4 ms·
Many of the same arguments apply to patented algorithms in image processing and computer vision as well. SIFT and SURF are probably the two most famous examples
by mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Many of the same arguments apply to patented algorithms in image processing and computer vision as well. SIFT and SURF are probably the two most famous examples, e.g. [0] and [1].
Two quick anecdotes about this. The result of the message board thread of [0] once led to a compliance team in my former company to ban all use of OpenCV for computer vision applications (which, obviously, is insane). They took an exceedingly risk averse stance that if any of our software imported a third party OpenCV library that contained SIFT, this potentially opened us up to a lawsuit, even if we did not actually use SIFT (and might incur costs for us to prove we didn't use SIFT). Needless to say, this created an unbelievable amount of pain for being on computer vision and image processing teams there. Lots of re-implementing of basic algorithms, but without the benefit of years of community development, testing, etc.
And [1] below indicates the sort of patent-avoiding contortions people will go through in research. If your algorithm is patented, typically it means people won't use it and will do whatever is needed to avoid it, even just abandoning a certain line of research all together and choosing something else without the possible patent hurdle.
In the most innocuous cases, it just means the patented algorithm receives far less research attention and becomes irrelevant faster (giving the interpretation that the patent acts as a very short term royalty grab by the patent author, which seems antithetical to the stated public innovation goals of a patent system in the first place).
In worse cases, the patent acts like a research roadblock that can thwart useful lines of research from others. When patents allow for uncompensated academic work to use the algorithm royalty-free, that can sometimes be an OK middle ground, but still doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the whole idea to spark and catalyze innovation in the first place.
[0]: < http://opencv-users.1802565.n2.nabble.com/SURF-protected-by-patent-td3458734.html http://opencv-users.1802565.n2.nabble.com/SURF-protected-by-... >
[1]: < https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/1288/what-are-some-free-alternatives-to-sift-surf-that-can-be-used-in-commercial-app https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/1288/what-are-some-f... >.
- EthanHeilman 8y agoI suspect that fields sufficiently similar to Mathematics are a poor fit for the patents and will inevitably adopt the norms of Mathematics research.
- AndrewKemendo 8y agoThis is basically the story of why ORB-SLAM didn't become the de facto commercial slam implementation. They wanted iirc 30k per license, which is impossible for any startup.