Thursday, March 07, 2013

MMRGlobal Is Certainly Being Quite Noisy

This was sent to me by Grahame Grieve who is at HIMSS. It is part of their handout at the meeting.

Gives a good idea of what MMRGlobal are up to.

Sorry about the quality - click on image to enlarge.



Anonymous said...

To make this MMR patent issue even more interesting...

Reading up on MMR CEO Bob Lorsch I found this link:

All standard stuff until you get to the end and see who he's married to! Lucky guy!!!

And then there is this law suit:’s-armstrongs-nuway-and-mymedicalrecords-com-lawsuit/

Interesting to note the last sentence of the first paragraph "Australian is not affiliated with the U.S."? Really?? The website points to MMR Global.

So with all this mention of R-rated actresses, dodgy share dealings, reality TV stars, affiliates that are 'not' affiliates and Beverly Hills mansions, the life of a NEHTA lawyer doesn't seem that boring after all!

Anonymous said...

The domain appears to be owned by a family trust with a colourful name but in Australia.

The trademark is registered to an Australian company linked to that trust.

I don't see MMRGlobal mentioned as an interested party in either the domain or trademark apart from the fact that the domain links to the MMRGlobal, unless of course there is a family connection?

So could this noise that MMRGlobal is making be a bit distorted?

Anonymous said...

Oh come on! Are you saying that MMRGlobal don't own the MMR trademark in Australia? I can't quite believe that but perhaps the NEHTA lawyer from the first post can clarify? Or perhaps just ask Grahame to pop the question if they're all at HIMSS still?

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter who owns the trademarks or domains. They are completely separate areas of IP law.

Through the ownership of Australian patents, MMRGlobal (or sub-entities) can assert patent rights against anyone in Australia they believe is infringing.

Given multiple companies have _failed_ to make a business out of PHR's in Australia - I don't really think that's how they want to make money - so branding, trademarks, domains etc are all completely irrelevant. They don't want to setup an alternate PHR system here in Australia.

What they want is to get a big fat chunk of change off the Australian government to allow Australia to continue with the PCEHR - and probably also want continuing licensing fees for the next 15 years.

Now their patents are a complete crock (IMHO), and they probably wouldn't win in court - but all the media articles etc are all to ramp us pressure on the Australian government and hope to force them into settlement.

Grahame Grieve said...

hi All

I'm not at HIMSS anymore, and the exhibition closed. Though I would have declined to speak to them - I couldn't really, as a contractor to NEHTA, even though I have nothing to do this.

Speaking personally - NOT on behalf of NEHTA:

(1) these guys are not patent trolls by the classic meaning of the word since they do actually have a product. But the essence of the article is that they've done at least as much development in the patent space as in their product. And my impression is that their product is distinctly second-rate compared to the other PHR offerings that were on show (some really impressive stuff)

(2) the point of the article was a threat to all the other PHR vendors at the show

(3) I am not a lawyer, but I think that a patent system that allows them to assert IP rights over any web based PHR has failed us as a people. That's not encouraging investment in innovation.

(4) I think that even if their their patents are applicable (my read says otherwise), then the bits that are applicable should fail the prior art and obviousness clauses.

(5) I'm very happy to see them taking on the government not some small vendor, which is their practice in USA. Should the government lose, I'd hope this would increase the chance of something happening about the patent system.

Anonymous said...

Here is MMRGlobal's CEO HIMSS wrap-up