Tim Churches wrote: > Gerard Freriks wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Lets be sensible. >> A template is nothing but a screen thta can be filled. >> >> As far as I know that has been described many times before 2001. >> Isn't it? > > > Yes, but pointers to papers published prior to 2001 which specifically > describe this would be appreciated. Formal and specific evidence of > prior art is required to successfully oppose a patent application - in > most countries, the whole legal process is weighted in favour of the > patent applicant (which is the opposite of the way it ought to be, > since the state is granting the applicant a monopoly on the idea). For > instance, in Australia (and probably other countries), the burden of > proof falls on the opponent to prove lack of novelty, not on the > applicant to prove novelty. The applicant needs only to claim novelty > and show evidence of a search for prior art.
well, even my original archetypes paper was published on the web in 2000, based on a small epiphany reached with Sam Heard one day in 1997.... I did various kinds of searches and never found anything like the same design, although of course I am aware that many people/organisations have considered the same requirements. The only published work that had some similarities (and from which I did get ideas) was Martin Fowler's "Analysis Patterns", which does describe a kind of ad hoc two-level modelling (this was of course cited in my work). I am also certain that the problem has actually been solved before - just that such solutions are hidden in commercial software, not published in their own right. I have done my best to find some such solutions, and have indeed found a couple of notable ones (both less rigorous and extensive than what we have in openEHR, but nevertheless, based on exactly the same intuition, and very nicely engineered). I am sure that Andrew Ho published some earlier paper on templates, and probably so have others in this group. On the morality of patents, I agree with Dave and Tim - I am personally completely against the patent system for ideas or concepts. I don't think having a good idea is a basis for extracting money out of other people who might have had a similar, earlier or better idea, or no idea at all. Where patents can be relevant is for limited time protection of "developed/engineered artifacts" - where the costs of development are high and need to be recouped by the original developer - in other words things which are the results of ideas being engineered into something useful. This is where limited time patents on some kinds of drugs might be reasonable - the drug substance formula is not the 'idea' in this case, the original new understanding of the problem is the idea. - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
