SURF protected by patent!?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

SURF protected by patent!?

Matthias Schmieder
Hi,

i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.

How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general BSD licence??

Can anyone shed some light to this?!?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Samuel Audet
hyblade wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
>
> How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general BSD licence??
>
> Can anyone shed some light to this?!?

The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very much
doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of it,
but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...

Samuel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Jostein Austvik Jacobsen
Here's the original paper outlining SURF:
ftp://ftp.vision.ee.ethz.ch/publications/articles/eth_biwi_00517.pdf
The paper is by Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne Tuytelaars and Luc Van Gool.
Anael Orlinski is not mentioned.

A quick google indicates that Orlinski has written another SURF
implementation, but it doesn't seem that he holds any patent...

Jostein

2009/8/17 Samuel Audet <[hidden email]>

>
>
> hyblade wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature
> Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
> >
> > How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general
> BSD licence??
> >
> > Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
>
> The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very much
> doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of it,
> but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...
>
> Samuel
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Matthias Schmieder
In reply to this post by Samuel Audet
Understanding the BSD licence correctly, OpenCV is not restricted to academic purposes only. It's also usable vor commercial stuff, i think...

Here is the licence text, which doesen't restrict the commercial use in my opinion:

IMPORTANT: READ BEFORE DOWNLOADING, COPYING, INSTALLING OR USING.

By downloading, copying, installing or using the software you agree to this license.
If you do not agree to this license, do not download, install,
copy or use the software.


                       Intel License Agreement
               For Open Source Computer Vision Library

Copyright (C) 2000-2006, Intel Corporation, all rights reserved.
Third party copyrights are property of their respective owners.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

  * Redistribution's of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

  * Redistribution's in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

  * The name of Intel Corporation may not be used to endorse or promote products
    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

This software is provided by the copyright holders and contributors "as is" and
any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed.
In no event shall the Intel Corporation or contributors be liable for any direct,
indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages
(including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services;
loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) however caused
and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability,
or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of
the use of this software, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.  


--- In [hidden email], Samuel Audet <samuel.audet@...> wrote:

>
> hyblade wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
> >
> > How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general BSD licence??
> >
> > Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
>
> The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very much
> doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of it,
> but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...
>
> Samuel
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Matthias Schmieder
In reply to this post by Jostein Austvik Jacobsen
Yes, i knew the paper, i read it some months ago. But the fact, that the "hugin" panorama tool won't provide a automatic interest point detection cause of patent issues made me thinking.

And if i understand the licence of OpenCV correctly it isn't restricted to non-commercial usage...

--- In [hidden email], Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@...> wrote:

>
> Here's the original paper outlining SURF:
> ftp://ftp.vision.ee.ethz.ch/publications/articles/eth_biwi_00517.pdf
> The paper is by Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne Tuytelaars and Luc Van Gool.
> Anael Orlinski is not mentioned.
>
> A quick google indicates that Orlinski has written another SURF
> implementation, but it doesn't seem that he holds any patent...
>
> Jostein
>
> 2009/8/17 Samuel Audet <samuel.audet@...>
>
> >
> >
> > hyblade wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature
> > Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
> > >
> > > How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general
> > BSD licence??
> > >
> > > Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
> >
> > The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very much
> > doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of it,
> > but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...
> >
> > Samuel
> >  
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: SURF protected by patent!?

dangrsmind
Yes, you are correct about this patent.  OpenCV has other similar problems as well.  

Solution: A similar algorithm, SIFT, is not patented.  It is also faster.  

Use SIFT not SURF.

Regards,

Peter Rothman





________________________________
From: hyblade <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:32:44 AM
Subject: [OpenCV] Re: SURF protected by patent!?

   
Yes, i knew the paper, i read it some months ago. But the fact, that the "hugin" panorama tool won't provide a automatic interest point detection cause of patent issues made me thinking.

And if i understand the licence of OpenCV correctly it isn't restricted to non-commercial usage...

--- In OpenCV@yahoogroups. com, Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@. ..> wrote:

>
> Here's the original paper outlining SURF:
> ftp://ftp.vision. ee.ethz.ch/ publications/ articles/ eth_biwi_ 00517.pdf
> The paper is by Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne Tuytelaars and Luc Van Gool.
> Anael Orlinski is not mentioned.
>
> A quick google indicates that Orlinski has written another SURF
> implementation, but it doesn't seem that he holds any patent...
>
> Jostein
>
> 2009/8/17 Samuel Audet <samuel.audet@ ...>
>
> >
> >
> > hyblade wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature
> > Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
> > >
> > > How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general
> > BSD licence??
> > >
> > > Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
> >
> > The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very much
> > doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of it,
> > but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...
> >
> > Samuel
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Stefán Freyr Stefánsson
Well... that's not true.

SIFT _is_ very patented, which has even been cited (here on this list)
as one of the reasons for it not being implemented in OpenCV.

See here for example: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OpenCV/message/63707

And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-invariant_feature_transform
"The algorithm is patented; the owner is the University of British Columbia.[2]"

Regards, Stefan Freyr.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, you are correct about this patent.  OpenCV has other similar problems as well.
>
> Solution: A similar algorithm, SIFT, is not patented.  It is also faster.
>
> Use SIFT not SURF.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Rothman
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: hyblade <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:32:44 AM
> Subject: [OpenCV] Re: SURF protected by patent!?
>
>
> Yes, i knew the paper, i read it some months ago. But the fact, that the "hugin" panorama tool won't provide a automatic interest point detection cause of patent issues made me thinking.
>
> And if i understand the licence of OpenCV correctly it isn't restricted to non-commercial usage...
>
> --- In OpenCV@yahoogroups. com, Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@. ..> wrote:
>>
>> Here's the original paper outlining SURF:
>> ftp://ftp.vision. ee.ethz.ch/ publications/ articles/ eth_biwi_ 00517.pdf
>> The paper is by Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne Tuytelaars and Luc Van Gool.
>> Anael Orlinski is not mentioned.
>>
>> A quick google indicates that Orlinski has written another SURF
>> implementation, but it doesn't seem that he holds any patent...
>>
>> Jostein
>>
>> 2009/8/17 Samuel Audet <samuel.audet@ ...>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > hyblade wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature
>> > Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
>> > >
>> > > How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general
>> > BSD licence??
>> > >
>> > > Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
>> >
>> > The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very much
>> > doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of it,
>> > but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...
>> >
>> > Samuel
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Change settings: http://www.yahoogroups.com/mygroups, select
>   Get Emails (get all posts)
>   Daily Digest (one summary email per day)
>   Read on the web (read posts on the web only)Or Unsubscribe by mailing [hidden email]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: SURF protected by patent!?

dangrsmind
My bad.  Got my four letter acronyms reversed...

You are correct.  

Peter




________________________________
From: Stefán Freyr Stefánsson <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:48:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OpenCV] Re: SURF protected by patent!?

   
Well... that's not true.

SIFT _is_ very patented, which has even been cited (here on this list)
as one of the reasons for it not being implemented in OpenCV.

See here for example: http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ OpenCV/message/ 63707

And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-invariant_feature_transform
"The algorithm is patented; the owner is the University of British Columbia.[2] "

Regards, Stefan Freyr.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, <dangrsmind@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Yes, you are correct about this patent.  OpenCV has other similar problems as well.
>
> Solution: A similar algorithm, SIFT, is not patented.  It is also faster.
>
> Use SIFT not SURF.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Rothman
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: hyblade <schmieder.matthias@ googlemail. com>
> To: OpenCV@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:32:44 AM
> Subject: [OpenCV] Re: SURF protected by patent!?
>
>
> Yes, i knew the paper, i read it some months ago. But the fact, that the "hugin" panorama tool won't provide a automatic interest point detection cause of patent issues made me thinking.
>
> And if i understand the licence of OpenCV correctly it isn't restricted to non-commercial usage...
>
> --- In OpenCV@yahoogroups. com, Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@. ..> wrote:
>>
>> Here's the original paper outlining SURF:
>> ftp://ftp.vision. ee.ethz.ch/ publications/ articles/ eth_biwi_ 00517.pdf
>> The paper is by Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne Tuytelaars and Luc Van Gool.
>> Anael Orlinski is not mentioned.
>>
>> A quick google indicates that Orlinski has written another SURF
>> implementation, but it doesn't seem that he holds any patent...
>>
>> Jostein
>>
>> 2009/8/17 Samuel Audet <samuel.audet@ ...>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > hyblade wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature
>> > Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
>> > >
>> > > How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general
>> > BSD licence??
>> > >
>> > > Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
>> >
>> > The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very much
>> > doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of it,
>> > but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...
>> >
>> > Samuel
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Change settings: http://www.yahoogroups.com/mygroups, select
>   Get Emails (get all posts)
>   Daily Digest (one summary email per day)
>   Read on the web (read posts on the web only)Or Unsubscribe by mailing OpenCV-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Jostein Austvik Jacobsen
I believe SURF is based on, as well as faster than, SIFT.

-Jostein

2009/8/17 <[hidden email]>

>
>
> My bad. Got my four letter acronyms reversed...
>
> You are correct.
>
> Peter
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stefán Freyr Stefánsson <[hidden email]<stefan.freyr%40gmail.com>
> >
> To: [hidden email] <OpenCV%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 7:48:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [OpenCV] Re: SURF protected by patent!?
>
>
> Well... that's not true.
>
> SIFT _is_ very patented, which has even been cited (here on this list)
> as one of the reasons for it not being implemented in OpenCV.
>
> See here for example: http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/
> OpenCV/message/ 63707
>
> And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-invariant_feature_transform
> "The algorithm is patented; the owner is the University of British
> Columbia.[2] "
>
> Regards, Stefan Freyr.
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, <dangrsmind@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > Yes, you are correct about this patent. OpenCV has other similar problems
> as well.
> >
> > Solution: A similar algorithm, SIFT, is not patented. It is also faster.
> >
> > Use SIFT not SURF.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter Rothman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: hyblade <schmieder.matthias@ googlemail. com>
> > To: OpenCV@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:32:44 AM
> > Subject: [OpenCV] Re: SURF protected by patent!?
> >
> >
> > Yes, i knew the paper, i read it some months ago. But the fact, that the
> "hugin" panorama tool won't provide a automatic interest point detection
> cause of patent issues made me thinking.
> >
> > And if i understand the licence of OpenCV correctly it isn't restricted
> to non-commercial usage...
> >
> > --- In OpenCV@yahoogroups. com, Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@.
> ..> wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's the original paper outlining SURF:
> >> ftp://ftp.vision. ee.ethz.ch/ publications/ articles/ eth_biwi_
> 00517.pdf
> >> The paper is by Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne Tuytelaars and Luc Van
> Gool.
> >> Anael Orlinski is not mentioned.
> >>
> >> A quick google indicates that Orlinski has written another SURF
> >> implementation, but it doesn't seem that he holds any patent...
> >>
> >> Jostein
> >>
> >> 2009/8/17 Samuel Audet <samuel.audet@ ...>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > hyblade wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature
> >> > Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
> >> > >
> >> > > How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the
> general
> >> > BSD licence??
> >> > >
> >> > > Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
> >> >
> >> > The owner of the patent is free to impose its patent or not. I very
> much
> >> > doubt they would sue an academic researcher making no profit out of
> it,
> >> > but watch out for it if you plan to make a product from it...
> >> >
> >> > Samuel
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > Change settings: http://www.yahoogroups.com/mygroups, select
> > Get Emails (get all posts)
> > Daily Digest (one summary email per day)
> > Read on the web (read posts on the web only)Or Unsubscribe by mailing
> OpenCV-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

liuliu_0503
In reply to this post by Matthias Schmieder
--- In [hidden email], "hyblade" <schmieder.matthias@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> i just stumbled across a reverence which says, that the SURF Feature Extraction is protected by a patent from Anael Orlinski.
>
> How is it then possible that we (OpenCV) use it as part of the general BSD licence??
>
> Can anyone shed some light to this?!?
>

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=2027558A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090225&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_V3

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Matthias Schmieder
So you posted a patent link - but now, what does that mean??? Is OpenCV breaking the licence by using the SURF feature? After all it seams, that SURF is protected and conflicts with the BSD licence...now i'm kind of confused

--- In [hidden email], "liuliu_0503" <liuliu.1987+opencv@...>
> http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=2027558A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090225&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_V3
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

liuliu_0503
--- In [hidden email], "hyblade" <schmieder.matthias@...> wrote:
>
> So you posted a patent link - but now, what does that mean??? Is OpenCV breaking the licence by using the SURF feature? After all it seams, that SURF is protected and conflicts with the BSD licence...now i'm kind of confused
>
> --- In [hidden email], "liuliu_0503" <liuliu.1987+opencv@>
> > http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=2027558A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090225&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_V3
> >
>

I am not a lawyer here, and I don't know if it potentially conflicts with OpenCV's licence. The patent was published in 2009-02-25. the SURF impl is done in OpenCV before that. However, if the patent has conflicts with OpenCV's licence, I think that it is better to remove the current impl from code base. We already have several implementations in code base that can do what SURF do, there is no harm to remove.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Gary Bradski
In reply to this post by Matthias Schmieder
Sadly, SURF and SIFT are both patented.
We had re-implemented from scratch both SURF and SIFT and we wanted to include both of these simply because so many people want to compare against them, but in personal communications, decided not to include SIFT.

SURF is one of two bad cases I know of that should not be used commercially (the other is the Cascade face detector). These were meant for research comparison, not for commercial use. The are both re-implemented from scratch. We also implemented SIFT but decided not to include it because of its wide spread commercial patented use.
 
However, help is soon at hand:  

1. We believe that SIFT finally has adequate or superior competitors that are free and will be incorporated in the next release (some are already in the current SVN).  The next release is due "end of summer" (which might, um, slip to "September").  These are
The FAST detector for KeyPoints and:

Planar object detector using fern-based patch classifier and V. Lepetit keypoint detector has been added.
    M. Ozuysal, M. Calonder, V. Lepetit and P. Fua, Fast Keypoint Recognition using Random Ferns, accepted to IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine   Intelligence, 2009.
Integrated self-similarity features (code contributed by Rainer Leinhart)
  1. Shechtman, E., Irani, M. Matching local self-similarities across images and videos. CVPR 2007
  2. Eva Horster, Thomas Greif, Rainer Lienhart, Malcolm Slaney. Comparing Local Feature Descriptors in pLSA-Based Image Models. 30th Annual Symposium of the German Association for Pattern Recognition (DAGM) 2008, Munich, Germany, June 2008.
2. The cascade: We've re-written this again to just use a sequence of generic, tree based boosted classifiers which now can take any kind of feature.
We've implemented the older Haar features, but have also added newer Local Binary Patterns (LBP)
     Ojala and M. Pietikainen. Multiresolution Gray-Scale and Rotation
     Invariant Texture Classification with Local Binary Patterns, IEEE Trans
     on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 24. No.7, July, 2002.
This cascade is backwards compatible -- it will read and convert older files and should perform the same on them, but you can retrain using the new features.
Does this get around the patent?  I don't know.  But we now have a full machine learning library in OpenCV and the boosting techniques there should outperform the cascade but be slower.
However, we're working on kernel based gentle boost that should not only out perform the cascade but be faster too in parallel implementation. This latestest code will not be in the summer release, look for it in January.
Gary



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: SURF protected by patent!?

dangrsmind
Great info Gary.  And thanks for clarifying the issue there.

And sorry all once again for my acronym dyslexia.

Regards,

Peter




________________________________
From: Gary <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:04:49 PM
Subject: [OpenCV] Re: SURF protected by patent!?

   
Sadly, SURF and SIFT are both patented.
We had re-implemented from scratch both SURF and SIFT and we wanted to include both of these simply because so many people want to compare against them, but in personal communications, decided not to include SIFT.

SURF is one of two bad cases I know of that should not be used commercially (the other is the Cascade face detector). These were meant for research comparison, not for commercial use. The are both re-implemented from scratch. We also implemented SIFT but decided not to include it because of its wide spread commercial patented use.

However, help is soon at hand:

1. We believe that SIFT finally has adequate or superior competitors that are free and will be incorporated in the next release (some are already in the current SVN).  The next release is due "end of summer" (which might, um, slip to "September") .  These are
The FAST detector for KeyPoints and:

Planar object detector using fern-based patch classifier and V. Lepetit keypoint detector has been added.
M. Ozuysal, M. Calonder, V. Lepetit and P. Fua, Fast Keypoint Recognition using Random Ferns, accepted to IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine   Intelligence, 2009.
Integrated self-similarity features (code contributed by Rainer Leinhart)
1. Shechtman, E., Irani, M. Matching local self-similarities across images and videos. CVPR 2007
2. Eva Horster, Thomas Greif, Rainer Lienhart, Malcolm Slaney. Comparing Local Feature Descriptors in pLSA-Based Image Models. 30th Annual Symposium of the German Association for Pattern Recognition (DAGM) 2008, Munich, Germany, June 2008.
2. The cascade: We've re-written this again to just use a sequence of generic, tree based boosted classifiers which now can take any kind of feature.
We've implemented the older Haar features, but have also added newer Local Binary Patterns (LBP)
Ojala and M. Pietikainen. Multiresolution Gray-Scale and Rotation
Invariant Texture Classification with Local Binary Patterns, IEEE Trans
on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 24. No.7, July, 2002.
This cascade is backwards compatible -- it will read and convert older files and should perform the same on them, but you can retrain using the new features.
Does this get around the patent?  I don't know.  But we now have a full machine learning library in OpenCV and the boosting techniques there should outperform the cascade but be slower.
However, we're working on kernel based gentle boost that should not only out perform the cascade but be faster too in parallel implementation. This latestest code will not be in the summer release, look for it in January.
Gary


   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Gabriele-2
In reply to this post by Gary Bradski
Gary wrote:
> Sadly, SURF and SIFT are both patented.
> We had re-implemented from scratch both SURF and SIFT and we wanted to include both of these simply because so many people want to compare against them, but in personal communications, decided not to include SIFT.
>
> SURF is one of two bad cases I know of that should not be used commercially (the other is the Cascade face detector).
So, the trained cascade for face detection is not usable in commercial
software, but the functions for training and detecting are?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Matthias Schmieder
Thanks for the info Gary, but i'm still kind of confused. My knowledge about the OpenCV (BSD) licence was, that it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial use. The licence file in the source package doesn't say anything else. But now there is code in the library that is definetly not for commercial purposes - now where is the crux? Doese everyone who uses OpenCV for commercial usage violate the law without knowing it? Or does OpenCV violate the law by saying ALL code is under the BSD-licence?

I think one should draw a clear line an tell the users what is legaly unproblematic and what isn't or use a other licence which prohibits the making of profit with OpenCV-based programms - which i definetly wouldn't prefer since the library is now wide spread and often used in such belongings.


--- In [hidden email], Giff <giffnews@...> wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> > Sadly, SURF and SIFT are both patented.
> > We had re-implemented from scratch both SURF and SIFT and we wanted to include both of these simply because so many people want to compare against them, but in personal communications, decided not to include SIFT.
> >
> > SURF is one of two bad cases I know of that should not be used commercially (the other is the Cascade face detector).
> So, the trained cascade for face detection is not usable in commercial
> software, but the functions for training and detecting are?
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

kairitterbusch
the thing with software patents is, that they have nothing to do with the usual way in which code is copyrighted: licensing.

a company can choose wheater to give their patented invention away for free, to ask for licence fees or not to care about it at all.

the licence of opencv is independent of these patents. a note in the documentation of the respective functions would be nice though.

you could even imagine that the company is happy about the inclusion of their patented code in a library, since it could increase the number of licensees :)




--- In [hidden email], "hyblade" <schmieder.matthias@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the info Gary, but i'm still kind of confused. My knowledge about the OpenCV (BSD) licence was, ...


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Tim Hutton-3
Yes, I think this is right. Compare with the way the VTK project deals with it:
http://www.vtk.org/Wiki/VTK_FAQ#What_is_the_deal_with_the_patents
They put the patented algorithms in a separate folder, so you can
choose not to use them if you don't need them. Perhaps OpenCV should
do the same, for those bits of code known to be covered by patents?

--- In [hidden email], "kairitterbusch" <kairitterbusch@...> wrote:

>
> the thing with software patents is, that they have nothing to do with the usual way in which code is copyrighted: licensing.
>
> a company can choose wheater to give their patented invention away for free, to ask for licence fees or not to care about it at all.
>
> the licence of opencv is independent of these patents. a note in the documentation of the respective functions would be nice though.
>
> you could even imagine that the company is happy about the inclusion of their patented code in a library, since it could increase the number of licensees :)
>
>
>
>
> --- In [hidden email], "hyblade" <schmieder.matthias@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the info Gary, but i'm still kind of confused. My knowledge about the OpenCV (BSD) licence was, ...
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Samuel Audet
In reply to this post by Matthias Schmieder
Short answer, a patent is (usually) about money. If your work has
nothing to do with money, you're most likely safe. People adding code to
OpenCV do not _use_ OpenCV to make money so.. also, the source code is
usually seen as a description of a method, which is just what a patent
is. You can download a patent description for free, so you should be
able to download a source code describing the patent as well... well
that's how I see it. People that like software patents can't have it
both ways :) Open source FTW :)

Samuel

hyblade wrote:
> Thanks for the info Gary, but i'm still kind of confused. My knowledge about the OpenCV (BSD) licence was, that it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial use. The licence file in the source package doesn't say anything else. But now there is code in the library that is definetly not for commercial purposes - now where is the crux? Doese everyone who uses OpenCV for commercial usage violate the law without knowing it? Or does OpenCV violate the law by saying ALL code is under the BSD-licence?
>
> I think one should draw a clear line an tell the users what is legaly unproblematic and what isn't or use a other licence which prohibits the making of profit with OpenCV-based programms - which i definetly wouldn't prefer since the library is now wide spread and often used in such belongings.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SURF protected by patent!?

Matthias Schmieder
Ok, so OpenCV is OpenSource but the sources aren't neccessarily patent-free. I think that is a fact that one has to know. I'd appreciate it too if the functions that are under a software patent would be marked in the documentary.

> People adding code to OpenCV do not _use_ OpenCV to make money so
>[...]

I think that is not true at all, OpenCV is a library which is definetly used in commercial environments, which by the way proofs it's good quality an acceptance. I know of severeal "small" companies or developers that use at least parts of the OpenCV library especially the camera calibration part.    

--- In [hidden email], Samuel Audet <samuel.audet@...> wrote:

>
> Short answer, a patent is (usually) about money. If your work has
> nothing to do with money, you're most likely safe. People adding code to
> OpenCV do not _use_ OpenCV to make money so.. also, the source code is
> usually seen as a description of a method, which is just what a patent
> is. You can download a patent description for free, so you should be
> able to download a source code describing the patent as well... well
> that's how I see it. People that like software patents can't have it
> both ways :) Open source FTW :)
>
> Samuel
>
> hyblade wrote:
> > Thanks for the info Gary, but i'm still kind of confused. My knowledge about the OpenCV (BSD) licence was, that it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial use. The licence file in the source package doesn't say anything else. But now there is code in the library that is definetly not for commercial purposes - now where is the crux? Doese everyone who uses OpenCV for commercial usage violate the law without knowing it? Or does OpenCV violate the law by saying ALL code is under the BSD-licence?
> >
> > I think one should draw a clear line an tell the users what is legaly unproblematic and what isn't or use a other licence which prohibits the making of profit with OpenCV-based programms - which i definetly wouldn't prefer since the library is now wide spread and often used in such belongings.
>


12