The sentence says the patient will take an active role in managing their own health by having access to the virtual patient record. We specifically didn't say they would necessarily have control, since that might be still managed by the physician providing the data. But the fact that they should have access to their medical record from multiple locations in a seamless manner was clear spelled out. Of course the RAD specification we worked on shortly after this time was designed to control distributed access to medical records, be they by a patient or by a healthcare provider. It isn't clear to me that it is always best for the patient to have full control of their medical record, at least as it is being generated. I don't think this is a patent issue but a public policy issue. So I don't think that one should have to pay someone royalties for a patent on a system configuration issue. I view a distributed control of a record is important to preserve the quality of the data, but annotations and possibly correction of errors should be done by the patient, although the patient is always the best person to judge the nature of an error. Distributed secure access with multiple user control is what we were talking about.
Regarding the issue of patents, in general. I think too many things are approved by the US Patent Office without due diligence as to prior art. They rely on the courts to enforce the patents, so particularly for open source, this creates a problem as a patent may be only as good as the amount of money you have to fight it. There is a lot of what we did in 1993-1996 which clearly would have been patentable based on what I've seen in the patent office, but our folks at Los Alamos National Laboratory said it wasn't patentable. I think this is because they didn't want to get involved with having to defend a patent. The patent that has caused Microsoft a difficult time came out of the Univ. of San Francisco and I saw the prepatent application early on. I did not think it was patentable. But the idea was later sold to Eolas and they have fought the patent against Microsoft. The rest is history. http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2003/aug11art1qanda.htm I still think that idea has lots of prior art and isn't patentable. So I'm skeptical about a lot of this stuff. Dave > ------------Original Message------------ > From: Andrew Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "David Forslund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Openehr-Technical" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, Nov-23-2004 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: A patent application covering EHRs > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
