Here’s the really interesting thing about what you’re saying; everyone, listen up!..
XR (an umbrella term for AR/MR/VR) will soon be powerful/portable enough where we’ll basically be able to SEE and HEAR anything all around us as if it were real. Think Matrix or Inception.
The further XR gets, the closer we get to bringing sci-fi (or anything fathomable) into reality. This is a breeding ground for creative minds where fiction and reality will meet. So let’s say I have an idea for a spaceship, do I draw it and call it art/fiction, or do I technically design it and patent its functioning and then find a way to bring that functioning to life as we see and hear and walk through, the spaceship?
My plan is to get people in XR to notice the one idea I have developed/executed enough for it to be considered a working project (the “athletic” application I mentioned with 6 yrs groundwork), in combination with a general take on my creative mindset and way I think up things, and use all that as a springboard to either continue working on just that one project, or also bring in other XR projects that I’m just now barely outlining but I that I think will inspire just the right people if I can just get them to watch and respond to the promo videos I’m making for them.
I’m trying to make custom promo videos for each entity I approach but this is very time-consuming. I don’t really know how else to show I’m interested in a potential partnership than to show initiative researching the person I’m pitching (vidchting?) to.
Maybe I’m wrong about this field, but why can’t you just self-market your ideas/implementations on YouTube? Join forums in the XR community and ask for critiques? If your ideas and creations are as good as you claim, someone will notice and seek you out for employment.
How far along have you got on the project (free running video) that you mentioned in the other thread? Were you able to produce anything that could be considered a finished product? What’s your track record for actually producing a demo reel?
Oh, and speaking of 20 years, if you want to break into the programming/tech word, it will help for you to become 20 years younger. Getting into this at 39 is like a desk-jockey trying out for the NFL at 39.
While the tech/programming sector may skew young, why would being 39 be as much of an impediment for an ordinary knowledge worker as it is for elite athlete?
This. Any technical paper in computer science and engineering, at least, starts with a section on previous work. Of which there is usually tons, especially for hot topics. And here companies probably have internal proprietary development projects covering lots of the good ideas.
That’s why tech companies don’t talk to external inventors, who will just claim their great idea has been stolen - even if the company had been working on something similar for a year or two before.
Why should someone prorammed to change the way the real world works, want to fit into the world exactly as it is today? What’s the standard process/formula/protocol for identifying/assimilating world-bending creativity?
Simple, lack of IP protection. I want to be in a position to patent my ideas before releasing. I’ll keep your suggested route in mind, though, thank you! Keep in mind, just because people have made software/games/etc for decades without patents in place (or only very rarely) doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have been a good idea. Mechanics like Tetris, or the functioning of a lot of software, are intrinsically patentable. It’s just the software community hasn’t really gotten in the habit of protecting in that manner. It’s a sad paradox that I can’t rant about the specifics of my ideas and protect them at the same time.
A) I’m very hesitant to post in a public forum before I have I.P. protection. This is something you should all understand.
B) You’re very XR-shortsighted (as are your linked articles). There are as many XR applications as there are potential paintings, novels, patents, games, products, or companies. Do you think that back when we had just Pong/Arkanoid that we had already covered all possible computer-games or all methods of making computer-games? Back then you might have said “Well there’s nothing left for computer games to do, we’ve made them all”. Tip: Think of Inception (imagine that’s XR tech), where the characters bring anything they can think of into reality. Do you think VR theorists have really covered all those bases? Everything someone can possibly see and hear and feel?
To be surgical yet succinct, let’s suppose that the conglomerate project I was talking about in that long thread consisted of 3 things, 2 of which I’m keeping and one of which I’m discarding:
My main “athletic XR” invention (ongoing)
My drive to integrate my work with parkour/freerunning (“PK”/“FR”) and impress certain circles of players in those fields (ongoing)
specific elements of fiction (frozen/tabled indefinitely)
We might say I want to be the guy who brings XR to parkour.
Now that the details aren’t cleared up whatsoever, to your more important general question of whether I finish things or have a track record to speak of, the really honest answer is that someone would have to take a lot of time to examine what I’ve already done, in order to figure that out. Am I allowed to post links to my personal projects on this board? Because I’ll link to stuff if you want to see for yourself. It’s not exactly relevant though to where I’m heading (XR), and neither will someone in XR care a whole lot about what I’ve done thus far.
I have 1-2 years college education in computer-science (and music). I’ve had my head in the game my whole life; I’m not starting fresh. I’m not fluent in any specific language right now; my core is to generate more general things, like concepts that will inspire someone else to create a computer language to help fulfil.
This is a huge problem-area for me; do you have any creative advice on solving this issue?
Dude, it sounds like you want enter this field and go directly to the top, without having to do any of the low-level drudgery you need to build a reputation in the industry. The only way I know of to do this is to start your own company. It might not seem fair that you can’t get past the doorway demons to show your work to the leaders of the field, but that, alas, is how the world works.
Rant:
The problem with software patents is that there are few unique problems that aren’t being by solved daily by technical people all over the planet. Most skilled technical people are churning through problems so rapidly and are aware of the various alternatives that the thought of patenting something doesn’t really seem to apply.
I’m sure there are some things in software that most skilled technical people would agree rises above the noise to a level of creative problem solving beyond the normal that would warrant a patent. But, IMO, that number is probably many orders of magnitude smaller than what passes for patents.
I think it’s the opposite. The ideas flow far more rapidly than the tech moves along.
In my experience, ideas are common, the real talent is bringing it all together at the right time, cost, market, specific details that resonate with current culture, etc. It’s more about the execution than the idea.
For example, the movie Good Will Hunting was a good movie (IMO), but it’s not the idea that there is a troubled genius that makes it good, the story could have been almost anything. The reason the story is good has more to do how they put together the details to make a story where you care about the main character and there is some personal growth etc.
I would be interested in checking it out if you either link to it or PM me. I’m a creative guy and it’s fun to see what other people are up to.
Screenwriters have a similar problem. Studios will return unsolicited scripts unopened. The way they solve it is to get agents who are trusted by the studios, and go through them.
The way we do it in tech is to pitch your idea to a venture capitalist, with an NDA. If the VC thinks it is viable, he can get you enough money to get it implemented. You’ll also get feedback.
Once you get it implemented, even imperfectly, and if it is good enough, some company will buy yours. You’ll get ton of money, the VC will, and you will be able to get even more resources inside the company. EDA companies and drug companies do this all the time.
The other solution, as suggested above, is to get hired and then push your idea from the inside. But if it doesn’t match the direction of the company it might be really hard to get time and resources to do it. Google gives its people 10% of their time to work on new ideas, but that isn’t common.
I got to work on new ideas because I worked on research and advanced development when starting out, but I don’t think you have the credentials to get hired by Microsoft Research or the like. That doesn’t mean that your ideas aren’t good, just that research divisions mostly hire PhDs from top schools.
Where I live in Silicon Valley getting to a VC isn’t hard, assuming you have a good network. I don’t know where you are - but if you can sell it to someone with money, just as good.
I have four patents which are kind of software patents, and they are all bullshit. (I did get nice plaques for two and some money for the other two.) And I agree. Software people don’t keep patent notebooks, and there is prior art (unpublished) for almost any innovation. Since applying for patents is lengthy and expensive and probably wouldn’t even hold up almost no one does it unless a company is building a patent portfolio for trading.
I think that if the Patent office invalidated pretty much all software patents we’d be better off. And it has gotten worse. When I was at Bell Labs when someone in my group applied for a patent, the examiner would always come up with prior art, and we had to explain why that wasn’t valid. When I applied for patents after leaving the examiner just let them through. I think the patent office is funded by application fees now, so they have no incentive for not maximizing their income unless the prior art is blatant.
So, Rant + 1
OP - don’t even think about patenting your stuff.
1.) We already have the basics of this in recorded/CG scenery for stationary bikes and treadmills. Prior art.
2.) I’d think with parkour, which involves rapid movement through complex terrain, seeing things that aren’t there would be a very bad idea. Hope you have plenty of liability insurance.
3.) Couldn’t you be the guy who brings XR to hula-hoops, Cabbage Patch Kids, or pet rocks?
