David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I understand it the concept they are attempting to patent is that of > a shared patient > record - which was at the base of Medi/Health Connect. > > It seems to me one only needs to look at the plans that were implemented > for Community > Health Information Networks in the mid 90's and at places like > Reigenstrief to realise > there is a heap of 'prior art' - given this was filed in October 2002. > > An attempt to enforce it would fail badly I believe, despite not being a > lawyer.
Obviously, IP Australia (i.e. the Australian patent office) should not grant patents on anything for which such considerable prior art exists, but remember IP Australia is an organisation which issued an innovation patent for the wheel - true! see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418165.stm In their defence, "innovation patents" are not the same as full patents, but if you read the explanation here: http://www.ipmenu.com/archive/AUI_2001100012.pdf - it is hard not to view them as anything other than means to impede to the application of well-known ideas. It must also be born in mind that although a patent which has issued may well be theoretically invalid due to prior art, it takes deep pockets to prove that in court, or to even oppose the patent during its approval process. The entire system is stacked in favour of those who apply for patents, on the assumption that if someone bothers to apply for a patent they must have an idea worthy of protection. Alas, that assumption is increasingly often incorrect, especially now that algorithms and business processes, not just physical inventions, can be patented. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
