Hi Tim.
2 points.
1. The only person who would want to get rid of this patent in OZ would be the Government and big pockets (and leverage) they have!
2. 100% agree on these silly concept, business process patents.
Cheers
David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HealthIT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:06:54 +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
> 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
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1689 (20060802) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
