Hi Tim,
I take the view if the Pharmacy Guild was getting in the Government's way on this...they would get squashed legally...take it from me if they disagree with you, you get to know about it big time!
You of course may be so well behaved that you have never had this experience. I have had it with both NSW and Canberra..not nice!
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] Health IT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:40 +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
> David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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!
>>
>
> David, I think you are making the common error of assuming that "the Government" is a sentity self-aware being in which the left ring finger knows what the
> hairs on the dorsum of its right thumb are doing, and v-v. The only people whose core job it would have been to oppose the Pharmacy Guild patent were the
> MediConnect people, and they were dispersed to the four winds, or perhaps by inheritance the HealthConnect people, and the same applies to them. I can't
> imagine NEHTA devoting its limited resources to such a pursuit. Which other part of "the Government" would or should have taken upon itself to oppose the
> patent application?
>
>> 2. 100% agree on these silly concept, business process patents.
>>
> Yup.
>
> Tim C
>
>> 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!
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
> __________ 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
