Telecom Sector Can't Stop Falsely Claiming That Net Neutrality Will Harm The Sick, Derail Smart Cars

from the just-can't-help-themslves dept

If you've paid attention to the net neutrality debate, you'll recall that large ISPs routinely threaten to hold back on network investment if governments pass rules protecting an open, healthy internet. They also routinely try to claim that the passage of such protections cause a massive slowdown in overall sector investment, something that simply isn't supported by actual facts (remember them?). Such rhetoric is fear mongering designed to scare regulators away from imposing "job killing regulations," even if those regulations make sense for a telecom market where limited competition fails to keep bad actors in check.

This hollow fear mongering has played a starring role as carriers worldwide begin to deploy faster fifth-generation wireless (5G) networks. You'll recall that both American and European telcos have routinely tried to claim that the deployment of these faster, more efficient wireless networks will be derailed by net neutrality.

Usually, this rhetoric is accompanied by claims that 5G will be the centerpiece of the smart cities of tomorrow, and that net neutrality rules will prevent ISPs from using these networks to provide prioritized connectivity for health and other related services. Ignored is the fact that this has never been a problem, since any well-crafted net neutrality rules carve out massive loopholes for all manner of essential services, especially on the medical front. Of course that doesn't stop ISPs from routinely claiming that net neutrality hurts sick people all the same.

With the Mobile World Congress trade show underway this week in Barcelona, all of this debunked rhetoric is being regurgitated like a bad hairball. Speaking at the trade show, Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm tried to inform attendees that Europe's net neutrality rules must be weakened lest they derail Europe's efforts to build 5G Networks:

"The principle of net neutrality is not to discriminate [against], throttle or degrade based on content but not all traffic is created equally and we don't believe this will work in the 5G future," he told reporters and analysts. "There will be a need for a regulatory regime that allows service providers to create services that are differentiated based on user experience."

But that's not the principle of net neutrality. The principle of net neutrality is to not discriminate against traffic for anti-competitive reasons. Guys like Ekholm certainly realize they're being disingenuous here, they just hope their audience doesn't. As is industry tradition, Ekholm then tried to suggest that with net neutrality in place, carriers won't be able to provide access to essential, prioritized medical services:

"In relation to the hot topic of net neutrality, Ekholm said that while Ericsson believes in non-discriminatory access to information and data, he added that "not all traffic is created equal". Once remote surgery is being performed over 5G, for instance, it should be given priority over other traffic, he said."

Again, this is something carriers in both the United States and Europe like to parrot repeatedly despite not being true. Europe's rules, like the ones we're about to discard in the States, provided ample leeway for such services. But the idea that "government regulation" will harm the sick is apparently too enticing of a siren song for those looking to demonize protection of a healthy and competitive internet.

Not to be outdone, FCC boss Ajit Pai also parroted industry claims in a speech that net neutrality is a threat to the smart cities of tomorrow (pdf):

"We believe that our decision will give the private sector greater incentives to invest in the 5G networks of the future and bring greater digital opportunity to the American people. And we also believe that our decision is critical for another reason as well. To realize the promise of 5G, we will need smart networks, not dumb pipes. Dumb pipes won’t deliver smart cities. Dumb pipes won’t enable millions of connected, self-driving cars to navigate the roads safely at the same time. In short, dumb pipes won’t give us the networks needed to enable the 5G applications of the future."

Again, any idea that "net neutrality hurts the sick" or stops innovation (smart car or otherwise) dead in its tracks is aggressively misleading. Net neutrality rules almost always carve out ample exceptions to legitimate services, often to a fault. The only thing net neutrality rules traditionally harm is the entrenched telecom monopoly's ability to abuse the lack of industry competition for further anti-competitive gain -- the only thing this debate has ever truly been about. Net neutrality is only a "regulatory burden" if you're doing something anti-competitive. Since entrenched telecom operators can't candidly acknowledge this in the quest for fatter revenues, we're subject to a rotating crop of flimsy straw men instead.

Filed Under: 5g, borje ekholm, innovation, net neutrality, smart cars, telemedicine, wireless

Comcast: We Must Kill Net Neutrality To Help The Sick And Disabled

from the you-do-realize-nobody-believes-anything-you-say,-right? dept

For years now, large ISPs like Comcast have tried to have it both ways on net neutrality. They consistently profess to support the concept of net neutrality, but they don't want any meaningful rules actually holding them to their word on the subject. And if there are rules, they want them to be so loophole-filled as to be utterly useless. That's effectively what the FCC's initial 2010 rules did, and that's why companies like Comcast are now pushing to have the tougher 2015 rules killed and replaced with a new net neutrality law they know either won't happen, or will be quite literally written by the industry itself.

This have your cake and eat it too approach continued in this week's Comcast comment on the FCC's proceeding to kill net neutrality. In it, Comcast again pats itself on its back for the company's non-existent dedication to net neutrality, uses industry-paid economists to falsely claim net neutrality rules hurt broadband investment, and trots out all manner of flimsy justifications for the kind of feeble rules that look meaningful to the nation's nitwits, but allow Comcast the leeway to act anti-competitively whenever it likes.

One long-standing ploy used by giant ISPs to scare people into compliance is to argue that net neutrality rules will somehow prevent ISPs from prioritizing medical network traffic. That point was most starkly made when Verizon tried to argue that net neutrality protections would hurt the deaf and disabled by preventing ISPs from being able to prioritize needed communications tools. That's never actually been a problem, and every set of rules we've had so far carves out obvious, glaring exceptions to these services. But that didn't stop Comcast from trotting out this bogeyman once again in its FCC filing (pdf):

"...the Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public. For example, a telepresence service tailored for the hearing impaired requires high-definition video that is of sufficiently reliable quality to permit users “to perceive subtle hand and finger motions” in real time. And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it."

The goal here is to scare policy makers into "more flexible" rules (read: embedding all manner of loopholes into net neutrality protections) or we'll inadvertently hurt the disabled, disadvantage the sick, or kill the smart-driving car industry in the cradle. But again, this has never actually been a problem. The 2010 net neutrality rules had so many exceptions of this type as to make them utterly meaningless, letting ISPs do pretty much whatever they'd like provided they argued it was for the health and security of the network. The 2015 rules also include broad, tractor trailer sized exceptions for this kind of traffic.

What Comcast really wants is rules so "flexible" and broad they don't actually address any of the real hot-button subjects in the net neutrality debate. Like Comcast's decision to abuse the lack of broadband competition to impose arbitrary usage caps and overage fees. Or the way it exempts its own content from these unnecessary limits to put competing streaming providers at a notable disadvantage in this emerging market (aka zero rating).

So it's important to understand that when Comcast pens blog posts insisting it supports net neutrality, what it's really saying is it supports an absurdly-broad definition of net neutrality, which includes so many caveats and loopholes as to make said support utterly meaningless. That's again why you're currently seeing large ISPs argue that they want to do away with the strong 2015 rules (which more clearly differentiate anti-competitive behavior from justifiable paid prioritization), and replace it with a new, industry-written law that takes us back to the murky definitions seen in the FCC's since-discarded 2010 rules.

So once again with feeling: anybody that actually cares about net neutrality should support the simplest and easiest way to protect consumers, startups and small businesses moving forward: keep the existing rules intact.

Filed Under: fast lanes, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, self-driving cars, telemedicine
Companies: comcast

Stupid Patent Of The Month... With Special Stupid Trademark Bonus Round

from the it's-stupid-all-around dept

This month features not only a stupid patent, but also a stupid trademark to go along with it.

My Health, Inc. is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,612,985, which is entitled "Method and system for monitoring and treating a patient." My Health also holds a trademark in the term "My Health." My Health claims that it is "the only person or entity entitled to use... ‘My Health' in commerce."

Since getting patent and trademark rights, My Health has been pretty active in federal court. It has sued at least 30 companies for patent infringement and has been involved in another three lawsuits involving allegations of trademark infringement. But regardless of what type of case it is, we think both the patent and trademark are stupid.

First, My Health's stupid patent. The patent is generally directed to "a method and system for monitoring and treating a patient who has one or more diagnosed conditions and is located at a remote location from a treatment processing system." If that sounds mundane, that's because it is.

Here is claim 1 of the patent, annotated for clarity:

1. A method for tracking compliance with treatment guidelines, the method comprising:

[a] determining a current assessment of one or more diagnosed conditions in a patient based on data about each of the diagnosed conditions from the patient who is at a remote location and on one or more assessment guidelines for each of the diagnosed conditions;

[b] updating an existing treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions based on the existing treatment plan, the current assessment, and on one or more treatment guidelines for each of the diagnosed conditions to generate an updated treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions;

[c] reviewing the updated treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions;

[d] determining if one or more changes are needed to the reviewed treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions;

[e] changing the reviewed treatment plan if the one or more changes are determined to be needed;

[f] providing the patient with the reviewed treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions; and

[g] generating and providing compliance data based on the updated treatment plan and the reviewed treatment plan for each of the diagnosed conditions.

This claim is essentially TeleHealth, with the addition of "generating and providing compliance data" at the end. This patent is almost surely invalid under the Supreme Court's decision in Alice, which held that abstract ideas are not patentable, absent something more. Here, My Health is claiming little more than the idea of remotely diagnosing and treating a medical patient. This is not a new idea, and the patent doesn't even claim how to do it, but only the idea of doing it (albeit with a bunch of patent-speak to make it look complicated). This 1998 episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine shows how the ideas in this patent are routine and conventional enough to be a plotline in a TV series.

We're not the first to reach the conclusion the patent is invalid. In a lawsuit from last year, a defendant sued by My Health asked the court to rule the patent invalid. Unfortunately, the court said it was too early in the case to decide that issue and the parties later settled.

Along with being abstract, we doubt that this patent described anything new or nonobvious in 2001. In fact, the Patent and Trademark Office has twice agreed that there are serious problems with the patent's validity in light of what people already knew and were doing in 2001. It instituted 2 different "inter partes" reviews, meaning on two different occasions someone was able to show that there was a reasonable likelihood that the claims were invalid. But on both occasions, the parties settled before the Patent and Trademark Office decided whether the patents should be cancelled.

My Health recently sued again based on its stupid patent, and we wouldn't be surprised if this case also settles. By settling quickly with various parties before a court can make a decision as to the merits of it claims, My Health can continue to collect on its stupid patent.

But it's not only a stupid patent that's causing problems. My Health's stupid trademark is prompting a whole other stream of litigation. Not surprisingly, plenty of other companies have used the term "My Health" to describe services that provide health information to their users. So My Health is going after them, too.

In February 2015, My Health sued General Electric (GE), and alleged that GE's use of the term "myHealth" in connection with its online employee portal infringed My Health's trademark. My Health claimed that it "invested substantial time, money, and goodwill in advertising and promoting [My Health] in commerce and in the healthcare and technological services sectors." My Health further claimed that "GE is attempting to use [myHealth]...in order to take advantage of and capitalize on My Health's efforts to market and popularize My Health."

Given these statements, you might think My Health was an actual company with an actual business to protect. Indeed, My Health was required—under the penalty of perjury—to claim that it was using the term "My Health" in commerce in order to register it at the Patent and Trademark Office.

However, in February of this year GE told a very different story. According to a GE's motion for summary judgment (asking the court to rule in its favor as a matter of law), My Health "did not [have] a single document showing the actual sale of any goods or services under the purported MY HEATLH mark." That is, from the evidence GE was able to gather, "[My Health] simply obtained a patent, obtained a trademark registration, and proceeded to extract settlements based on threats of infringement litigation."

Beyond GE's claims, this is a trademark that never should have issued. Using the term "my health" to describe products and services related to—you guessed it—your health, is something the entire world should be able to do without fear of a trademark lawsuit. In fact, GE presented evidence that it had been using the term "myHealth" to describe its employee portal at least three years before My Health even applied for the trademark. (You can see GE's use yourself at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine). It's not surprising GE was using this term: it is a completely predictable way to describe GE's service.

From what we can tell, My Health didn't oppose GE's motion. Instead, My Health settled with GE and the court never determined whether My Health was even entitled to hold a trademark in the term "My Health." This is unfortunate, because if My Health's patent infringement activity is any indication, My Health will continue to assert its trademark despite the serious doubts about its validity raised by GE.

My Health, armed with a stupid patent and a stupid trademark, has sued numerous companies, imposing costs on both those companies and the public at large. For that, it more than deserves this month's award.

Republished from the EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month series

Filed Under: my health, patents, stupid patent of the month, telemedicine, trademark
Companies: ge, my health

Optometrists Push For State Laws Blocking Online Eye Exams

from the no-competition-please,-we're-doctors dept

Billing itself as a sort of Uber-for-eye-exams, telemedicine startup Opternative recently came on the scene offering a quick, inexpensive alternative to traditional optical exams that uses your computer and smartphone. Following a 25-minute online exam, an ophthalmologist will approve your results and issue a prescription for a cost of $40. No doctor visit is required.

Unfortunately, just like Uber, there's a powerful lobby of incumbents who don't want the status quo disrupted. Now they're pushing legislation in several states to shut down online eye exams.

As someone who recently had to get glasses, I like the idea of an online option the next time I need a checkup (and unlike many people, I only have to walk a few blocks from my office to see an eye doctor). Of course, my first question was: "Is it accurate?" But, at least according to its clinical trial, the online version appears to be equivalent in accuracy to its analog counterpart.

The technology is approved in 45 states, and the service is currently available in 33. So, unlike transportation network companies like Uber that had to contend with onerous insurance, safety and liability questions, the regulatory status quo of telehealth services like this is that they are legal in most jurisdictions.

Indeed, telemedicine is nothing new. Through its more than 40-year history, it has shown great potential for cost savings in both private sector and government programs. This potential will only grow, as wearables and smartphones become more sophisticated and ubiquitous. For instance, in Opternative's case, the service is about half as expensive as a traditional eye exam. Future competitors in the space, or economies of scale, could bring costs down even further.

Unfortunately, a powerful lobby of brick-and-mortar optometrists is pushing for legislation to shut them down. In Georgia, a bill (HB 775) was passed by both houses of the state Legislature that would ban these online eye exams. Aptly listed as "restrictions on sale and dispensing of spectacles," this legislation is clear in its purpose to protect licensed brick-and-mortar optometrists from unwanted competition. Now it's up to Gov. Nathan Deal to sign or veto the bill. He has until the first week of May to decide.

Blocking new telehealth applications like this one will only serve to raise prices, reduce the ability of low-income or rural individuals to access care and stifle future smartphone-driven innovations. As former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote in a column for USA Today:

There are more than 100,000 smartphone apps for health purposes, including one that detects heart attacks and another that helps diabetics monitor their blood sugar....And every day more are invented. Many of these smartphone enabled apps and devices will be better than the methods they're replacing — more convenient, faster, less expensive, and, in a growing number of cases, more accurate.... In healthcare, however, there is a growing effort by the existing, expensive systems to defend old, costly, less convenient, and slower methods by simply outlawing most of the competition.

What's happening in Georgia, Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Oklahoma and elsewhere, is a shameless attempt to capture the regulatory apparatus by a rent-seeking cartel that wants to preserve the status quo at all costs. If these acts of cronyism are allowed to proceed unchecked, they inevitably will contribute to a disastrous chilling effect for innovation in the health sector -- an area already encumbered by a massive regulatory burden.

This will only make us all poorer, and less healthy.

Filed Under: georgia, indiana, innovation, internet, lobbying, nebraska, oklahoma, optometry, regulators, south carolina, telemedicine
Companies: opternative

DailyDirt: Crowdfunding Science!

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Crowdfunding wallet designs and various gadgets may be fun and bring about some innovative products that might not normally get funding, but a lot of popular crowdfunding campaigns are relatively straightforward development projects and shouldn't be all that risky for backers. Crowdfunding actual scientific ventures adds a bit more risk for backers because no one can really say how an experiment will turn out -- unless the experiment has been done before. Adding to the challenge for scientific crowdfunding is the jargon and scientific understanding necessary for a backer to know what a particular project is actually trying to do. If you want to support some science, here are just a few science-related projects to check out.

• There's a non-zero chance that an effective Ebola treatment already exists in the database of FDA-approved drugs. Computational models could help identify which existing drugs might be suitable targets, and this approach has worked for other diseases, finding possible antimalarial drugs and anti-viral targets. [url]
• Some biohackers wanted to see if they could extend the range of human vision by taking vitamin A2 doses for a while. They've published the data they've collected, but the conclusion seems to be that you probably shouldn't take vitamin A2 for long periods of time in the hopes of being able to see in the near infrared. Also, the participants in this study reported an increase in nightblindness. [url]
• TRUDI (Tele-Robotic Ultrasound Distance Imaging) is an ultrasound robot that allows doctors to obtain diagnostic measurements remotely. It might look a little creepy for a robot arm to go straight for a patient's neck in the pitch video, but this robot can measure other parts of the circulatory system, too. [url]
• If you ever wanted an open source real-time PCR machine, you can pre-order one for about $1,300. This isn't the first open source PCR thermocycler, but this version has a lot of nice bells and whistles, including a touchscreen and some analytics software. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: biohackers, crowdfunding, ebola, nightblindess, open source, pcr, real-time pcr thermocycler, science, telemedicine, trudi, ultrasound robot, vitamin a2
Companies: experiment.com, gofundme, kickstarter, medstartr