[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: insight-users
Subject: Re: [Insight-users] HOW TO GET RID OF SOFTWARE PATENTS
From: Wagner Sales <wsales () gmail ! com>
Date: 2009-11-26 0:20:33
Message-ID: 11b83aa60911251620q2026ce00q7993abdc67f7b88d () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Hi Luis and all,
After a quick look at the patent list you posted here, everyone on
this needs to really think about Software Patents.
And the principal problem: a lot of these patents are about basic
operations in various fields.
And more: know about researchers that's do these patent and give to
these guys the same help are give to us: nothing.
Regards,
Wagner Sales
2009/11/25 Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez@kitware.com>:
> Hi Amit,
>
>
> You raised a very important question.
>
>
> There are seven clear actions that community members can undertake
> in order to get rid of the absurdity of software patents and algorithmic
> patents.
>
>
> and...
> just to motivate those how may think that this is "not their problem",
> here is a quick list of patents that clearly obstruct the progress of our
> field, taken from the estimate of 170,000 Software Patents existing
> today.
>
>
> 5,835,392 Method for performing complex fast Fourier transforms
> 5,886,908 Method of efficient Gradient Computation
> 6,055,556 Apparatus and method for Matrix Multiplication
> 6,078,938 Method and system for Solving Linear Systems
> 6,356,926 Device and method for calculating FFT
> 6,434,582 Cosine algorithm for relatively small angles
> 6,640,237 Method and system for generating a Trigonometric Function
> 6,665,697 Fourier Analysis method and apparatus calculating
> the Fourier Factor Wn utilizing trigonometric relations
> 6,745,215 Computer apparatus, program and method for determining
> the equivalence of two algebraic functions
> 6,792,569 Root solver and associated method for solving finite field
> polynomial equations.
> 5,132,992 Audio and video transmission and receiving systems
>
>
>
> There is a continuity between Math, Algorithms and Computer Software.
> None of them should be the object of the 20 years-long Monopoly that
> is a Patent.
>
>
> Here is what you can do now,
> to star fixing this broken system:
>
>
> 1) Request Conferences and Journal to impose disclosures
> for Patented methods, when accepting papers for publication.
>
> The practice of "Patent and Publish" must be *abolished*.
>
> Those who patent, and the next day submit a paper to a
> Conference or a Journal, should be charged for advertisement.
>
>
> 2) When attending conferences, make a habit of asking presenters
> if the method that they have described is covered by a Patent.
>
>
> A Patent is a Monopoly designed for excluding others from using an
> invention. That exclusionary principle conflicts with the spirit of scholarly
> publishing, and such conflict should be disclosed systematically.
> Many societies require this type of disclosure as a standard practice.
> (for example RSNA). We should demand the same in our field.
>
>
> 3) You can sign up for the peer review patent program
>
> http://www.peertopatent.org/
>
> and whenever you see a patent for which prior art exist,
> make sure that you disseminate that information.
>
>
> 4) When you see any method used in our communities, that
> is covered by a patent, alert and inform the community so
> they can avoid being trapped in using it and becoming
> dependent on it.
>
> Patented methods should be tagged and clearly marked
> so that we can remove them from the standard practices
> of the community.
>
>
> 5) Consider using Defensive Publications for methods that
> you consider to be essential for the field.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Defensive_Publication
>
> A defensive publication is a simplified patent application
> that very explicitly defines prior art and in this way prevents
> anybody else from Patenting the same.
>
> When Patent examiner evaluate a patent application, they
> are required to search on the patent database, but they are
> NOT required to search on the literature of the field. Therefore,
> the best way of defining prior art is to file defensive publications
> with the Patent Office.
>
> This program is now called "Statutory Invention Registration"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_invention_registration
>
>
> 6) Whenever you come across an overreaching patent
> (pretty much every patent today...), publicize that information
> and help people find alternative methods based on prior art.
>
>
> 7) Join the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org)
> and/or the Electronic Frontier Foundation www.eff.org
>
> These are the two organizations that most seriously
> work on fixing the mistake of Software Patents.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Luis
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:26 AM, amit kumar <a123kumar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Several of us feel strongly about how software patents obstruct research.
> > Interested to hear your thoughts on what the community could do to stymie
> > this practice or circumvent fuzzy generic patents ?
> >
> > 1. Can we maintain a list of list of candidate patents where alternate
> > methods are sought ?.
> > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching_cubes
> > Marching tetrahedrons came out of such a response from the computer graphics
> > community.
> >
> > 2. Several applicants seek to patent specific applications of published
> > techiniques.
> > Are there patents obvious ?. What can we do about them ?
> >
> > Hope we can identify some actionable baby steps..
> >
> > regards,
> > ak
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez@kitware.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > As Bill and Michael have pointed out,
> > >
> > > The "Experimental" exception for the exclusive rights of Patents
> > > (in the US) applies only:
> > >
> > > "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity,
> > > or strictly for philosophical inquiry."
> > >
> > > See:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=b7930f1d-b945-4f95-b825-fa9ac70c16af
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > >
> > > http://books.google.com/books?id=-gLuY2rBU9oC&pg=RA2-PA9-IA466&lpg=RA2-PA9-IA466 \
> > > &dq=for+amusement,+to+satisfy+idle+curiosity&source=bl&ots=qQdZEW6lDu&sig=VyoBqK \
> > > 6AHJ4iEUKsRbyeXPJLjBg&hl=en&ei=idoJS4zHDpCZlAeYhaGhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=res \
> > > ult&resnum=4&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=for%20amusement%2C%20to%20satisfy%20idle%20curiosity&f=false
> > >
> > >
> > > A part from that,
> > > you are not allowed to:
> > >
> > > * Use
> > > * Make
> > > * Sell
> > > * Offer for sale
> > > * Import
> > >
> > > any embodiment of an invention that is protected by a Patent,
> > > without the permission of the Patent holder.
> > >
> > >
> > > More on the Research Exemption for Patents at
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption
> > >
> > >
> > > Note also that Patents have only national jurisdiction.
> > > That is, the patent in question here:
> > >
> > > "A method and apparatus for identifying scale invariant features in
> > > an image and a further method and apparatus for using such scale
> > > invariant features to locate an object in an image"
> > >
> > > http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6711293
> > >
> > > only apply to the United States.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Therefore, if you are outside of the US, you can make, use,
> > > sell, and offer for sale any implementation of this US patented
> > > method.
> > >
> > > Beware however,
> > > that is common for companies to patent the same invention
> > > in multiple countries. Therefore, you still have to check with
> > > the patent database of your respective country.
> > >
> > >
> > > For more on Patents and how they obstruct the progress of science
> > > and technology you may want to read.
> > >
> > > "Patent Failure"
> > > "How Judges,Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk"
> > > by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer
> > > Princeton University Press
> > > http://www.researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "Math you can't use:"
> > > "Patents, Copyright, and Software "
> > > http://www.amazon.com/Math-You-Cant-Use-Copyright/dp/0815749422
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "The Public Domain"
> > > "Enclosing the Commons of the Mind"
> > > by James Boyle
> > > http://www.thepublicdomain.org/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BTW,
> > > The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing the criteria that the
> > > US Patent Office should use for granting patents.
> > >
> > >
> > > From the Wall Street Journal:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537481229336114.html
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > >
> > > The most telling moment in the Bilski argument was when Justice Breyer
> > > asked how the balance should be struck between granting patents for
> > > methods that applied to machines as opposed to methods that apply to
> > > how information is used. "I don't know," he answered. "And I don't
> > > know whether across the board or in this area or that area patent
> > > protection would do no harm or more harm than good."
> > >
> > > Likewise, Justice Sotomayor said she couldn't predict the result if
> > > the court tried to clarify what can be patented and what can't. "I
> > > have no idea what the limits of that ruling will impose in the
> > > computer world, in the biomedical world."
> > >
> > > Such humility is rare at the Supreme Court, but as the justices come
> > > to a decision in this case, they should remember above all that legal
> > > uncertainty about intellectual property has real costs. For now, the
> > > most innovative parts of our economy bear the burden of uncertainty,
> > > with no one knowing for sure who owns what rights to which ideas,
> > > inventions or discoveries.
> > >
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > >
> > > It is not surprising that Patent Systems were abolished in several
> > > countries in the past: for example in The Netherlands in 1869.
> > >
> > > By the time of the American Revolution; England was the only country
> > > where a Patent system was in place. It was common knowledge that
> > > the creation of Monopolies was detrimental for the Economy, particularly
> > > for a market economy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In August 1813, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
> > >
> > > "I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only
> > > country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to
> > > the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes
> > > done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but,
> > > generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies
> > > produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be
> > > observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as
> > > fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
> > >
> > > http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Luis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Michael Mai <Michael.Mai@zeiss-oim.de>
> > > wrote:
> > > > See http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/ITK_Patent_Bazaar for answer.
> > > > Summarized: Unfortunately no, even non-commercial research have to obey
> > > > patents.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: insight-users-bounces@itk.org
> > > > [mailto:insight-users-bounces@itk.org] Im Auftrag von Rupin
> > > > Gesendet: Freitag, 20. November 2009 00:44
> > > > An: insight-users@itk.org
> > > > Betreff: Re: [Insight-users] SIFT/feature based registration in ITK?
> > > >
> > > > Are you not allowed to use patented methods for non-commercial research
> > > > !?!
> > > >
> > > > Rupin
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:22 -0800, Torsten Rohlfing
> > > > <torsten@synapse.sri.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Another reason for lack of motivation to implement SIFT in ITK might
> > > > > also be that SIFT is patented.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Someone mentioned off list that they are slowly working on writing
> > > > > > SIFT for ITK - has there really been no past effort like this? Is the
> > > > > > idea that ITK deals mainly with medical images and intensity based
> > > > > > registration is typically fine for those?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > _____________________________________
> > > > Powered by www.kitware.com
> > > >
> > > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> > > > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> > > >
> > > > Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> > > > http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html
> > > >
> > > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> > > > http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> > > >
> > > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > > > http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
> > > > _____________________________________
> > > > Powered by www.kitware.com
> > > >
> > > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> > > > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> > > >
> > > > Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> > > > http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html
> > > >
> > > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> > > > http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> > > >
> > > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > > > http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
> > > >
> > > _____________________________________
> > > Powered by www.kitware.com
> > >
> > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> > > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> > >
> > > Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> > > http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html
> > >
> > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> > > http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> > >
> > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > > http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
> >
> >
> _____________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
>
_____________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic