RSS
Twitter
Collecting Clinical Data Over The Internet? You'll Probably Get Sued For Patent Infringement
from the promoting-innovation? dept
The number of examples of problems with the patent system keep piling up. Kevin submits the latest story about a small patent holding company that is suing plenty of companies for a patent on collecting and validating clinical test data over the internet. Reading through the patent itself is fun. They act as if it's an amazing innovation to collect and validate such data online. However, what's more interesting in this case, is how the company that owns the patent, Datasci, is proceeding with its legal strategy. Following the well worn path of other patent hoarders, it focused on a smaller software company that was unlikely to want to go through the long legal fight. However, it also threatened to sue that company's customers. Suddenly, the stakes are much higher, and the company has a lot more pressure to settle, just to keep its customers from freaking out over some lawsuit just because they're using some data collection software. So, that software company settles, and pays out a few million dollars. The patent holder then uses those millions to turn around and sue another, slightly larger company... and the cycle repeats. No one challenges the patent because it's just to expensive, and the risk from exposing customers to a possible liability increases the perceived cost of your solution, making it imperative to get the thing settled as quickly as possible. Again, this is the patent system at its worst. A totally obvious idea, being used to extort money out of companies who basically have no choice but to pay up.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
wow... damn, how did i not think of that?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Patent Smatent
Gee, looks like the trial lawyers have some competition on 'how to drive the price of something through the roof again'.
And lo and behold, it has to do with the medical community again!
Will someone come up with an 'original idea sometime?' Even if it is evil, not good for the overall consumer/business/encomic synergistic system. Just one orginal idea? I mean, there has to be a Dr. Evil out there somewhere that can think.
Maybe someone should sue these people for ripping off the trial lawyers idea. Hear that trial lawyers? They ripped off your idea... Go sue em, sick, sick, sick...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
someone should patent a system for holding/making patents to use litigatipusly(spelling perhaps) against people who actually use the idea instead of sit on it. or perhaps patent a system for patenting incrediabley obvious ideas.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I hope that your statement doesn't count as prior art, cause I was going to file for just that patent ;-)
Well, I guess it's a good thing that the PTO doesn't check prior art......
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
in soviet russia...
..this wouldn't be an issue. someone would walk up, shoot the lawyer and the person initiating the case in the face and leave a note that says they'd do it to the next person that does the same. complaining doesn't hinder greed in any way. either is has to be bulletproof unlawful (never going to happen), or there has to be real fear about doing things like this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
HIPAA
All of this is a moot issue, if anyone on this blog understood HIPAA and IRB issues. But then, why bother?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: HIPAA
Those don't apply, you idiot.
Take your appeal to authority elsewhere.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: HIPAA
Why would it be moot? HIPAA doesn't prevent clinical information from being transmitted. HIPAA mostly places responsibility sa as to treat PHI (protected health information) confidentially.
So it isn't moot at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: HIPAA
dorpus is an idiot troll who knows nothing.
He thinks perhaps that if he drops a couple of buzzwords that people will find him insightful?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: HIPAA
That's why I don't bother posting at /. Most of what I see are a bunch of elitsts dropping buzzwords thinking it will add a +1 to +5 credibility mod to their posts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Safer Medican Community
Mecial rooms these days are simply lawsuits waiting to happen 24/7. These computerized ways that have worked thus far are turning into legal matters because it seems like nobody knows how far to actually go.
With patents being broken and doctors not knowing what is considered "safe" with medical (specifically test) data, the best solution is to have a third party step in. No more shady software frauds that are going to cause medical companies millions.
Lets protect data the right way
http://www.essentialsecurity.com/Documents/article5.htm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This will be over soon...
... because Pfizer has more money than they do, and can sue them and their grandchildren into bankruptcy.
The alternative, of course, is to capitulate and then pharmas will charge $250 for a single Vicodin pill, to recoup yet another cost of doing R&D.
-C
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hey! Great idea for a patent...
It is called "Biologically based methods and apparatus for the centralized collection and assimilation of geographically distributed data via remote transmission with verification of input data to the collection system".
Basically, the process is this:
1) collect bound data packet from geographically distributed source for assimilation (check out a book from the library, or purchase from an "interactive selection vendor" - Amazon, B&N, et al)
2) transmit collected data packets via remote transmission medium (begin reading said book with your peepers)
3) assimilate remotely transmitted data (comprehend said reading material)
4) verify assimilated data with run-time filters (decide if the book is good/bad/uplifting/objectionable/etc)
5) retransmit assimilated and verified data via remote medium to target sources (talk about said book with friends, or post to your blog)
There. Until the world finally plunges into illiteracy, I get royalties from everyone!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hey! Great idea for a patent...
It is called "Biologically based methods and apparatus for the centralized collection and assimilation of geographically distributed data via remote transmission with verification of input data to the collection system".
Basically, the process is this:
1) collect bound data packet from geographically distributed source for assimilation (check out a book from the library, or purchase from an "interactive selection vendor" - Amazon, B&N, et al)
2) transmit collected data packets via remote transmission medium (begin reading said book with your peepers)
3) assimilate remotely transmitted data (comprehend said reading material)
4) verify assimilated data with run-time filters (decide if the book is good/bad/uplifting/objectionable/etc)
5) retransmit assimilated and verified data via remote medium to target sources (talk about said book with friends, or post to your blog)
There. Until the world finally plunges into illiteracy, I get royalties from everyone!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Your Patent
May I have your permission to hang this on my door at work so everyone who walks by and reads it can laugh their asses off? The company I work for gives LOTS of attention to its employee "Patent Holders", even if the patent is a well-known, logical process followed by others for years.........like checking out library books to educate yourself. Very nice piece....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re HIPAA
Btw, considering HIPAA regulations deal with the issues of safeguarding PHI (administrative safeguards, physical safeguards, and technical safeguards) and the extent to which a holder of PHI goes in protecting the integrity of said PHI, after reading the patent application I can see no intent by the patent applicant for thier system to "protect", any more or any less than any other computerized system, the collection, use, or storage of clinical trial data.
Basically, this is a "process" patent for these steps: browse to web page, login, upload data, system verifies data for accuracy, system prompts for correction of data (text in a number field?), store data.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re: Jacqui
Sure! lol
I'm glad someone got a kick out of it... :-)
...now, where did I put that patent application for the Japanese Tea Ritual ??
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
HIPAA, IRB
irrelevent to this issue. those regulations and regulatory bodies are not concerned with the cost of a study, or the brand of data gathering software (as long as its hipaa compliant) - its the doctors offices themselves that have to worry about operating costs for studies. if the budget structure a of a study suddenly changes, due to a lawsuit or whatnot, it can easily affect the scope of the study the doctor is able to run. Usually it will affect it negatively.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The copyright/patent system is long overdue for an overhaul..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hold on...
I can see suing the companies but suing the customers of the companies? Wow the whole patent/copyright/trademark thing is way out of hand.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Are Dorpus and Angry Dude the same? I haven't seen a post from Angry Dude in a while on these patent issues.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Trolls all feed on the same psychic mucous, so even if they don't share the same corpus, they are all dorpus.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
this seems like it would rely mostly on software, and the last time i checked you can't patent software. maybe i'll try to patent searching for web pages through a search engine and then validating them with a web browser... :P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Techdirt is broken
Evidence continues to mount that Mike's understanding of patents is broken. Like a useless information hoarder he continues to assert his "bad" arguements in an attempt to make sense. Truth is, he doesn't know a freakin thing about patents only that he doesn't like them (because he doesn't have any). And he doesn't like all these people making money (since he clearly isn't making any).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Techdirt is broken
It's funny how "Rocket Scientist" (who is actually a patent attorney) doesn't actually make any arguments here. Notice he just says I don't understand and insults me. I pointed out why the patent was problematic, and why that highlights why the system is problematic.
When your best retort is "he doesn't know anything" it makes me wonder what value you add.
Robert, please, as I've told you probably a thousand times already: I have no problem discussing the patent system and if you want to challenge me on actual issues, I will discuss them. Insults, however, don't hurt my argument. They just make it look like you don't have one.
So, go ahead and explain to me why this patent was good for everyone? Explain to me how it help move innovation forward, rather than hold it back by increasing costs for doing something obvious.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
PF Capitulation
What is most amazing about PF paying $8.5m to Datasci, is that they submitted prior art in response to the lawsuit. The arbitrator overseeing the process returned their submission requesting additional information. PF never responded. They simply capitulated. Which explains a lot about PF and their Horse Sh#$ products. This is a company with zero backbone that is totally dependent on raising capital ($100m to date) to stay in business. They could have easily put an end to Datasci's adventure, instead they emboldened them and weakened the entire medical research industry. Let's see how the rest of these pussy companies stand up, or can we say this is a pussy industry?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Evil DataSci
DataSci is an evil company. They do not have the intelligence to do anything original. They work like a parasite and suck blood out of respectable companies that try to do fair business with their hard-earned software technologies.
It is amazing how much scam the patent offices have become to allow this kind of things to go on in the US. Ultimately, these scams, instead of helping the competition and preserving IP rights, actually take the business competition and innovation down. Only a few gutter leaches in such a company can prosper in such a situation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
join industry
i am young man of 27 . i want to join you industry please response me
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment