tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post7392671843218783116..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 945/09 – The Patient Who Kneworhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-13192359986552273012011-12-05T14:15:17.966+01:002011-12-05T14:15:17.966+01:00Anonymous wondered whether the submission date of ...Anonymous wondered whether the submission date of a paper may be taken as its publication date in the sense of Art. 54(2). <br /><br />I don't think that is tenable since there is an implicit confidentiality. Both the publisher and the reviewer are in a special relationship to the author, and are not at liberty to quote from the paper before its publication. <br /><br />The case law book has T 842/91 wherein a book was not only delivered to a publisher but also unrestricted rights of publication were granted. Nevertheless, the book was not considered public until its actual publication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-30899329351348097862011-11-29T18:15:24.850+01:002011-11-29T18:15:24.850+01:00For whatever it's worth, the wikipedia entry f...For whatever it's worth, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurolidine" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a> entry for the claimed use states:<br /><br /><i>Taurolidine has been investigated for the prevention of central venous catheter-related infections; while there is positive in vivo and in vitro evidence supporting such an application, the current evidence is "insufficient to warrant routine use of taurolidine".</i>[3]<br /><br />I sometimes wondered whether I could use the submission date of a paper as its publication date in the sense of Art. 54(2), considering that the intent of the authors is to render the information public starting from the moment it is submitted. But is it accessible? Zat iz ze question. Even though the review process is theoretically confidential and anonymous, it also often happens that the draft is sent straight to the scientist's worst rival, who also happens to be the most qualified person for assessing his work.<br /><br />For the redux, don't worry. It sometimes happened to me when I was searching prior art that the best document I found was the application itself... Doh...<br /><br />I was admitted to hospital some years ago, and the toubib came to me proposing to take part in a clinical study for a further medical indication of an already approved composition (a certain brand of low molecular weight heparin). I represented an "ideal case" for the blouses blanches, and was given the consent papers to read and approve. "There I am lying in bed with my fever hardly down from 40 degrees or so, studying a 17 page single-spaced document in German, including the small print for two separate insurance policies. WHAT AM I DOING HERE?" I was already bored, and the risk appeared minimal, so I signed up, out of curiosity about the process. I did ponder about the nature of the disclosure that had taken place, and I would agree that an interested patient is in the position to know what substance is administered to him, and why. (BTW, no patent had been filed for the further medical use. Routine stuff, really).<br /><br />Some years earlier another drug had been prescribed to me, and the best information I could gather about it (and my condition) were the thousands of pages of evidence filed in the opposition procedure... This is where I discovered that medicine is something more of an art than a science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-12617642770874157132011-11-29T11:09:45.878+01:002011-11-29T11:09:45.878+01:00Lol
I knew this would happen sooner or later.
...Lol<br /> <br />I knew this would happen sooner or later. <br /><br />I should retire before long.oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-45055974502834909622011-11-29T10:56:44.128+01:002011-11-29T10:56:44.128+01:00In fact, you didn't miss this case - you repor...In fact, you didn't miss this case - you reported it on 25 October 2010, and followed up with the petition to the Enlarged Board (R19/10) on 27 April 2011!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com