[Insight-users] HOW TO GET RID OF SOFTWARE PATENTS
Wagner Sales
wsales at gmail.com
Wed Nov 25 19:20:33 EST 2009
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 at 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 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
>>
>>
> _____________________________________
> 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