On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, David Forslund wrote: > And if you do a google on "Virtual Patient Record" you will see as the > first hit the pre-published version of our (Kilman and myself) CACM > paper outlining how do do all of this, from February, 1996.
Dave, I just read your "virtual patient record" paper at http://openemed.net/background/TeleMed/Papers/virtual.html and I could not find text in this paper that specifies the patient's role in controlling who should have access to the records. If I missed it, please point to the section of the paper that spells this out. > This is prior to Andrew's patent, but describes the role of a patient in > managing their own health record and how to implement it. I must have missed it. Did your NJC prototype (briefly mentioned in this paper) include patient-controlled records feature? > The implementation of this now resides in the OpenEMed architecture and > software and existed earlier in the 1994 version of TeleMed (see > reference in the above paper). It is one thing to have a access control policy module but that is not the same as giving patients control over those policies. The same goes for trying to use FreeMed, FreePM, GnuMed, and TkFP as relevant prior art. As far as I know, they do not have the patient-controlled feature. If we want to use them as prior art, we need to point to specific designs or implementations that "reads-on" Philip, Vasken, and Trevor's patent (http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=ep&LG=en&F=4&IDX=WO02073456&DB=EPODOC&QPN=WO02073456). > I don't consider any of this "inventions", simply understanding how to > build robust distributed healthcare systems that meet the needs of > people. Where these "simple understandings" may be deemed non-obvious and signficant by patent reviewers, they are patentable. :-) This means writing documentation to fully disclose innovative system features and filing some patents from time to time may become increasingly important for free software projects. Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org > > Dave Forslund > > ------------Original Message------------ > > From: Andrew Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: "Openehr-Technical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue, Nov-23-2004 9:56 AM > > Subject: Re: A patent application covering EHRs > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
