Tim, I published this "invention" back in 1998 titled "Patient-Controlled Electronic Medical Records". Please see: http://www.txoutcome.org/scripts/zope/readings/patient-controlled and referenced here: http://www.txoutcome.org/scripts/zope/readings/oio
This work has been online and retrievable via Google and other search engines for many years. Performing a Google search using "patient-controlled electronic medical records" as the search term retrieves this paper as the first hit. I wonder if the Australian pharmacists read my invention and is now trying to steal it? It would be amazing if they neglected to run a Google search on related prior art. :-) Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:29:24 +1100, Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is some concern here in Australia over a patent application lodged > by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia over some rather generic features of > EHRs. These concerns are reported here: > > http://australianit.news.com.au/common/print/0,7208,11467621%5E15319%5E%5Enb%20v%5E15306,00.html > > or here: > > http://snipurl.com/atst > > The application has been lodged under the international PCT (patent > co-operation treaty), and it appears that country level applications > have been lodged in at least the UK, Canada and the US, as well as > Australia. > > 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). > > The details of the patent application, and a related one filed on the > same date, are as follows: > > "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SHARING PERSONAL HEALTH DATA" can be found here: > > http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=ep&LG=en&F=4&IDX=WO02073456&DB=EPODOC&QPN=WO02073456 > > or here: > > http://snipurl.com/atol > > Click on the tabs at the top to see the details of the patent claims. > > The details of the CR Group application for "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR > SECURE INFORMATION" can be found here: > > http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO02073455&F=0 > > or here: > > http://snipurl.com/ator > > The filing dates for both are 14 march 2002, with earliest priority > dates of 14 March 2001. > > Just to whet your appetite, here is Claim 1 of the Pharmacy Guild > application: > > "CLAIMS : 1. A method for a health care provider to obtain personal > health data relating to a consumer, the method comprising the steps of : > the consumer causing personal health data to be stored in a secure > repository, said repository requiring authentication of the consumer's > identity before the consumer is provided access to the repository; the > consumer selecting items of personal health data to share and > identifying a health care provider, or class of health care providers, > to whom access will be provided for those items of personal health data; > a health care provider providing authentication of their identity to the > consumer's secure repository and being provided access to those items of > personal health data of the consumer for which the health care provider > has been identified for sharing; the health care provider using the > personal health data of the consumer to determine health care advice or > the provision of a health care service for the consumer; and the health > care provider recording details of the consultation and the advice or > service provided to the consumer in the secure repository of health data > of the consumer." > > If this patent issues, we (or our govts) may find ourselves having to > pay royalties to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to use any EHR > applications which meet this description, or having to challenge the > patent in court (expensive). Hence there is value in demolishing it with > prior art in the application stage - assuming that it survives the > examination phase (which it shouldn't, but as we know, the US patent > office seems willing to approve a patent for just about anything, no > matter how obvious or well-known the idea is, and the Australian patent > office managed to issue an innovation patent for the wheel a few years > ago...true!). > > Tim C > > >
