[Insight-users] HOW TO GET RID OF SOFTWARE PATENTS
Luis Ibanez
luis.ibanez at kitware.com
Wed Nov 25 19:03:54 EST 2009
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 at 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 at 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=VyoBqK6AHJ4iEUKsRbyeXPJLjBg&hl=en&ei=idoJS4zHDpCZlAeYhaGhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&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 at 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 at itk.org
>> > [mailto:insight-users-bounces at itk.org] Im Auftrag von Rupin
>> > Gesendet: Freitag, 20. November 2009 00:44
>> > An: insight-users at 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 at 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
>
>
More information about the Insight-users
mailing list