Certainly the work we have done with OpenEMed qualifies, too. The paper we wrote in 1997 on the Virtual Patient Record in the Communications of the ACM has these concepts, too. CACM, 1997, vol 40., No. 8 pp 110-117
Dave > ------------Original Message------------ > From: Tim Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "OpenHealth List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "OpenEHR Technical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, Nov-23-2004 4:39 AM > Subject: Re: A patent application covering EHRs > > On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 18:29, Tim Churches wrote: > > > At a glance, there would not appear to be much in the way of novelty > in > > the claims, and several groups here in Australia plan to lodge > > objections to the application. Others may wish to object to the > > applications in their own countries. If anyone can suggest clear > prior > > art which was published before April 2002, and ideally before April > > 2001, then please let me know (or post details to this list so the > prior > > art can be shared around). > > Thanks for the heads up Tim. > It likely will come down to who has the time/money to properly fight > this. > What is the name of the organization that caused the review for MS's > patent application on the FAT filesystem? > > Anyway, anyone of the open source EMR's being discussed in the late > 90's would meet all 50 claims in this patent application. > > Certainly FreePM met all of those and most if not all of the claims > were discussed on the mailing lists. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/freepm_discuss%40listbot.com/maillist.html > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freepm-discuss > > Also Jeff Buckbinder at Freemed, Horst Herb at Gnumed and Alex Caldwell > at TkFamilyPractice > can lay claims to these same ideas of using distributed access to a > central record for patients. > > HTH, > TIm > >
