Inventors Struggle Over Cockcroach Killer; Mcgovern Moves; Latest Ip&T

Who gets the credit for killing the cockroach?

Yesterday the Court of Appeal for England as well as Wales (Ward, Jacob as well as Wilson LJJ) allowed an appeal in IDA Ltd as well as others v University of Southampton as well as others [2006] EWCA Civ 145.

Howse, a professor at Southampton University, patented an innovation for killing insects which resulted from his uncovering of the adhesion of electrostatically charged powders to insects’ legs. IDA, a specialist inwards magnetic powders, IDA's employee Metcalfe realized from the reference to ‘electrostatic’ inwards the patent that the innovation depended inwards some agency on the stickiness of the powder. Wondering whether magnetic powders mightiness function instead, having the payoff of non losing their stickiness, Metcalfe approached Howse as well as told him of his idea. Howse followed this suggestion, to come across if magnetic pulverisation would work, alongside IDA supplying the magnetic powders for the trials. When Howse institute that powders worked but likewise equally the electrostatic particles, he got his academy to apply for a patent. IDA as well as then applied nether the Patents Act 1977, s.8, for the patent to last transferred either into its ain cite or at to the lowest degree into the articulation names of itself as well as the university. It was accepted that, after the academy applied for the patent, the burden of proof was upon IDA to demo that it, non the university, was entitled to the grant.

The Patent Office ruled that Metcalfe was alone responsible for devising the notion of trapping and/or killing pests past times using adherent magnetic particles; what Howse had done was only to bear witness that concept. The patent thus belonged to IDA. On appeal Mr Justice Laddie ruled that the ‘sticky toxicant concept’ came from Howse as well as that had non hence shifted the burden of showing that Howse as well as his academy were non at to the lowest degree partly responsible for the invention. He hence saw the parties equally existence jointly entitled to the ownership.

The Court of Appeal allowed IDA's as well as Metcalfe's appeal. It held that

* inwards determining who owned a patent, department viii of the Patents Act 1977 required the courtroom to watch (i) who contributed what as well as (ii) what rights, if any, lay inwards the middle of the inquiry, rather than looking at ownership of the monopolies that were genuinely claimed.

* what i would usually hold back for was ‘the heart’ of the invention. There mightiness last to a greater extent than than i ‘heart’, but each claim was non to last considered equally a assort ‘heart’ on its own.

* inwards this illustration the data at the middle of the innovation was the exchange of magnetic particles for electrostatic particles. That fundamental hinformation was provided alone past times Metcalfe. The ‘heart’ was his sentiment alone.

thinks the Court of Appeal has got it correct on the facts, but yet rather likes the approach of working backwards from the patent claims, to come across who came upward alongside their substance, rather than ploughing through the who-does-what side of the historical evolution of the invention. After all, without the claims, the innovation is zilch other than a fresh chunk of the reason of the art. Merpel wonders whether a farther appeal mightiness last inwards order. Lord Hoffmann has shown some involvement inwards rights inwards patents, equally is apparent from his speech inwards Buchanan v Alba back inwards 2004.

Best cockroach recipes here and here
Amazing cockroach facts here


If you lot were wondering ...

... what the IPKat's friend Patricia McGovern is upward to, he tin tell you. Patricia has taken the bold footstep of leaving Dublin constabulary theatre L. K. Shields to educate her ain intellectual holding boutique, P. McGovern & Co., solicitors. You tin electronic mail Patricia here to state hullo as well as wishing her practiced luck.

Luck of the Irish Gaelic here
Lucky leprechauns here
Irish Patent Office here


Late, later, .. latest IP&T

The Feb number of LexisNexis Butterworths' Intellectual Property as well as Technology Cases has directly been published, but a teeny flake into March. But that doesn't matter, since this is but the difficult re-create version of constabulary reports which IP&T subscribers cause got been able to consult online for some time. Cases inwards this number are

* Markem v Zipher, a somewhat controversial Court of Appeal reversal of a Patents County Court determination inwards which that Court as well as the trial guess had radically dissimilar approaches to the inquiry of a witness's credibility;

* Medion v Thomson Multimedia Sales Federal Republic of Federal Republic of Germany - the ruling of the ECJ that you lot can't pocket soul else's merchandise grade past times sticking your ain cite inwards forepart of it;

* Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM, where the CFI felt that the identify cite Cloppenburg was registrable equally a merchandise grade for services that consumers wouldn't assume to cause got emanated from that mini-metropolis;

* Class International v Colgate-Palmolive, inwards which the ECJ came perilously closed to maxim that the interests of merchandise grade owners were worth sacrificing on the altar of costless travail of goods.

The IP&Ts are edited past times Michael Silverleaf QC, who knows a thing or ii most the discipline ...

Siemens Loses Simantec Reference; Onion Blowing Inwards The Wind

Competitor's purpose of identical guild is lawful

has been pondering Case C-59/05 Siemens AG v VIPA GmbH, decided yesteryear the European Court of Justice on the Th of lastly week.

In 1983 Siemens, who made as well as sold SIMANTEC programmable controllers, introduced a arrangement of guild numbers for the controllers as well as plus components. VIPA made as well as sold components that were compatible alongside SIMANTEC controllers. From 1988, VIPA employed an identification arrangement that was virtually identical to that of Siemens. Siemens sued VIPA for merchandise grade infringement, alleging that VIPA took unfair wages of the reputation of its products. The High German Bundesgerichtshof, seeking guidance on Council Directive 84/450 on misleading as well as comparative advertising, stayed the proceedings as well as referred to the European Court of Justice the query whether, yesteryear using inwards its catalogues the inwardness elements of a manufacturer’s distinguishing grade which was known inwards merchandise circles, a competing supplier was taking unfair wages of the reputation of that distinguishing grade inside the pregnant of Article 3a(1)(g) of Directive 84/450.

The courtroom ruled equally follows:

"Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive 84/450 [as amended] must live interpreted equally pregnant that, inwards circumstances such equally those inwards the primary proceedings, yesteryear using inwards its catalogues the inwardness chemical element of a manufacturer’s distinguishing grade which is known inwards specialist circles, a competing supplier does non have got unfair wages of the reputation of that distinguishing mark".

There was no unfair wages because

* the competing products were aimed at a specialist world which was much less probable than terminal consumers to associate the reputation of Siemens' products alongside that of VIPA's;

* the purpose of VIPA's acronym inwards its ain guild numbers (eg Siemens' 6ES5 928-3UB21 production guild number, corresponding to VIPA's VIPA 928-3UB21) made it possible to distinguish betwixt the parties' respective products, thence preventing a faux impression beingness given either equally to the root of VIPA's products or equally to at that spot beingness whatever association betwixt VIPA as well as Siemens.

says this conclusion is uncontroversial: it's inwards business alongside before ECJ rulings inwards Cases C-112/99 Toshiba Europe [2002] ETMR 26 as well as C-44/01 Pippig Augenoptik [2004] ETMR 5. Merpel agrees as well as adds, this illustration didn't accomplish the ECJ till Feb 2005 as well as was disposed of only 1 twelvemonth later: that shows it can't have got caused the courtroom likewise many headaches.


Naming winds

This delightful slice appears inwards The Onion:

National Weather Service To Give Hurricanes Full Names

The National Weather Service announced Fri that, inwards answer to the increasing release of hurricanes, it is revising its naming system. "The hundreds of hurricanes nosotros facial expression inwards the North Atlantic inwards 2006 volition have both proper as well as surnames", Max Mayfield of the conditions service said. "In fact, tropical storms Alberto Fergus, Beverly Stenwick-Brown, as well as Chris Stubbs Jr. have got already received names nether the novel system". After all possible first off as well as lastly names are exhausted, storms volition live given titles, first off alongside Hurricane Assistant Accounts Manager Alexander Epps, CPA.

This gives the IPKat an idea: how well-nigh selling the naming rights to the highest bidder? He suspects that hurricanes named after mothers-in-law, politicians as well as sports personalities would cyberspace a skilful bargain of revenue for the relevant licensing authorities. There powerfulness fifty-fifty live a WIPO-led initiatory on the protection of rights inwards hurricane nomenclature. Maybe, says Merpel, but some people associate WIPO to a greater extent than alongside hot air than alongside hurricanes ...

Naming of hurricanes here; naming of cyclones here; The Tempest here
Blowin' inwards the Wind here
Wind sufferers click here

Is The Cfi Merely Horsing Around?

brings (slightly delayed) tidings of a foreign Court of First Instance decision.

The Royal Berkshire Polo Club applied to register a Community merchandise grade inwards the shape of a discussion together with device grade consisting of a flick of a polo player, mallet aloft, together alongside the words ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB for diverse goods, including cosmetic together with products for cleaning the torso inwards Class 3, equally good equally products used for domestic cleaning (e.g. bleach) inwards the same class. Polo/Ralph Lauren opposed the application, based on its national registrations of diverse discussion together with device marks, including 1 containing a flick of a polo player, mallet aloft, together with the words POLP RALPH LAUREN together with the discussion grade POLO. The OHIM Opposition Division rejected PRL’s opposition, but the Board of Appeal overturned that decision, allowing the opposition on likelihood of confusion grounds for the cosmetics together with products for cleaning the body, but non for the products for domestic cleaning. The lodge appealed, tilt inter alia that the Board had paid likewise lilliputian attending to the discussion chemical element of its grade when comparison the marks, together with that the Board’s conclusion granted PRL an unfair together with unjustifiable monopoly over the figurative chemical element of a polo-playing horseman.

The club’s appeal was unsuccessful, but the Board’s conclusion was partially annulled, allowing the opposition for the domestic cleaning products equally good equally for the cosmetics together with body-cleaning products.

Arguments were raised together with rejected concerning a failure of the Board to give sufficient reasons, but it’s the noun merchandise grade police rulings that the IPKat finds difficult to swallow. He draws his readers’ attending to two paragraphs inwards particular:

“Next, it must hold out recalled that a complex merchandise grade cannot hold out regarded equally beingness similar to only about other merchandise grade which is identical or similar to 1 of the components of the complex grade unless that element forms the dominant chemical element inside the overall impression created past times the complex mark. That is the illustration where that element is probable to dominate, past times itself, the icon of that grade which the relevant world keeps inwards mind, alongside the outcome that all the other components of the grade are negligible inside the overall impression created past times it…” [para.38]

says that this is reintroducing praegertheorie for discussion together with device marks, which volition alone recognise composite marks equally beingness similar where the shared chemical element dominates the mark, fifty-fifty though the theory was rejected for composite marks inwards Medion.

“Thirdly, the Court considers that the declaration that, were it non to hold out annulled, the Board of Appeal’s conclusion would induce got the outcome of according the intervener an unfair together with unjustifiable monopoly over the polo actor device, together with would enable it to foreclose whatever after application containing a similar logo cannot hold out accepted. … inwards relation to those products [the Class three goods], the device of a polo actor is an icon alongside high imaginative content. Such a device must hold out regarded equally arbitrary for the goods inwards enquiry together with deserves to hold out protected against subsequent applications depicting confusingly similar devices. Indeed, the wages of the legal authorities of the Community merchandise grade lies just inwards the fact that it enables holders of an before merchandise grade to oppose the registration of after marks which select unfair wages of the distinctiveness or repute of the before merchandise mark. Hence, far from according an unfair together with unjustifiable monopoly to the proprietors of an before mark, that authorities enables those proprietors to protect together with exploit the substantial investment made to promote their before mark.” [para.43]

As far equally the IPKat was aware, the regulation that drives European merchandise grade police is that what we’re trying to foreclose is after exercise that harms the functions (particularly the essential function) of the before merchandise mark. Mark-owners who seek to enforce those rights exterior of those limits are acting exterior of their legitimate interests. (Granted, this theory doesn’t friction match inwards easily alongside the Art.8(5) protection against unfair advantage, but this was an Art.8(1)(b) case). Here however, the emphasis has shifted. The CFI seat the involvement protected past times merchandise grade police non equally the portion served past times the merchandise mark, but instead equally the protection of the investment that the possessor has made inwards promoting his mark. Moreover, the primal protection offered to the grade seems, according to the CFI, to hold out protection against misappropriation of that investment, rather than against impairment to the mark.

Incidentally, the Kat is interested to encounter the exercise of the term ‘arbitrary’ used to depict the human relationship betwixt the grade together with the goods. This is a U.S. term, used to depict existent (i.e. non-made up) words which induce got no human relationship alongside the goods inwards enquiry together with is the second-highest shape of distinctiveness inwards the distinctiveness hierarchy (the get-go beingness coined terms).

Accu Chek Consignment Non Impliedly Marketed Inward Eea; Latest Ijlit

Use of CE grade does non imply consent to resale inwards EEA

Last Th Chancery Division approximate Mr Justice Lewison was dorsum inwards activity again, inwards Roche Products Ltd v Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This jewel tin last establish on both the Lawtel and All England Direct subscription services, only non (yet?) on BAILII. It volition soundless last reported in the European Trade Mark Reports later this year.

Roche, a pharmacecutical fellowship that made ACCU CHEK Advantage II strips for self testing of glucose levels inwards blood, sued parallel importers Kent for merchandise grade infringement, seeking summary judgment. Roche alleged that a consignment of goods imported past times Kent from French Republic was commencement marketed inwards the Dominican Republic on the footing that it would last used entirely inwards clinical trials only would non last resold or transferred to other parties. The imported goods bore a "CE" grade (indicating compliance amongst European Community standards) in addition to bore information in addition to instructions inwards 3 European languages.

Kent said argued that the populace would regard packaging that bore the CE grade in addition to the purpose of 3 European languages equally showing Roche's unequivocal consent to the marketing of the consignment inside the EEA. Roche submitted that it was the province of heed of the possessor that counted, non the province of heed of a department of the populace inside the EEA.

Lewison J gave judgment for Roche, asset equally follows:

* it was patently from the government that the courtroom sought a demonstration of actual consent, either limited or implied, past times the merchandise grade proprietor to its products beingness marketed inwards the EEA -- non deemed consent.

* Roche had non consented to the marketing of the units inside the EEA when it supplied them to the tertiary party. The presence of a CE grade on packaging showed that the production had been formally approved for sale in addition to that regulations had been complied with, only this was an termination of character assurance, non an indication that Roche had consented to the production beingness placed on the marketplace inside the EEA.

* it could non last said that it had been shown that Roche renounced its merchandise grade rights or that it had impliedly consented to the marketing of the goods inside the EEA.

* in that location was no reasonable prospect that Kent would successfully defend Roche's action.

agrees that Lewison J has got it correct again. The presence of the CE grade on the products mightiness good last a necessary status for the marketing of those products, only the fulfilment of a necessary status is non the same affair equally the giving of implied consent to marketing inwards the EEA.

More on the CE sign here and here


Latest IJLIT

's Spring 2006 termination of the International Journal of Law in addition to Information Technology, published quarterly by Oxford University Press, has straightaway emerged. It contains iv slap-up skillful pieces:

* Roger K. Baker (ItemPlus Consulting) writes on the application of the EU's eighth Data Protection Principle (“Personal information shall non last transferred to a province or territory exterior the European Economic Area unless that province or territory ensures an adequate degree of protection for the rights in addition to freedoms of information subjects inwards relation to the processing of personal data.”) to offshore information technology outsourcing;

* Margaret Jackson in addition to Marita Shelly (RMIT University) hash out the Australian stance of copyright infringement through "authorisation" - a topic on which Australian in addition to United Kingdom of Great Britain in addition to Northern Ireland courts stimulate got taken substantially dissimilar views;

* Warren B. Chik (left, Singapore Management University) considers issues relating to communications privacy on that real populace medium, the internet;

* Philip Michael Romero (American Professional Safety Trainers Alliance) employs the metaphors of immunology when examining information counter-terrorism;

* Lior Zemer (University of Leicester, presently to last UCL) incites readers to produce unopen to serious rethinking of basic copyright concepts.

Full contents in addition to abstracts available here

Nominet Egm - Mo' Money?

An anonymous root idea that the IPKat should know that Nominet (the .uk domain cite registry) is calling an EGM on xvi March. On the tabular array are a set out of changes to Nominet’s corporate governance in addition to society statutes. The following changes are proposed:

*a widening of the company's aims;
*removing the ask for 90% of members to last inwards back upwards earlier a fellow member tin last expelled;
*changes to the agency inwards which directors are elected in addition to to their length of service. In addition, the set out of directors would increase from six to 9;
*changes to the voting system;
*the introduction of a ability for the board to consult stakeholders on policy matters;
*removal of the requirement that 75% of the members approve whatever cost changes;
*the introduction of changes which reverberate the novel police pull on directors’ indemnities.

Kassam Stadium, Oxford, place of the xvi March EGM

The proposed changes stimulate got come upwards inwards for heavy criticism. Members fright that the changes would drive Nominet to larn also commercial in addition to volition also resultant inwards less ability for the Nominet members. Nominet counters that it cannot effectively compete at present. The introduce rules larn inwards extremely hard to brand cost changes in addition to it cannot comport marketing for the .uk domain. It also cannot bid to supply non-.uk registry-related services, despite having keen sense inwards domain cite registration.

says that, at the cease of the day, Nominet is a company, albeit a not-for-profit society in addition to the truth of the affair is, companies human activeness to protect their ain interests. Nominet can’t last blamed for acting inwards this way. The alone agency to brand certain that domain cite registration is genuinely inwards the populace involvement is to set it into populace hands. This of kind would require stacks of regime money, especially at the outset. If domain cite registration remains inwards person hands hence we’ll simply stimulate got to alive amongst the fact that Nominet volition human activeness equally companies must.

More On Quid Novi; Harrods Cuts Losses

this comment on the Quid Novi determination lastly week, the IPKat expressed a footling anxiety virtually the haste amongst which summary judgment was ordered for copyright infringement, taking into concern human relationship the testify that the defendants had non yet submitted. He has since received this message from a duumvirate of IP enthusiasts who write equally follows:

"We read the weblog on Quid Novi Ltd together with roughly other v Innvotec together with others, together with nosotros intend it sounds similar Lewison J got it precisely correct together with from what he said i should non live concerned that he is jumping the gun on disclosure. While nosotros handgrip that, taken out of context, it is surprising to hear a gauge comment on the footing of "the dry soil of the testify ... equally it powerfulness have got been later on disclosure together with trial", inwards context that may non have got been so surprising. Disclosure is of course of teaching limited to disclosure of documents relating to the issues. The issues are defined inwards the pleadings. The defendants have got to plead something that is pleadable. If the gauge is satisfied that the is no prospect of the accused raising a pleadable final result beyond that of putting the claimant to proof, so the solely issues to which disclosure would apply would live the claimant's pleaded case. In a copyright activeness similar Quid Novi, this would presumably need proof of creation together with chain of title.

Bearing inwards take away heed that the claimant has to certify amongst a disputation of truth that it knows of no reasonable prospect of the accused defending the claim, it follows that the claimant cannot inside its duty to the courtroom live withholding cloth that would undermine the testify which it puts frontward (and that is equally adept a guarantee that nix equally held dorsum equally the disputation of truth that would look on the listing of documents). Lewison J was therefore, inwards our view, justified inwards final that the defendant's representative would non amend later on disclosure".

nonetheless remains slightly sick at ease. The defendants argued, amid other things, that disclosure was necessary for the operate of establishing whether Quid Novi's innovation constituted an master work. While the unoriginality of the claimant's piece of job is a defense strength that rarely succeeds, the gauge would have got to live pretty confident that the chain of factual causation leading to the creation of the claimant's piece of job was so clear that at that spot only wasn't going to live anything disclosable that powerfulness upset the presumption that the innovation was an master piece of job inwards which copyright subsisted.
here
Quo vadis blogged hither by the IPKat) considered that the correct affair to produce was (i) to position the relevant factual issues together with (ii) bound disclosure to those issues. Adding that a accused was non forced to base of operations a populace involvement defense strength on what was known at the appointment of publication, he so made surely orders for specific disclosure, including the data relating to all threescore senior executives. Harrods appealed.

The courtroom (Chadwick, Moore-Bick LJJ together with Lawrence Collins J) allowed Harrods' appeal inwards part. It held that

* since equity would non protect the correct of confidence inwards an iniquity, a accused was entitled to disclosure so equally to back upwardly that defense strength on populace involvement grounds.

* no accused was entitled to a roving enquiry into a claimant’s concern practices, so the width of the enquiry had to reverberate the width of the relief sought inwards whatever injunction.

* Warren J was correct to brand the lodge for disclosure that he had on the representative presented earlier him. However, later on Harrods abandoned its claim to trammel the publication of data other than that already published, at that spot was no ground for disclosing the data relating to whatever employees other than the 2 named inwards the article. His lodge would thus live varied, deleting the chip that required disclosure of data relating to the other 58 executives.

is disappointed that this determination has non yet appeared on the BAILII website. At introduce it lives equally a Federal Reserve annotation on the Sweet & Maxwell subscription service Lawtel. He thinks the determination is right, though, together with notes the subtle vogue inwards which a claimant, yesteryear narrowing elements of its claim, tin deflect the self-inflicted harm caused yesteryear large-scale disclosure.

Ip Shorties - Vi Of The Best!

Today the IPKat has brought some selection snippets for your delectation. Here they are, inwards no item order:

1. here and here). Gowers has forthwith formally issued its call for evidence, which must move received past times Friday 21 Apr 2006.

Merpel notes that the Gowers review logo (right) is suggestive of the iii balls symbol of the pawnbroker. Is this a clue to the review's mental attitude towards IP securitisation?

Gowers review website here.


2. Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

It is alone rattling late that the IPKat has discovered the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) which, its website states,

"is devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of social scientific discipline query as well as is composed of a number of specialized query networks inwards each of the social sciences.

Each of SSRN's networks encourages the early on distribution of query results past times publishing Submitted abstracts as well as past times soliciting abstracts of superlative character query papers or as well as then the world. We forthwith convey hundreds of journals, publishers, as well as institutions inwards Partners inwards Publishing that furnish working papers for distribution through SSRN's eLibrary as well as abstracts for publication inwards SSRN's electronic journals".

The Kat wonders how many of his readers occupation the SSRN as well as how useful they discovery it from an IP perspective. Comments are welcome - you lot tin post them below.


3. The CAFC as well as product-by-process claims

's friend Duncan Bucknell has drawn his attending to SmithKline v Apotex, a recent conclusion of the U.S.A. of America Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit which appears to move at odds amongst conventional U.S.A. of America thinking on the application of patent police clit novelty principles to product-by-process claims.

Duncan's comments tin move read here.


4. Forthcoming attraction

The European Court of Justice is shut this week, to enable the overworked judges to choose grip of upward on their sleep. Next week, fresh from their slumbers, they give their ruling inwards Case C-421/04 Matratzen Concord v Hukla Germany, which considers the registrability inwards Kingdom of Spain of the give-and-take MATRATZEN. This word, which inwards Castilian has no pregnant at all, is the German linguistic communication give-and-take for "mattress".


5. Chinese whispers

One of the IPKat's stealthier pals has sent him this link to a slice from Managing Intellectual Property on the novel Chinese domain lift dispute resolution policy. The novel rules, which come upward into strength on 17 March, brand iii primary changes to the existing one:

* a novel fourth dimension bar volition foreclose people filing complaints nigh .cn domain names that were registered to a greater extent than than 2 years earlier. After that period, merchandise score owners volition convey to file a civil trial inwards the Chinese courts.

* "bad faith" volition move narrowly defined every bit "registering for the role of selling, hiring or assigning to the civil correct possessor or to their competitors to obtain unjustified benefits". Complainants volition take away to present evidence that the .cn holder tried to sell, hire or assign the rights inwards the website lift to the correct possessor or a competitor. Evidence obtained past times agency of anonymous approaches volition no longer move plenty to testify bad faith.

* registrants alone take away to present that they convey used the domain lift inwards practiced organized religious belief to furnish goods or services, that they convey non obtained merchandise marks but convey acquired a sure enough reputation through use, or that they convey legitimately used the domain lift for commercial or non-commercial purposes without intending to mislead the public.

can't assistance feeling that the policing as well as protection of all available domain names is a time-wasting as well as costly exercise for most legitimate traders as well as it doesn't seem to produce goodness consumers or contest policy.


6. Badscience

The Badscience website comes recommended past times the IPKat's friend Michael Harman. It is piloted past times Dr Ben Goldacre, whose mission is to part his deep suspicion of the agency the media describe science. He also articulates concern at the agency scientific discipline is subjected to dumbing down.

Given that patentability of an project design may move barred on morality or populace policy grounds past times media-influenced (mis)impressions, this site is non without its relevance to the IP community. Ironically, it is through the media that Dr Goldacre disseminates much of his precipitous wit, every bit a columnist amongst The Guardian newspaper.