Hello everyone.

We have decided to phase out the Mixed Reality Forums over the next few months in favor of other ways to connect with us.

The first way we want to connect with you is our mixed reality developer program, which you can sign up for at https://aka.ms/IWantMR.

The plan between now and the beginning of May is to clean up old, unanswered questions that are no longer relevant. The forums will remain open and usable.

On May 1st we will be locking the forums to new posts and replies. They will remain available for another three months for the purposes of searching them, and then they will be closed altogether on August 1st.

So, where does that leave our awesome community to ask questions? Well, there are a few places we want to engage with you. For technical questions, please use Stack Overflow, and tag your questions using either hololens or windows-mixed-reality. If you want to join in discussions, please do so in the HoloDevelopers Slack, which you can join by going to https://aka.ms/holodevelopers. And always feel free to hit us up on Twitter @MxdRealityDev.

Do multiple Microsoft patents around AR/MR technology limit what developers can do?

I was reviewing the long list of MS patents for AR/MR technology. It seems that a lot of areas for applications is already patented by Microsoft. Just as an example, I've noticed these patents: Service provision using personal audio/visual system, Augmented books in a mixed reality environment, Personal audio/visual system providing allergy awareness, Exercising application for personal audio/visual system, etc. There are hundreds of claims in each of them covering every possible implementation. Just after a quick review of the claims it looks like any applications for Hololens from correspondently service, books, allergy awareness, fitness categories are covered by the above patents. Does it mean that no developer/company can develop apps for Hololens in these categories other than Microsoft itself? It looks like Microsoft already patented the majority of potential future apps. This goes against the whole encouragement to develop for Hololens. Could you please clear this up for me?

Answers

  • Jimbohalo10Jimbohalo10 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2016

    @andreivu1 A similar question on thread Microsoft HoloLens Partnership

    Quote of last part


    A partnership is not required for creating compelling holographic experiences, it just gives developers a jump-start and access to 1:1 development support for their project. There is nothing that should prevent a company from developing holographic apps on their own.


    The patents are to protect from large companies taking ideas. The major AR/VR/MR players/companies are doing this as well.
    Unfortunately in 3D printing this is the same.

    This has not stopped other companies from building printers even though Stratsys
    Hold almost ALL the patents for 3D printing.

    People still innovate and the cross platform/device usage between the 3D community is huge.

    For instance the Lesser GNU Licence means that open source code can now be used in HoloLens, with seeking patent of copyright problems.

    In UK and Europe patents are very expensive so Copyright tends to be fought for in the Courts.

    So Microsoft HoloLens Partnership is the way to go

    HoloLens is currently a massive research and development probably a five year project.

    These are my views. I am not a Patent Lawyer, or anything legal and not connected with Microsoft in any way.

  • @Jimbohalo10 said:

    @andreivu1 A similar question on thread Microsoft HoloLens Partnership

    Quote of last part


    A partnership is not required for creating compelling holographic experiences, it just gives developers a jump-start and access to 1:1 development support for their project. There is nothing that should prevent a company from developing holographic apps on their own.


    The patents are to protect from large companies taking ideas. The major AR/VR/MR players/companies are doing this as well.
    Unfortunately in 3D printing this is the same.

    This has not stopped other companies from building printers even though Stratsys
    Hold almost ALL the patents for 3D printing.

    People still innovate and the cross platform/device usage between the 3D community is huge.

    For instance the Lesser GNU Licence means that open source code can now be used in HoloLens, with seeking patent of copyright problems.

    In UK and Europe patents are very expensive so Copyright tends to be fought for in the Courts.

    So Microsoft HoloLens Partnership is the way to go

    HoloLens is currently a massive research and development probably a five year project.

    These are my views. I am not a Patent Lawyer, or anything legal and not connected with Microsoft in any way.

    Thanks for your response. However this wouldn't be ideal. To my knowledge partnerships with MS of the same type that Volvo did costs quite a lot. Thus for an independent developer it will be virtually impossible to do that.

    I'm curious how Microsoft will proceed when people start creating commercial apps for Hololens or other AR/MR devices. Are they going to ignore everything while Hololens is still not that widespread and go after these new apps in ~5 years when MR devices become a commonly used devices for everyone and thus the apps become profitable?

    I understand that in the modern business world each company will protect its IP as much as possible. But having these big patents with so many claims within different areas seems to be limiting what other developers can do and thus limiting Hololens promotion to masses. Or am I missing something and these patents don't really stop developers from implementing new ideas?

    Btw, here's a link with short description of some of the patents which I referenced in my original question: http://patents.justia.com/inventor/ben-j-sugden

  • CurvSurfCurvSurf ✭✭
    edited September 2016

    Patents are only the tip of the iceberg.

    From the viewpoint of us CurvSurf, none of Apple, Google, Intel, Microsoft, or others understand the essentials of 3-D data processing, or the differences between the 2-D and the 3-D data processing. For example, do you understand why the edge detection in point cloud does not function as that was in image data? There are many other aspects of 3-D data processing not published not announced and having nothing to do with patents or publications yet.

    Look our techniques' results:
    Google +CurvSurf
    https://plus.google.com/+CurvSurf
    YouTube Channel CurvSurf
    https://youtube.com/user/finger6207
    curvsurf.com
    curvsurf.com/

  • An object in 2-D/3-D space has shape, size, position, and orientation. The rigid-body motion of the object changes the position and orientation but not the shape and size.

    A practical example of 3-D data processing tasks: How to define/determine the position of a real cylindrical object in 3-D space.

    There are many other examples of 2-D/3-D data processing task. E.g., how to define/determine the position of a real conical object in 3-D space.

  • In the UK computer patents are subject to the most rigorous scrutiny, you virtually have to write a PHD Thesis now. In the US you can register for a pre patent, register a claim and apply legal enforcement, BEFORE actually receiving a patent only to be rejected.
    In the UK you cannot enforce until you have the assigned FINAL patent, this could take years as this often goes to an NDA Senate of Professors.

    Therefore in UK just like in US three years has passed before assignment of the example patents that's only because a device namely HoloLens exists!.

    My friend is Patent Agent working for a large global company and as he points out every patent has to be registered in EVERY country.

    Just because the US Supreme Court granted it does not give an automatic right is the UK :smile:

    In the UK you are more likely to get a patent if you can show a tangible device exists, than an idea. For Intellectual property to exist it must be tangible not an idea.
    Quote from CurveSurf


    None of Apple, Google, Intel, Microsoft, or others understand the essentials of 3-D data processing, or the differences between the 2-D and the 3-D data processing
    There are many other aspects of 3-D data processing not published not announced and having nothing to do with patents or publications yet.


    This is a good point which is they cannot be explained properly therefore they cannot be patented.

    Do you want the inner most workings of your device to be exposed published to the world who could reverse engineer your device therefore sidestepping your patent?

Sign In or Register to comment.