At 07:18 AM 3/24/2003 -0800, Andrew Ho wrote:
[Since we are discussing a specific patent rather than the patent pool, I
think it is helpful to change to subject line.]

Response below.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Tim Churches wrote:

> > Horst Herb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > David Forslund wrote:
> > > I looked over the patent and don't understand how the patent was
> > > granted.  There is much prior
> > > art in this area including standards from the OMG, where the
> > patient
> > > identifier (which can be
> >
> > I discussed this with Andrew some time ago. In fact we already used
> > this
> > separation of information in order to protect confidential data in
> > almost literally the same way as his patent in ~ 1986 (?, maybe even
> > earlier) at the Technical University of Munich for cardiol. study
> > data.

Horst, Tim, Dave,

Separation of patient identifiers from other patient data is not one of
the novel aspects (= claims) of the Sequentially Distributed Secret
Splitting (SDSS) patent. In fact, SDSS is applicable to non-patient data
and any data.  Rather, what the SDSS patent describes are ways to store
and retrieve information in a secure manner after the information has
been split up.

I guess I missed what makes the storing and retrieving information in a secure manner patentable,
if it isn't the splitting process described in your patent.



Two issues for you to consider:

1) The characterization that separating patient identifiers from other
patient data as a type of "secret splitting" is novel. This is not what
the field calls "secret splitting" before my publications.

If the words "secret splitting" are what make it patentable, then I would agree.
But I would think the issue is the concept, not the specific term used to identify the concept.


   In fact, the strategy of separating patient identifiers from the rest
of data was not known to be scalable to arbitrary degrees of security
before SDSS - since the old strategy was as a narrow solution rather
than a general information protection mechanism.

I don't have the references directly in hand, but I disagree with this assessment.
"Arbitrary degrees of security" seems to me to be a strange statement. I
don't think there is such a thing. Scalable separation of patient identifiers (or other
identifiers, for that matter) is well known, however. I wouldn't even consider it publishable
let alone patentable.


   The enabling step that makes "secret splitting" generalizable and
scalable (and which remains non-obvious to many experts in the field -
like yourselves - despite my publications and explanations :-), is the
"sequentially distributed" design.

2) The "sequentially distributed" manner in which the secret splitting
design is implemented is unique. Each share of secret is tunneled through
a sequentially arranged series of data storage/management units to a
specific location for storage.

What is unique about the storage of portions of the data? I guess I missed it and will need to look at your patent more closely.

   A form of "sequential distribution" has been used in "Onion Routing"
http://www.onion-router.net/Publications.html, but obviously for an
entirely different purpose (protects identity of the users of the system
rather than for storing and retrieving secret data).

Isn't this the same thing? Certain data is being protected from others.
It seems to be me to be analogous to patenting the use of SSL to encrypt
patient identifiers, when it is in common use in other areas not specific to healthcare.


...
> All predate Andrew's patent application, I'm afraid.

No problem, if someone else deserves credit for inventing SDSS, I will be
glad to recognize that.

As always, I welcome further discussions especially if you disagree with
my views. :-)

...

Best regards,

Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org



Reply via email to