[Insight-developers] Patented code

[Jay Udupa]

Stephen:

I would like to answer this in detail but I am leaving town now and I 
will not be able to participate in the t-con tomorrow. Briefly, my stand 
is as follows. I thought the spirit of our previous discussion was that, 
only for non-commercial use, code with patented algorithms can be used 
and modified but not for commercial and for profit use. I don't know 
what the ramifications of what you wrote below are with this 
consideration. Also, this issue should be considered in general and not 
just as applicable to me only.

Jay
___

Stephen R. Aylward wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>