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

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

I am directly involved in creation of biodiversity-related software and information systems and naturally I do not think that all software must necessarily be open source. In some cases the OSS way might be inefficient because of high risk of lack of funding. On the other hand I also think that sometimes open source is the only option to go, esp. in cases where original creator seeks to attract and involve global community of developers. Besides there are some quite nice business models involving open source too and OSS does not mean that quality of the software is worse (well it is different, sometimes GUI is less polished or absent but "different" again is not a synonym for "worse") - take statistical programming in R for example, or Open Office (I switched to OO 9 years ago, never missed MS office again ), or Java which is open source now.

But, I am also strictly against software patents. Why?.. Because it is a very dangerous option for small research companies, individual works of scientists or sole developers.
1) patents are expensive (http://home.netcom.com/~patents2/What%2 ... Patent.htm). Which means, If you are small, you are out of business, because you won't afford to pay for all your patents.
2) there are well known cases in the USA where wealthier companies or individuals steal ideas from not-so-wealthy ones or even open source developers, patent them and then sue the original creators for patent violation. Now imagine that someone wealthy manages to push a patent on generic "digital species identification system". Which means no one else will be legally allowed to create a "digital species identification system" without paying royalties. The result is monopoly and concentration of efforts within single point and stagnation of similar efforts elsewhere.

Further below is just one real-world example which is a result of a flawed software patent system in the USA.

A group of model train hobbyists started an Open Source project written in Java - the Java Model Railroad Interface (JMRI). Quite a while later KAM Industries came along, took some of the code, created their own commercial program, patented some aspects of the program and then started demanding royalties for every downloaded copy of JMRI.

This eventually ended up in court and in the first instance the ruling was in favour of KAM Industries. A single individual has mainly represented the JMRI community and although the ruling was far less than the U$200,000+ sought, the financial impact was beyond this individual's means, even so, with the help of donations, this individual continued to pursue the case to a higher appeal court. KAM Industries thus far has spent over U$1,000,000 on the case.

The result of the Appeal was only last Aug 13th 2008 and reversed the decision of the lower court. But this is not the end, as of 11 Feb 09 KAM Industries is seeking damages of U$6,000,000+

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/updates.html

Hi Viktoras,

There are plenty of injustice in the World. What you described seem to be those kind of cases.

Focusing back on biodiversity informatics and Biodiversity Informatics for Biodiversity Education, we have a big possibility to use a unique patented method, that has been demonstrated to be the easiest to use and fastest of the species identification methods.

Please check yourself: http://www.naturegate.net

It is good to remember:
(1) A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.
(2) Patents provide incentives to individuals by offering them recognition for their creativity and material reward for their marketable inventions. These incentives encourage innovation, which assures that the quality of human life is continuously enhanced.

As an example the patent which underpins NatureGate Online Service, its fast and easy-to-use identification of species. http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/cgi/guest/search5

(WO 2008/116962) METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS

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

In NatureGate R&D & Integrating Business Program for sustainable use of biodiversity, we are after the total win-win strategy, in which everybody who will collaborate wins in long term, biosphere, humankind as part of it, biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity.
The best option is that big international organisations like EOL, Smithsonian Institution, Natural History Museum, Field Museum etc. would be able to discuss and we would find together a workable solution for all of us concerned.

With best wishes
Mauri

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

I have read the patent (http://www.google.com/patents?id=fwWiAAAAEBAJ ) and am horrified that such a trivial idea (identifying objects based in part on knowing where you are) warrants a patent. The patent is almost devoid of intellectual content, in the sense that it is an obvious thing to do.

I'd be curious as to why you think patenting this idea benefits biodiversity research?

Perhaps it might be worth discussing the issue more generally, as there are other patents that impact biodiversity research, such as "Managing taxonomic information" http://www.google.com/patents?id=k0uGAAAAEBAJ .

Dear Roderic and others,

Thanks for your message. I appreciate your expertise on your own field: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/ and http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html

However, I think that you have written false claims about these patents we are discussing. I am happy to have a dialogue with you, and all interested partners, searching for thruth and common good, concerning biodiversity informatics and biodiversity informatics education.

Firstly, I want to emphasize that I do not own the patents. But, I have tested from the beginning of 2006 all web sites that I have found, where I have found a claim about an interactive key or keys for identifying species. I have not found anything like the method Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio were able to patent. I will answer to your claims in the way you structured your message.

Roderic wrote:

”I have read the patent
(http://www.google.com/patents?id=fwWiAAAAEBAJ )
and am horrified that such a trivial idea
(identifying objects based in part on
knowing where you are) warrants a patent.
The patent is almost devoid of intellectual content,
in the sense that it is an obvious thing to do.”

My comments for answer:

(_1) The claim that ”a trivial idea” would have been patented:
The point is that it is not the ”idea” that is patented, but the METHOD AND SYSTEM, the way the identification is done, that the patent was given.

Please, check again: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/cgi/guest/search5

And you'll receive: Results of searching in PCT for:

(WO 2008/116962) METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS 02.10.2008 G06K 9/00 PCT/FI2008/000039 LEHMUSKALLIO…
The invention is based on a method and a system, wherein objects can be identified on the basis of location and one or more characteristics by means of a user device and a service product. …
(WO 2006/120286) METHOD SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING LOCATION- BASED INFORMATION 16.11.2006 G06F 17/30 ….
In the method of the invention objects can be identified on the basis of location and one or more characteristics in an improved way. ...

(_2_) The claim concerning that
”The patent is almost devoid of intellectual content,
in the sense that it is an obvious thing to do.”

For sure it is trivial that you can create matrices in which organisms are on the rows and characteristics are on the columns.

However, as far as I know, no taxonomists have done even this kind of work over hundreds of different species and families. Taxonomist mostly use dichotomous keys, even when they claim that these keys are interactive. Taxonomists mainly concentrate rightfullly only the groups they are actively making research on. Even from this kind of matrix, it is a long way to apply the idea to online service as done in the patent application. (Even after that it is very hard to create a fast, reliable service in practice. NatureGate® Online Service has achieved this by applying the patents of Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio.)

As lifelong educators of biodiversity, Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio have the same interest that all in my NatureGate® Research Group have: promoting identification of as many species as possible, promoting lifelong learning of biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity, about habitats, ecosystems and ecosystem services.

(_3_) Answering your question: ”I'd be curious as to why you think patenting this idea benefits biodiversity research?”

Firstly, WHY patents, what are patents and intellectual property, and how these are safeguarded:

Starting from the basics: http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/what/

”The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
is a specialized agency of the United Nations.
It is dedicated to developing a balanced and
accessible international intellectual property (IP) system,
which rewards creativity, stimulates innovation and
contributes to economic development
while safeguarding the public interest.”

As a background, I want again to emphasize that I do not own the patents. University Professors and other university experts typically do not patent results of their work. We have our monthly salaries, and accordingly scientific results are mostly open and free for everybody to test and use.

But inventors and enterpreneurs create their own intellectual property and according to international laws some of these inventions can be patented. Regardless how self-evident these patents may seem to be, after the patented method and system have been revealed. The point is that nobody did that invention before those people who created and who applied and received patent for their work. Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio have devoted their whole life to this method and its applications and it really works. They are enterpreneurs who with partners like the University of Helsinki created a NatureGate® Ltd, a company for public good. The NatureGate® Ltd creates and maintains, continually enlarges and improves its Online Services of Biodiversity (Informatics) Education.

Above is necessary background to be able properly to answer your question:
”… why you think patenting this idea
benefits biodiversity research?”

a) Intellectual property, patents and trademarks are necessary to have a real business organisation, to create wealth for salaries for people involved and for creation and maintenance of free, open acess online services for identification. We would not have funding for NatureGate® Online Service without the patented and registered intellectual property. We are inviting all interested experts and organisations to discuss with us, how we could promote biodiversity research and education together.

b) We are paying for services of some of the taxonomists. This way we are supporting biodiversity researchers and research.

c) Some taxonomists are collaborating for free, e.g. in order to have this free service to the organisms groups that they have special interest.

d) Some experts are collaborating with us for beeing accepted as partners in future NatureGate® sister company in their own country or region.

e) When more of the patented METHOD and SYSTEM is implemented, then people are able to link their observations to the core identification service and upload their own photos with GPS to the separate servers of NatureGate® user community. The end result is free data for all biodiversity researchers, biodiversity and biogeographic research. If the amateurs cannot identify some of the species, then s/he may upload the photo and attached decription to a specific file and our collaborating experts will try to identify at least a taxon, e.g. family or genus of the organism. This data may also become valuable for biodiversity research who are willing to have a look an use of this kind of data that amateurs have provided.

(_4_) Concerning you last and funny fake example:

”Perhaps it might be worth discussing the issue more generally,
as there are other patents that impact biodiversity research,
such as "Managing taxonomic information"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=k0uGAAAAEBAJ”

Now I learnt that Google can be cheated to represent anything you want, if you have motives and competence to do so.

But, please check this funny fake ”patent” by using the service of the United Nations’ IPR Organisation: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/index.jsp You cannot find your ”strawman” patent.

(_5_) We are ready to discuss with all honest and serious researchers and developers in Biodiversity Informatics and Biodiversity Informatics Education, who are seeking truth and common benefit for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Please, check: IUCN: http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cec/?2614/

With best wishes,

Mauri

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

(this discussion is also going on at http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/04/pate ... tools.html )

Mauri,

1. I'm sorry but I find the idea straightforward. This is one problem with software patents, given that ideas are cheap and the same idea can occur independently to many people, one can come up with an idea only to discover that it is patented (and therefore there may be severe limits to what they can do). I think this limits progress.

2. Where in the patent are the algorithms or methods used to identify organisms? I've read other software patents (e.g., http://www.google.com/patents?id=544OAAAAEBAJ) where the intellectual content is clear (albeit it wrapped up in hideous "patent-speak").

3. Patenting is not the only way to create fundable tools, and software patents are a contentious area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate) (and the idea was rejected by the EU Parliament). Why do you think restricting the freedom of others is a good idea? I don't see why this is essential to making the kind of tools and services you propose. Open source companies that make their code freely available still get funded. Funding and openness are not mutually exclusive.

4. I don't know why you suggest that the patent application "Managing taxonomic information" is fake. It's real (although it's not clear to me if it's been granted, which is why it might not show up in the WIPO search engine).

I take your implication that I have the skills to "cheat" Google into showing anything I want as a compliment, although I think I deserve extra credit for managing to insert the patent application into http://www.patents.com/Managing-taxonom ... 283/en-US/ and http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0167283.html.

5. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about intellectual property, open source, and access to data in our field. I'll declare my own bias at the outset, namely that I don't see that software patents help us, quite the opposite.

Dear Roderick,

For the beginning, I have to thank you letting me to comment fully also your blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/04/pate ... tools.html
< http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/04/pate ... tools.html>

For me it shows among other things that you are intellectually honest. It is an honour and delight to have a truth seeking dialogue with you.

I comment your points in the order that you structured your message:

(1) You wrote: ”1. I'm sorry but I find the idea straightforward.”

I checked the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and for the English word ’straightforward’, it gives the following definions:
(a): free from evasiveness or obscurity : exact , candid <a straightforward account>
(b): clear-cut , precise
For me ’straightforwardness’ is a merit of the Lehmuskallio’s patent.

(2) You wrote:
” This is one problem with software patents,
given that ideas are cheap and the same idea
can occur independently to many people,
one can come up with an idea only
to discover that it is patented
(and therefore there may be severe
limits to what they can do).
I think this limits progress.”

I repeat my earlier point that the idea is not patented. You cannot patent ideas. The ideas may be cheap, but patentable methods and systems are valuable intellectual properties. In Lehmuskallio’s case what is patented is a special METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS. I do not agree that it limits progress. It probably promotes right kind of progress for sustainable use of biodiversity, integrating ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development. Lehmuskallios and the whole NatureGate® R&D and Business Group is always ready for the Total Win-Win Strategies and Solutions. Together we can have a great impact on conserving biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity.

(3) You wrote:
”2. Where in the patent are the algorithms or
methods used to identify organisms?
I've read other software patents
(e.g., http://www.google.com/patents?id=544OAAAAEBAJ)
where the intellectual content is clear
(albeit it wrapped up in hideous "patent-speak").”

This Lehmuskallio’s METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS is really a general method and system covering all objects, e.g. rocks, minerals, soils etc. Thinking from ecosystem education point of view this is very good, because ecosystems have also abiotic components and now they can be identified also using this patented method and system. I am not a patent expert, and I do not comment other patents.

(4) You wrote:
”3. Patenting is not the only way to
create fundable tools, and software patents
are a contentious area
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate)
(and the idea was rejected by the EU Parliament).”

I repeat: the software is not patented, but a METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS. European Patent Office (EPO) has accepted the patent for Lehmuskallio’s METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS in the follwing countries: (AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, LV, MC, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, TR). (http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp? ... hmuskallio)+
< http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp? ... hmuskallio)+> )

As you see Great Britain and Finland and all other European countries are included. Actually the list covers practically all of the countries of the world in the sense of patent Laws.

(5) You wrote:
”Why do you think restricting
the freedom of others is a good idea?
I don't see why this is essential
to making the kind of tools and
services you propose.
Open source companies that
make their code freely available
still get funded. Funding and
openness are not mutually exclusive.”

Let’s first think from where do our salaries as Professors come. There must be sustainable enough economy, business life. It depends on innovations, created intellectual properties. If there were no business organisations, no enterpreneurs, our life in economical sense would probably be very miserable. Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio have been enterpreneurs practically all their adult life. They have invested all they have to this NatureGate® program. Over 20 years they have taken photos of nature and its species, and thought how ordinary people could be helped to identify species. Their invention may look simple, but so all great inventions. It demans enormous amount of work and guts to create the METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS which they have patented. We have created together the Total Win-Win Strategy according to which everybody is winning who cooperates, including the biosphere, its biodiversity and the humankind. There are much more useful details in our US patent pending business process model, which we'll reveal to those who start collaborating with us.

(5) You wrote:
”4. I don't know why you suggest
that the patent application "Managing taxonomic information"
is fake. It's real (although it's not clear to me
if it's been granted, which is why it might not
show up in the WIPO search engine). I take your implication
that I have the skills to "cheat" Google into showing
anything I want as a compliment, although
I think I deserve extra credit for managing
to insert the patent application
into http://www.patents.com/Managing-taxonom ... 283/en-US/ and http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0167283.html.”

After your explanation, I have to ask for your apology. It seems to me now that I was wrong, and I apologise for accusing you of creating a fake case. I misinterpreted the case. I acknowledge that I was wrong in this case. I regard you a very competent programmer, and accordingly I thought that you could have created a practical joke, a ”strawman” for me, just to pull my leg.

First, I understood your claim that the patent was granted. And when I did not find it from the UN WIPO search engine, then I concluded that no such kind patent exists. But, for sure it is also interesting to discuss what people try to patent (patent applications). However, the main point for us, is granted patents. In practice, only they count. I thought that the patent application example was fake, because I did not find it from the server of UN The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of the United Nations.

In science, we continually check claims both theoretically and empirically. I thought that because I did not find it from the server of UN The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of the United Nations, then your example would have been just created for a practical joke. Because you provided a second patent service, where the application is also mentioned, it very probably is a real patent application. When I studied carefully David Remsen’s and Catherine N. Norton’s patent page, it really is only a patent application from the year 2003.

Furthermore, to check this case, I sent an email to David Remsen and Catherine N. Norton, and asked about the fate of their patent application (dremsen@gbif.org, cnorton@whoi.edu ). I have not yet received any answer to my question.

(6) You wrote:
”5. I think there is an interesting discussion
to be had about intellectual property,
open source, and access to data in our field.
I'll declare my own bias at the outset,
namely that I don't see that software patents help us,
quite the opposite.”

I agree that this discussion, dialogue, is very interesting and important also to me. The main point is that Lehmuskallios have NOT patented a software, but the patent was applied and granted for a special METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS.

I have nothing against open source softwares. But I do use US patented softwares if they are better for my purposes.

As a Professor of Sustainability Education, my starting point is how to best promote integrating sustainable development (at the same time ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development). I guess that it would be also your best interest that in Scotland you could create that kind of development. Scottish sister company of NatureGate® Online Service would probably be a good starting point. We are ready to discuss about our options, if there are competent and interested people to discuss this issue. The same concerns all regions of the World.

Yours sincerely

Mauri

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

Mauri,

You say "...as far as I know, no taxonomists have done even this kind of work over hundreds of different species and families."

Surely, you are aware of Delta keys for which there are numerous examples on the Internet for literally thousands of species, perhaps 10s of thousands.

Having a US patent does not mean that the invention is novel or patentable. The US patent office only makes some very basic checks before issuing a patent. Only once the patent has been reviewed or contested is prior art etc really looked at. There is a good reason why they have a US patent and not a European one!

Naturegate is nice software and well worth promoting, but I think you are flogging a dead horse with the patent.

Regards

Quentin

Dear Quentin,

Thanks for your message. I’ll answer in the order you structured your message.

Quentin wrote:

“You say "...as far as I know, no taxonomists
have done even this kind of work over
hundreds of different species and families."
Surely, you are aware of Delta keys for
which there are numerous examples on
the Internet for literally thousands of species,
perhaps 10s of thousands.”

Yes, I know Delta keys, but I have never succeeded to use them. I hope that you or some other experts would like to demonstrate to me how they are working in practice as so many have claimed they do. But they have demonstrated, just claimed.

I googled and found:
http://delta-intkey.com/
http://delta-intkey.com/britin/index.htm
http://www.anbg.gov.au/projects/biblio/interactive.html
http://www.bdtracker.net/softwareTracke ... l/domain/2
http://research.calacademy.org/research ... atics.html

I found nothing practical for lifelong biodiversity education, in which you want to promote learning of organism species as components of ecosystems, ecosystems services, sustainable use of biodiversity etc.

Quentin wrote:
“Having a US patent does not mean that
the invention is novel or patentable.
The US patent office only makes some
very basic checks before issuing a patent.
Only once the patent has been reviewed
or contested is prior art etc really looked at.
There is a good reason why they have
a US patent and not a European one!

It seems to me that you have not read the whole thread of discussion starting from my initial message dated Feb 10, 2009. This gives me an opportunity to describe my own learning process. When I started the discussion, I was in belief that Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio have patented a software for NatureGate® Ltd. But during the process as evidenced in this thread of discussion, I have checked carefully all claims, even those of my own.

Now I know better. What is patented is much more than a software, it is the whole METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS (please, check yourself: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/index.jsp Use as inventor name Lehmuskallio. )

It is not patented only in USA, but all over the World, including Europe, Asia, Australia etc. Please check yourself the bottom of the page, “Designated states”: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp? ... hmuskallio)+

It has been already challenged in Europe and the result is that patent stands. For sure you may waste your time challenging it, but you could also collaborate and more time and energy could be invested in promoting biodiversity education and education for sustainable use of biodiversity.

Quentin wrote:
“Naturegate is nice software and
well worth promoting, but I think
you are flogging a dead horse with the patent.”

Thanks for your honesty in writing positive expressions of NatureGate® Online Servive.

Your last statement concerns a negative expression of the patent. However, it is important to stress importance of the patent because of the following reasons.

Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio have dedicated over 20 years all their available time and all what they own to photographing and videoing Nature and its species. They do not have that kind of monthly salary that you and me have. They have earned their living by their own photos and innovations by their own companies. They have paid their taxes and so also part of university researchers’ salaries. Thay have paid also directly salaries for many biologists. They have tried over 16 years to get public funding for public service they were planning. They did not succeed. At the end of February 2006, I decided with them to create NatureGate® R&D and Business Group and Program. In June 2006, we received the first seed money from University of Helsinki. Finally, in May 2008, University of Helsinki became a partner in NatureGate® Ltd that created and maintains NatureGate® online services. Without patented METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS and without registered NatureGate® trademark, University of Helsinki Funds would not be interested in becoming a partner. The same principle concerns big international companies some of which now sponsor us. We have learnt that the only way to create and maintain a online service like NatureGate® is through a business for social benefit. We are not begging for donations from ordinary users. The service has to be free to them like a public infrastructure. We have the Total Win-Win Strategy, in which everybody wins in long term, biosphere, including its biodiversity and the humankind. We are trusting in integrating sustainable development (ecologically, economically and socially).

I am ready to discuss these issues also in future. We are ready for discussing collaboration between everybody, who want to promote biodiversity education and sustainable use of biodiversity as good as possible.

Yours sincerely

Mauri

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

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.

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

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. What is wrong with the copyright protection they have.

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