Tim Churches wrote:
Gerard Freriks wrote:
Hi,
Lets be sensible. A template is nothing but a screen thta can be filled.
As far as I know that has been described many times before 2001. Isn't it?
Yes, but pointers to papers published prior to 2001 which specifically describe this would be appreciated. Formal and specific evidence of prior art is required to successfully oppose a patent application - in most countries, the whole legal process is weighted in favour of the patent applicant (which is the opposite of the way it ought to be, since the state is granting the applicant a monopoly on the idea). For instance, in Australia (and probably other countries), the burden of proof falls on the opponent to prove lack of novelty, not on the applicant to prove novelty. The applicant needs only to claim novelty and show evidence of a search for prior art.
well, even my original archetypes paper was published on the web in 2000, based on a small epiphany reached with Sam Heard one day in 1997.... I did various kinds of searches and never found anything like the same design, although of course I am aware that many people/organisations have considered the same requirements. The only published work that had some similarities (and from which I did get ideas) was Martin Fowler's "Analysis Patterns", which does describe a kind of ad hoc two-level modelling (this was of course cited in my work). I am also certain that the problem has actually been solved before - just that such solutions are hidden in commercial software, not published in their own right. I have done my best to find some such solutions, and have indeed found a couple of notable ones (both less rigorous and extensive than what we have in openEHR, but nevertheless, based on exactly the same intuition, and very nicely engineered).
I am sure that Andrew Ho published some earlier paper on templates, and probably so have others in this group.
On the morality of patents, I agree with Dave and Tim - I am personally completely against the patent system for ideas or concepts. I don't think having a good idea is a basis for extracting money out of other people who might have had a similar, earlier or better idea, or no idea at all. Where patents can be relevant is for limited time protection of "developed/engineered artifacts" - where the costs of development are high and need to be recouped by the original developer - in other words things which are the results of ideas being engineered into something useful. This is where limited time patents on some kinds of drugs might be reasonable - the drug substance formula is not the 'idea' in this case, the original new understanding of the problem is the idea.
- thomas beale
