don't move too far from your initial position in the room, the geometry should be good.

The wall projections will probably be somewhat low-rez for now, but that will improve as projectors improve. Even with a low-rez environment, you'll have much better situational awareness in games. (In other words, you can see when somebody is about to attack you from behind.) Any game with group melee combat can benefit from this. Impressive.

Re:A rather neat idea (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315419)

Personally, I would rather have a headset with a high resolution, high frequency, curved screen that wraps past my peripheral vision; a high definition, directional, noise cancelling headphones; and a high quality mic. You get the immersion but it is more practical. It also would allow you to get rid of the TV all together.

Prior Art: Check UIUC Cave (4, Informative)

rs1n (1867908) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315231)

This was already done by UIUC -- they have "caves" in the Beckman Institute that already do this, and I believe they even played Quake II in there.

Beckman Institute Cave link: http://isl.beckman.illinois.edu/Labs/CAVE/CAVE.html [illinois.edu]

Quake II in cave: http://www.visbox.com/prajlich/caveQuake/ [visbox.com]

Re:Prior Art: Check UIUC Cave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315637)

Or how about realitycave.com in Kitchener/Waterloo, Ontario, Canada?

Re:Prior Art: Check UIUC Cave (3, Informative)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year and a half ago | (#41317355)

Ye another ill-informed, totally incorrect post modded to +5 informative by clueless mods.

You do NOT PATENT AN IDEA OR CONCEPT, such as "playing a game in a room". You patent HOW YOU DO IT.

Even a cursory look at the link you provided and the actual patent application shows they are not even similar.

The link you provided says they use an "Intersense IS-900 ultrasonic/accelerometer-based tracking system". Claim 1 of the patent says they use a camera. Those are not the same.

The link you provided clearly shows they are using flat, carefully positioned white walls. The patent says that they use the camera "to compensate for the topography of the environmental surface". A different claim states that they "compensate for the color of the environmental surface".

They also talk about things like "shielding the user from the light by detecting his position". In other words, when the user is facing the projector, block out the image that would displayed on his face so as to not blind him. Clearly they don't have to do this in the cave system since it is using rear-projection.

When oh when is the slashdot crowd going to learn what patents are, what they protect, and what prior art is and is not? Something in a movie or science-fiction book is NOT prior art. Something that has the same end result but gets there in a different way is NOT prior art.

Re:Prior Art: Check UIUC Cave (1)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319845)

You do NOT PATENT AN IDEA OR CONCEPT, such as "playing a game in a room". You patent HOW YOU DO IT.

You haven't seen too many patents if you believe this. Patenting the goal is pretty common.

Something in a movie or science-fiction book is NOT prior art.

Tell it to Charles Hall, denied a patent on the waterbed because of a description in, yes, a science fiction book. Of course, nowadays the patent office is more strict, and nothing counts as prior art except another patent covering the same invention, and often enough not even that.

Prior Art... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41315781)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cinechamber

NOT a patent, not just CAVE (1)

stevejf (2724307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316757)

This is a patent APPLICATION, not a PATENT. The USPTO PAIR website, so far, has no examiner-side documents. As this was filed just 18 months ago, and things at the USTO can take around 30 months for a final decision, there will be plenty of time to examine prior art. I'm not convinced CAVE totally preempts this patent, either. CAVE is a room with perfectly flat walls and no furniture. The MS spec and claims describe the ability for the system to perceive depth and obstructions and distort the projection so that the user sees 'nothing' except the game environment, including in rooms with furniture and not just flat square walls.

Re:NOT a patent, not just CAVE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41317385)

3D projecton mapping you mean? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=034VtyH8fyc

It's quite effective on buildings - your brain gets completely fooled. Not sure how well it'd work in something as complex and nearby as a bedroom though (Presumably MS will have to pay to use that patent as well).

So their innovation is that they've merged the two ideas.. problem is someone was bound to think of that eventually (I bet it's been tried in universities already), hence I'm hesitant in calling it patentable... giving someone 50 years free money for being first to patent?

Re:NOT a patent, not just CAVE (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319069)

problem is someone was bound to think of that eventually

Someone is bound to think of everything eventually. That's not a reason to deny someone a patent.

Already Done, though not at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41316839)

http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/c6.php

What about VR Glasses? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year and a half ago | (#41317315)

Aren't VR glasses better? The room in the article looks larger than my entire flat - not to mention it's full of stuff, not empty walls.

While this is cool for dedicated locations, and especially shared experiences, I think average home users would be better off with some cool 3D glasses, which seems to be sony's approach.

How about...no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41317577)

I'm rooting for Oculus Rift. VR headsets are much more immersive, inexpensive, and doesn't require you to set aside a separate room for it.

Old news (1)

NATP (992108) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319413)

So -- they're suggesting running a game in a CAVE virtual environment? Not exactly new. Multiscreen flight sims [xplane] are examples of one form of prior art (ok -- not quite CAVEs, but I don't know of a game in a CAVE environment. To argue that doing so is somehow non-obvious would be ridiculous. But I guess that's what lawyers are paid to do.

Re:Old news (1)

Damouze (766305) | about a year and a half ago | (#41320297)

I have actually seen demos of old games like Quake or Doom in a CAVE.

The fact that Micro$oft has been granted this pattern shows once again how f***i*g incompetent the US Patent Bureau is.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...