[Insight-developers] Patented code

[Stephen R. Aylward]

Hi Jay (and ITK developers),

Thanks for the clarification.

I've been reading up on this a bit (look at www.opensource.org and 
www.openarchives.org) - it really is a quagmire...

Jay, so that we can have at least one datapoint for our discussion at 
the tcon on Friday, it would be good to know what someone with a 
patented method in ITK would like to see happen.  Perhaps you or someone 
from your group can let us know which (one or more) of the following 
options you find acceptable:

(1) You provide a letter making your method open-source; that is, open 
to use and modification without payment as detailed in the current ITK 
licensing.

(2) You provide a letter allowing us to distribute and modify your 
method and to move your method into a patented directory.  We need to 
have the right to modify your code in order to maintain it.  The 
downside is that code "maintenance" may possibly result in modifications 
to the code that aren't covered by your patent.  If such modifications 
occur, those modifications would be the intellectual property of the 
person making the changes - you might loose the right to the free use of 
something you originally contributed to ITK.

(3) You provide a letter allowing us to distribute (but not modify) your 
method and allowing use to move your method into a patented directory. 
Your group would assume the task of maintaining your code.  That way, 
you maintain all of the intellectual property associated with your 
method in ITK.  However, if your method doesn't compile on a particular 
machine, your group must be the ones to fix it - this requires constant 
attention.  Also, othere may still come up with modified versions of 
your code, but they would be in separate files - you would maintain 
access to a method that is 100% yours.

There are probably other options...feel free to share them at the tcon...

Thanks,
Stephen



Jay Udupa wrote:

> 
> Steve:
> 
> I presume you addressed the question to me, and I am not sure if the 
> question was relating to ASM/AAM or FC or both.
> 
> I think I did send a copy of the letter for ASM/AAM while the grant 
> proposal was submitted, in any case, before the contract was granted. I 
> have the original letter I secured from Tim Cootes. It says that there 
> is no patent on the core AAM algorithms but they hold "patents 
> concerning related work on separating different types of variation (e.g; 
> expression vs identity for faces) and on the use of the AAM with certain 
> non-linear features rather than the raw intensity models".
> 
> As for fuzzy connectedness, both the simple version of it submitted by 
> Celina et al. and the advanced version (scale-based, relative, 
> iterative, etc.) submitted by us from Penn are protected. I don't think 
> that Celina secured a letter of permission from me nor did I submit a 
> letter of permission in this connection.
> 
> Jay
> ____
> 
> 
> Stephen R. Aylward wrote:
> 
>> Have you provided Terry a letter granting its use and distribution?
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> Jay Udupa wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I thought there is a mechanism that has already been incorporated to 
>>> handle implementations of patented methods. Fuzzy connenctedness 
>>> definitely belongs to that category since I hold a patent on that 
>>> method.
>>>
>>> Jay Udupa
>>> ____
>>>
>>> Stephen R. Aylward wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just spoke with a patent lawyer.
>>>>
>>>> By distributing patented methods as code we are technically 
>>>> commiting a crime called "contributory infringement." Even if we 
>>>> don't use the code ourselves, we are making it easier for others to 
>>>> do so. No amount of documentation or disclaimer insulates us. Being 
>>>> "open source" does not insulate us. If someone notifies us that some 
>>>> code is patented, as someone just did regarding ICP, and we do 
>>>> nothing, then additional laws are being broken.
>>>>
>>>> We must have written permission from the patent holder to distribute 
>>>> any code that implements a method covered by a patent. In the event 
>>>> that the patent holder has granted an exclusive licenced of any 
>>>> portion or application of the patented technology, then we also need 
>>>> to get written permission from that licensee.
>>>>
>>>> Seems like this is a huge headache. As Bill has been telling us :)
>>>>
>>>> It seems like we should not take on the burden of getting permission.
>>>>
>>>> Option 1:
>>>> Anyone who contributes code must attain permission. That permission 
>>>> is likely to have stipulations regarding the conditions of 
>>>> distribution (patented directory, etc.). Are we willing to adapt our 
>>>> distribution/directory to fit requirements as they develop?
>>>>
>>>> Option 2:
>>>> We don't allow patented code.
>>>>
>>>> Other options? Comments?
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
===========================================================
Dr. Stephen R. Aylward
Associate Professor of Radiology
Adjunct Associate Professor of Computer Science and Surgery
http://caddlab.rad.unc.edu
aylward at unc.edu
(919) 966-9695