Patent dispute on off-site archiving - impact on DICOM - US patent6,574,742 - DICOM

This is a discussion on Patent dispute on off-site archiving - impact on DICOM - US patent6,574,742 - DICOM ; FYI ... I came across mention on Aunt Minnie of a patent dispute over the concept of off-site archiving: "http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=pac&Pag=dis&ItemId=72792" which involves this patent: "http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6574742.html" David...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Patent dispute on off-site archiving - impact on DICOM - US patent6,574,742

  1. Patent dispute on off-site archiving - impact on DICOM - US patent6,574,742

    FYI ...

    I came across mention on Aunt Minnie of a patent dispute over
    the concept of off-site archiving:

    "http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=pac&Pag=dis&ItemId=72792"

    which involves this patent:

    "http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6574742.html"

    David

  2. Re: Patent dispute on off-site archiving - impact on DICOM - US patent 6,574,742

    The full text of the patent is available here:

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6574742

    It was granted June 3, 2003, which is fairly recent.

    I haven't read the full patent in detail. However, they do mention
    DICOM compatibility as an important part of their invetion, so it would
    be difficult for them to prove that DICOM was not prior art. The
    details of their implementation may indeed be protectable, or not, but
    it is unlikely that this would affect DICOM itself in any significant
    way due to the fact that it is clearly prior art.

    If the patent had been granted in 1965, or they had not mentioned DICOM
    compatibility, then DICOM itself might have a problem.

    IANAL. TINLA.

    -Kelly

    David Clunie wrote:
    > FYI ...
    >
    > I came across mention on Aunt Minnie of a patent dispute over
    > the concept of off-site archiving:
    >
    > "http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=pac&Pag=dis&ItemId=72792"
    >
    > which involves this patent:
    >
    > "http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6574742.html"
    >
    > David



+ Reply to Thread