(resending this; I sent this yesterday already but the mail was rejected because I was not subscribed.) Hi all, is this implmentation related to the new ICZT algorithm? (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50234-9) This is absolutely fascinating stuff, but there also seems to be a patent on the algorithm: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2019023220 Maybe that's no problem at all (I haven't researched what the licensing terms are), but it might need careful checking. Cheers, Martin
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 5:28 AM Martin Reinecke <martin@mpa-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
(resending this; I sent this yesterday already but the mail was rejected because I was not subscribed.)
Hi all,
is this implmentation related to the new ICZT algorithm? (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50234-9)
This is absolutely fascinating stuff, but there also seems to be a patent on the algorithm: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2019023220
Maybe that's no problem at all (I haven't researched what the licensing terms are), but it might need careful checking.
Reminds me of the fast Hartley transform that was patented by Stanford in 1987. the patent was dropped in 1995. Chuck
On 11/4/20 5:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
Reminds me of the fast Hartley transform that was patented by Stanford in 1987. the patent was dropped in 1995.
There are cases where a algorithm is patented, but it is still possible to have open-source implementations of it. One example is here: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/08/aa32858-18/aa32858-18.ht... (ctrl-f "patent"). So maybe it's too early to give up hope. Cheers, Martin
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:14 PM Martin Reinecke <martin@mpa-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
On 11/4/20 5:47 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
Reminds me of the fast Hartley transform that was patented by Stanford in 1987. the patent was dropped in 1995.
There are cases where a algorithm is patented, but it is still possible to have open-source implementations of it. One example is here:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/08/aa32858-18/aa32858-18.ht... (ctrl-f "patent").
So maybe it's too early to give up hope.
Sure, it is legal to have open source implementations of patented algorithms. You are just pushing off the responsibility to acquire a patent license onto the user of your software. The copyright license to _redistribute_ your implementation is technically orthogonal to the patent on the _use_ of the algorithm itself. Note that in the case you point to, it is the patent holder that released the open source implementation, which would not be the case here. As a matter of policy, we will not include implementations of patented algorithms in scipy because it makes the licensing story significantly more complicated. We want the rights to use the algorithms in scipy to be as free as the rights to redistribute. The proper place for code that is subject to patents is in a separate project. -- Robert Kern
participants (3)
-
Charles R Harris -
Martin Reinecke -
Robert Kern