ImageSpace, the confocal software from Molecular Dynamics (MD) is a very
powerful tool for confocal data handling. On a minimally configured SGI, -
anything from a Personal Iris to an O2 - you get the leanest, meanest set of
software functions which are totally relevant to the needs of the confocal
community. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! ImageSpace has helped a lot of researchers
maximise their investment in a CLSM by making it easy to get results from
the data from their BioRad, Zeiss or Leica CLSMs. Investment in a cheap SGI
and ImageSpace did the trick.
 
And yes, MD is trying to protect its intellectual property. MD shrewdly
bought Sarastro's assets, and with it followed a rather precariously worded
patent on 3D reconstructions of confocal datasets. In 1993, I think, MD
reapplied for the patent. This doesn't seem to me to be a particularly bad
behaviour. They were simply protecting their investment. Leica and Zeiss
objected to the patent application. The objections could be interpreted as
"it is too obvious". MD actually included these objections in the
application, re-worked the section on prior art, and modified the patent to
cover "the generation of 3D representations of confocal sections using a
computer", or words to that effect. MD was granted the US patent no.
4,631,581, Re 34,214 for this and the application was also accepted several
months later by some official European patent office (in Munich, I believe).
 
MD has completed negotiations with several manufacturers of confocal
microscopes and/or software. In each case, the companies have recognised the
strength of the patent (because, amongst other things, it includes the
objections from Leica and Zeiss) and have closed the negotiation by
licensing the technology from MD.
 
I don't see why people should have any problem with this. The whole concept
of patents is to protect and encourage good ideas so that the right people -
the individual, the small company - get rewarded for their innovation and
hard work. You as scientists realise that intellectual property must be
protected as vigourously as material property. If you spent 10 years
developing a *unique* system for 3D imaging (many either do not know or have
conveniently forgotten that the Sarastro was the only CLSM offering 3D
imaging of confocal section series in 1987 and for a good number of years
onwards), and found that people were interested in buying it, wouldn't you
want to stop the microscopy giants from muscling in on your territory and
making profit through plagiarism? When pharmaceutical companies go to court
to protect a drug, or even a drug delivery system (e.g. Losec), nobody gets
up in arms, they just buy shares...
 
MD is *not* stopping anyone from creating or developing software for, or
profiting from, confocal data processing. As long as you negotiate with MD
to licence the technology (and the licensing fee is probably based on a
proportion of the *sales* or *profits* made - i.e. freeware is excluded),
then the company can go about its business undisturbed.
 
Finally, I find this community's vitriolic reaction to MD's efforts to
protect its patent most disturbing. It is clear that many have
misinterpreted MD's actions as an unjustified attack on the individual's
right to freely create and distribute software. This assumption is
incorrect, it has never happened. Then, on this premise, some have gone so
far as to suggest boycotting MD's other products. This is hysterical. It is
obvious that there are many who are uninformed of the situation, and are
jumping to conclusions.
 
All opinions expressed here are my own.
 
regards
Robert England
 
 
 
_____________R_o_b_e_r_t__E_n_g_l_a_n_d__________________________
 
             E-mail:      [log in to unmask]
             Tel:         +46 8 621 3400 x 3704
             Fax:         +46 8 621 3470
             Mobile:      +46 70557 3704
 
_________________________________________________________________