Skip to main content

Oculus issues response to Zenimax lawsuit over Rift VR

Oculus Rift
Image used with permission by copyright holder

The legal scuffle between virtual reality system developer Oculus VR and ZeniMax, the former employer of Oculus CTO John Carmack, turned a new corner this week with the VR company issuing an official response to the lawsuit ZeniMax filed in late May.

As in previous statements, Oculus vehemently denied the presence of any and all coding or hardware in its Rift VR system that Carmack was responsible for while an employee of ZeniMax. The official response went on to reiterate that it was Oculus founder Palmer Luckey, not Carmack, who created the Rift VR system, and he did so well before Carmack and ZeniMax had any involvement with the system.

“By deliberately misstating some facts and omitting others, ZeniMax makes the incredible assertion that it, a videogame software publishing company for personal computers and consoles like the Sony PlayStation, invented and developed a virtual reality hardware and software system,” reads the introduction to Oculus’ response to the lawsuit. “The truth is quite different.”

The statement goes on reiterate the company’s belief that the lawsuit is a product of Facebook’s recent $2 billion purchase of Oculus VR, and an effort by ZeniMax to cash in on the deal. With ZeniMax having access to the Oculus source code and other elements years before the Facebook deal and having lodged no complaints during that time, Oculus claims that ZeniMax is now attempting to make up for missing the opportunity to invest in the system earlier in its development.

“ZeniMax had never identified any ‘stolen’ code or technology in any Oculus VR product, although ZeniMax had the full source code for the Oculus VR software for over a year and a half (having received it directly from Oculus VR well before it was even released publicly), and could have analyzed it online anytime (at developer.oculusvr.com),” the response continues. “Until the Facebook deal, and the perceived chance for a quick payout, ZeniMax never raised any claim of infringement against Oculus VR, undoubtedly because ZeniMax never has contributed any intellectual property or technology to Oculus VR.”

The response also puts quite a bit of emphasis on Luckey’s work in virtual reality systems that occurred prior to Carmack reaching out to him and the creation of Oculus as a company.

“The Oculus Rift was conceived by a gifted teenage inventor, Palmer Luckey,” it asserts. “Luckey pioneered major advancements in virtual reality technology. He then decided to turn those advancements into something other people could use in the form of the Rift — the world’s leading, head-mounted, virtual reality headset. Luckey created many working virtual reality (VR) head-mounted displays (HMDs), incorporated a number of different motion sensors into those HMDs, shared his work publicly, and displayed those HMDs live on numerous occasions — all before having any interaction or communication with ZeniMax.”

With regard to the connection between the Rift VR system and ZeniMax, the statement indicates that ZeniMax’s own actions with regard to Oculus put a dent in the company’s claims.

“ZeniMax never claimed ownership rights over the Rift based on any supposed contribution to any technology in the Rift, because ZeniMax knew it had made none. To the contrary, prior to this lawsuit, ZeniMax claimed compensation based on the publicity it had generated for the Rift (along with ZeniMax videogames). This made no sense at the time and it makes no sense now,” reasons the statement.

“Suppose ZeniMax had helped create publicity for the Sony PlayStation platform with ZeniMax videogame demos that were made to work on prototype PlayStations. ZeniMax would never say it owned a piece of the Sony PlayStation technology and Sony’s business. Likewise, ZeniMax knows Luckey invented the Rift and the technology powering it. ZeniMax knows that Carmack, the senior technical ZeniMax employee communicating with Luckey, and the only ZeniMax employee working on virtual reality gaming technology, has unequivocally and consistently stated that Luckey invented and developed the Rift.”

The introductory statement closes in no uncertain terms, reiterating Oculus’ belief that the lawsuit is a cash-grab by ZeniMax.

“ZeniMax had a golden opportunity to make an early investment in Oculus VR and chose to pass,” it asserts. “The lawsuit is nothing more than ZeniMax seeking to correct for a massive missed opportunity through the assertion of meritless litigation.”

Clearly, neither side of this lawsuit is pulling any punches. No court date has been set for a hearing, but in its response, Oculus requests a jury trial for any and all matters relating to the case.

Editors' Recommendations

Rick Marshall
A veteran journalist with more than two decades of experience covering local and national news, arts and entertainment, and…
The Nintendo Switch just got 2 surprise games — and they’re both worth grabbing
A teddy beat sits on an embroidery hoop in Stitch.

If you were unable to catch this week's Nintendo IndieWorld showcase, then you missed a surprisingly loaded show. Lorelei and the Laser Eyes got a May release date, WayForward showed off its Yars' Revenge revival, and Steamworld Heist 2 got an exciting reveal. In the midst of all those headlines, two smaller games were surprise released on the platform: Stitch and Sticky Business. Don't sleep on either of them, as they're both worth a purchase.

Both games are ports of previously released games, but both went a bit under the radar upon their original launch. Sticky Business modestly launched last summer on PC, whereas Stitch has actually been around since 2022 as an Apple Arcade exclusive. The latter even has an Apple Vision Pro version now that can be played in mixed reality. I can't blame anyone for missing either, but their Switch releases offer a good opportunity to catch up with some quiet hidden gems.

Read more
Is this Razer’s Steam Deck killer?
The Razer Kishi Ultra sitting on a table.

Razer has been oddly quiet in the burgeoning world of handheld gaming PCs. When I met up with the company at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) to learn about its new products, I was happy to hear it had an answer to the success of the Steam Deck.

But it was not the type of answer I was expecting.

Read more
The best iPhone emulators
A collage of the delta emulator.

The market for iPhone games has become so wide and diverse that it can realistically compete with most console and PC offerings. Where we once only got cheap time-wasters, we now have complete experiences that don't feel any less impressive than what the competition offers. In fact, a lot of games made for consoles are appearing on the iPhone now that it is becoming so powerful. However, older games have paradoxically been mostly absent from the app store. That all could be about to change as emulation is now allowed on iPhone, though with some caveats that any retro fan should know about before getting too excited to play all your favorite NES games on your phone. Here's what's up with iPhone emulators, as well as our picks for a few of the best ones you can get right now.
What you need to know about emulation on iPhone
Emulators on iPhone, as well as emulation in general, are in a strange legal gray zone. Previously, the only way to get an emulator on your iPhone was through some workarounds that generally involved jailbreaking your phone, That differs from Android, which has enjoyed native emulators for years. In 2024, Apple updated its App Store guidelines to allow for emulators on its store, but with some important restrictions.

Here's the exact wording: "Apps may offer certain software that is not embedded in the binary, specifically HTML5 mini apps and mini games, streaming games, chatbots, and plug-ins. Additionally, retro game console emulator apps can offer to download games. You are responsible for all such software offered in your app, including ensuring that such software complies with these guidelines and all applicable laws. Software that does not comply with one or more guidelines will lead to the rejection of your app. You must also ensure that the software adheres to the additional rules that follow in 4.7.1 and 4.7.5. These additional rules are important to preserve the experience that App Store customers expect, and to help ensure user safety."

Read more