[Insight-developers] Patented code

[Jay Udupa]

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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>