Dear Quentin and all other interested in open source and patented softwares, methods and systems in Biodiversity (Informatics) Education,

Thanks for Quentin's message. Again, I’ll answer in the order that you structured your message.

Quentin wrote:
”Yes, Delta keys are not user friendly and
made for taxonomists, not for education.
Yet that is not the point, they do exactly
the same as Naturegates but they started
back in the 90s. Prior Art!
Just because the presentation is bad,
doesn't make it invalid.”

Please, let’s make a difference between NatureGate® Online Service at time being in April 9, 2009, and the granted patent of METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS. They are not the same thing. Only part of what has been patented, has been implemented. That is because of lack of resources. But hopefully already in June 1 – 3, 2009, we may together test improved version of NatureGate® Online Services.

You are repeating the emotional false claim of ”Prior Art!”, but it does not prove anything. Please, read carefully what is written in the granted patent documents, and come to discuss with us on June 1 – 3, and we can compare these two systems and compare them to the granted patent of METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS.

Quentin wrote:
”My own ID site uses location
as a field and can be used on a
3g phone. It has been
running since 2001.”

The same advice: Please, read carefully what is written in the granted patent documents, and come to discuss with us on June 1 – 3, and we can compare these two systems and compare them to the granted patent of METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS.

Quentin wrote:
”The point is that Eija and Jouko
don't need this patent and
they could never afford to defend it
with the money that they could earn from it. ”

Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio and the whole NatureGate® Ltd. disagree with you. The patent has been granted for an ingenious invention, that is much deeper and broader than you seem to understand. It has already challenged in Europe. The result was that patent stands. There were no costs to Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio or to NatureGate® Ltd. Because Nokia is one of our partners, it is also interested that patent is not threatened. Your last claim is an empirical question. We will see in the future. Hopefully, plenty of cooperation and collaboration with NatureGate® Ltd and becoming regional NatureGate® Online Services.

We are seeking for collaboration and cooperation. All those who are interested in possible and hopefull collaboration, please let me know as early as possible. There is first our Out-Break Discussion Group, then prelimaniry position paper, then the meeting proper in June 1 – 3 and hopefully a document of how best promote Lifelong Biodiversity Education and how to fund it

Quentin asked:
”What is wrong with
the copyright protection they have.”

Nothing is wrong with registred trademark of NatureGate®.

Quentin wrote:
”I can understand peoples
frustration that it is difficult
to moniterise photography
and education,
but I don't think
this patent is the answer.”

As far as I understand, some peoples frustration is a result of misunderstandings and that they have not properly read what is and what is not in the granted patent of METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS. Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio have been and still are very succesful inventors, innovators, TV documentarists and content producers in Finland.

Please, read carefully the thread of discussion from the beginning to the end, and probably you also come to conclusion that this patent is one of the important elements, how we can proceed from the culture of continual begging donations to the culture of sustainable economy for conserving biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity, at the same time promoting sustainable development in an integrating way ( ecologically, economically and socially).

Yours sincerely

Mauri

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Mauri,

the patent document you have given us links to is a patent application, not a patent. It has the status A1. Perhaps, it has moved on from this status, but you have not said.

The reason this has to be a US patent, is because a method cannot be patented in Europe.

It seems to me, that whether you use an open-source model or a patent model you still have to spend a lot of time looking for money. For one it might be investors looking to make a profit, while the other it might be altruistic people who see the benefit in what you are doing. I think both models have there place, depending on the type of product and what you want to achieve with it.

Patents were invented to protect inventors and encourage invention. To some extent they do protect inventors, but the open-source movement shows that they are not required to encourage invention. Mankind is naturally inventive.

Personally, I think open standards are far more important than open source. The Internet itself is a great example of how open standards encourage invention. Could one imagine an internet where HTML and HTTP were proprietor standards?

Regards Quentin

Dear Quentin,

Thanks for keeping the dialogue alive.

You seem to be obsessed by the patent of Lehmuskallios. During the time when biodiversity is rapidly declining, I am obsessed how to conserve biodiversity as much and as soon as possible by biodiversity (informatics) education, in order to create a sustainable use of biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystems services. We need serious colloboration for that purpose, not continual confrontation.

Quentin wrote:
”the patent document you have given us links
to is a patent application, not a patent.
It has the status A1. Perhaps, it has moved on
from this status, but you have not said.”

I am not an expert in patent issues, neither Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio. That is why they hired experts to do the proper patenting work. As I heard and told, patent has already once challenged in EU, and the end result was that patent is valid. I have been told and seen a document cover letter that at least the METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS has been granted in USA, and accordingly to all other countries listed, practically all over the World.

Please check, and you'll find that A1 is the highest category in The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the United Nations:
http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/2354.html
We learn from that site that meaning of codes varies from country to country, to organisation to organisation. In the UN WIPO the codes seem to be as follows:
A1 = patent application published with the search report
A2 = patent application published without the search report
A3 = search report published with the front page (bibliometric data) of the application
There is no special code for granted patent.

Quentin wrote:
”The reason this has to be a US patent,
is because a method cannot be patented in Europe.”

This is a patently false statement. Please, read carefully what kinds of patents (including patented methods and systems) are there in the EU:
According to The European Patent Office,
http://www.epo.org/patents/Grant-proced ... tents.html
http://v3.espacenet.com/eclasrch?AB=ide ... cale=en_V3

NatureGate® Ltd. has two patents of Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio, that are patented practically in the whole World:
(1) METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS
(2) METHOD SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING LOCATION- BASED INFORMATION.

In addition to these, NatureGate® Ltd. has an US patent pending Business Process Model with the Total Win-Win Strategy, in which everybody wins in the end, participating researchers, photographers, general public, biosphere, its biodiversity, sustainable use of biodiversity and the whole humankind. Business Process Models cannot be patented in EU. We reveal our US patent pending Business Process Model to selected serious collaboration candidates.

Quentin wrote:
”It seems to me, that whether you use
an open-source model or
a patent model you still have to spend
a lot of time looking for money.
For one it might be investors looking
to make a profit, while the other it might
be altruistic people who see t
he benefit in what you are doing.
I think both models have there place,
depending on the type of product
and what you want to achieve with it.”

I think that it is always wise to use the best methods available, whether they are open source or patented. Altruistic people are always needed. I am one of them. But we cannot create a continual money flow like healthy sustainable business organisations can. E.g. I enjoy Wikipedia as a free service, but they are having big monetary problems, continual begging for donations, because there are not enough ” altruistic people” to give them continually more money. The same problem seems to be in the Biodiversity Informatics Community.

In the global economy, the solution for continual funding is to promote both locally and globally integrating sustainable development (ecologically, economically and socially). There are plenty of shared interests with wealth creating business organisations and general public, ordinary people. NatureGate® combines those people and organisations that want to promote lifelong biodiversity (informatics) education and education for sustainable use of biodiversity. There are plenty of examples how it can be done, which we’ll reveal to serious collaboration candidates.

Quentin wrote:
”Patents were invented to protect
inventors and encourage invention.
To some extent they do protect inventors,
but the open-source movement shows
that they are not required to encourage invention.
Mankind is naturally inventive.”

I agree that humans are naturally curious and inventive. The science itself is kind of ”open-source movement”. However, serious scientists use patented methods, when they are the best available. The dogmatic version of open-source movement seem to want that everything is open-source. It stagnates at least Biodiversity Informatics. Too many people, even in EOL have told me that they have decided to use only open source code. Everybody can see the end result.

Quentin wrote:
”Personally, I think open standards
are far more important than open source.
The Internet itself is a great example of
how open standards encourage invention.
Could one imagine an internet where
HTML and HTTP were proprietor standards?”

I regard standards extremely important. We would like to see NatureGate® approach as a standard in lifelong Biodiversity Informatics Education for general public. I am not an expert in Internet in general. But let’s take Google as an example. Practically everybody uses it, because it is free and extremely useful online service satisfying real needs. However, it uses patented softwares, methods, systems, and the Google business company creates wealth for itself and all those who build upon the knowledge they are able to find faster than ever. Its information is not validated. We are providing validated, and continually tested and improved knowledge in the NatureGate ® Online Service. Our business logic is similar, but much more sophisticated as expressed in our US patent pending Business Process Model with the Total Win-Win Strategy.

Regards

Mauri

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Mauri,

I'm not obsessed by their patent, but this thread is about patents and you gave us this example.

Just so you understand, an A1 patent application is not a patent. It says so in the links you posted. It cannot be infringed, until it has further statuses. A lot of A1 patent applications are filed speculatively in the hope that funding can be found to continue the patent process. Getting a full patent that can be infringed is expensive.


If you look at the document you linked to from the EPO It clearly says the “schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business”.....”are not considered to be inventions if the European patent application only relates to such subject-matter or activities as such. “

Regards

Quentin

Dear Quentin,

Thanks again for keeping dialogue alive.

I have a couple of comments (A to D):

(A) Concerning your selection of only one point (patents) of the whole: Please, check again the first message in this thread, over a month ago:

”Post subject: Why open source code?
Why not patented softwares?
Post Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:48 pm….
EOL is one of the main organizers of the conference.
They proudly announce:
” 02/12/2009 - The EOL code is now officially open source!”
A couple of stupid questions and comments of
a Professor who does not himself program,
but relies professional softwares and programmers:
(1) Does open source really help anybody
in biodiversity research or biodiversity education?
Do you really need open source code?
Are you planning to create your own local EOL?
(2) Would it not be better that real professionals
create the best free public online services,
although they use patented software,
best professional photographers, and
they may have business organizations for public benefit?
e.g. CmapTools is patented but it is free to download and use.
NatureGate® uses patented software,
and the best available nature photographers,
but offers free service and invites experts
to win-win collaboration.
(3) Do you need continual begging of donations?
Would it not be better to have
a continual money flow from
win-win integrating processes of
ecologically, economically and
socially sustainable development,
although it probably means using
the best available patented softwares
and business process models?
(4) If allowed, I am willing to demonstrate
on the conference proper (June 1 - 3, 2009),
our US patent pending business process model
that will create enough wealth for
continual spreading and improvement
of high quality species identification servers
at least for many popular organism groups.
(5) With improved biodiversity (informatics)
education (e.g. NatureGate® online services)
the number of popular organism groups
will probably grow.
Cheers,
Mauri”

(B) During the dialogue in this and other threads, we have learnt:

* NatureGate® Online Services uses two Worldwide patents listed eg. by WIPO (The World Intellectual Property Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations). The highest category is A1. There is no special category for granted patents.

* NatureGate® Online Services have also one US patent pending business process model. It means that there is a clear difference between patent pending and other kinds of patent applications. As far as I know your term of “full patent” in not a term used in patent laws. You are right, patenting is expensive. (The terms used by WIPO can be found from http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/glossary.jsp#p )

* There is clear difference between what is patentable in USA and in other countries, including countries of EU. Lehmuskallios’ two patents are patentable in the whole World according to WIPO (The World Intellectual Property Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations), http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ (Our business process model is patentable at least in USA but not in the EU. Accordingly this application is not listed by WIPO.)

* In the period of declining biodiversity, the main point ought to be: How to best promote lifelong learning for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity and integrating sustainable development (ecologically, economically and socially). I have suggested that NatureGate® approach would be the best available option, open for discussions for collaboration.

(C) You are misinterpreting the text from The European Patent Office http://www.epo.org/patents/Grant-proced ... tents.html

“Furthermore, …
* schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business …
are not considered to be inventions if the European patent application..” This refers to business process models. They are patentable in USA but not in the EU.

Lehmuskallios’ two patents proper fit to the first paragraph:
“European patents are granted for inventions that
* are new,
* involve an inventive step, and
* are susceptible of industrial application.”
Please, read again carefully what is written about them by the WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ using inventor name Lehmuskallio.

(D) The most important question remains: During the period of declining biodiversity, what is the best way to promote biodiversity informatics education for sustainable use of biodiversity, ecosystems, integrating sustainable development (ecologically, economically and socially)?

Regards

Mauri

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND

That kind of full patents are expensive indeed. We have to rely on A1.

_________________
Best Regards,
Jan Manzer
Jan Manzer

Thanks Jan for keeping our collaborative knowledge buiding alive for common good, for learning about biodiversity, conserving biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity.

I am not a patent expert, I just rely on the official documents. But I'll ask again about the issue from official patent authorities, what they think about your claim.

At mean time, please check, what the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of the United Nations (UN) has to say about this issue:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=FI2008000039

Best wishes

Mauri

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Hi Guys,

Regarding the patents, i saw the links that was given in these post. I have a question on A1 patent application, Do you think that one of these days, These A1 patents will finally be give? I understand that they are trying to hold these patents.

Hubschrauber selber fliegen

For sure Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio are doing all they can to keep the patents.

Their patented system and metdod for object identification as applied in the NatureGate online service is the best available option as far as we know.

Please check:
# IUCN: http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cec/?2614/

# Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG):
http://www.tdwg.org/biodiv-projects/pro ... ject/1550/

http://www.tdwg.org/biodiv-networks/net ... roject/56/

Compare all the options and you probably come to the same conclusion as me: the best available option. For the sake of conserving biodiversity and for sustainable use of biodiversity, this patented system and method ought to be applied to as many organism groups as possible.

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND

I have been often asked whether Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio really have achiedved patent for their system and method for identifying objects. US citizens are often reluctant to read UN WIPO documents. That is why I searched and found also the document from US Patent Office dated July 15, 2008: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... hmuskallio

The broader, much more international site is UN WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=FI2008000039

with best wishes

Mauri

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND