The risks of Standardization and IP Protection.

The Continua Health Alliance has been working on creating a network of standards, drawing on the IEEE for standardized data formats and wired wireless standards groups to define the connectivity level over which the data can be transported. Their choice of wireless standard is the BL LE, which is already present in the majority of smartphones. Despite the technical reasons that make the Bluetooth Low Energy a good candidate for the eHealth systems, it is obvious that Continua ended up by selecting this standard simply because it is the one that manufacturers include mostly in their handsets.

The work of the GSM Association will certainly increase the role that mobile phones are going to play in the broadband structure. As a consequence, this will increase in terms of billions the number of broadband mobile phones that will include the Bluetooth Smart technology. The deeper meaning of this forecast is that clearly, the technology selection for a wireless health product will be impersonally made by product manufacturers since the market will ask for healthcare devices that have something to connect to. The role of regulators is limiting the manufacturers, as we already saw when considering the role of the FDA, but what can be considered a real risk in terms of costs for healthcare manufacturers, is the selection of a standard that is strictly connected with Intellectual Property disputes. The conflicts connected with the Intellectual Property can constitute a real risk for the system. In a public document, the Bluetooth SIG mentions that from the IP viewpoint, wireless standards are not equal. As the importance of wireless standards starts to increase, the concerns connected to Intellectual Property starts to increase exponentially, as already happened with patent trolls attacking ZigBee and Wi-Fi. The principal problem is that most people not consider Intellectual Property rights when undergoing through a standardization process [1]. There is the stupid conjecture that if a standard is selected, then as long as you have the right to use it there are no related IP problems. Not even the standards bodies, such as ETSI and IEEE give any IP assurance, which means that a lot of companies have been taken to court, only because of their ignorance. This lack of knowledge can cost to a company millions of dollars. Therefore, for the eHealth system is important to understand that the existence of a standard does not give to a company a free right to automatically possess  the IP within it. If we consider the two standards selected by Continua Health Alliance, Bluetooth Low Energy and ZigBee, they both impose to the company that uses the standard in their product to sign a member agreement, which contains a clause of IP ownership. To be more precise, this is connected with the concept of Necessary Claims; once the company decides to signup because has the necessity of that specific technology, it also gives up the right to claim for the violation of any IPR the company itself might own, which is used by other companies developing the standard. For example, in the Bluetooth technology you cannot ask for a fee for anyone using your IPR as complement of the standard, and this license is defined as RANDZ (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory- Zero cost). When considering the ZigBee technology the situation is different, because in theory it is possible to charge a fee for other ZigBee companies, and this is defined as a RAND license (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory).

Is this a good approach for Intellectual Property rights? I think it has a double- sided result: on one side, companies agree to not sue each other, but on the other side they give away part of the value of their IP. Basically, the problem is that is quite hard for industries to estimate the value that the IP use can have as a competitive tool. When a company signs this sort of agreement, it is also signing up to legally provide the future use of its IP that might be extremely valuable in the future. This means that a company with a conservative approach to IP, can prefer to take a conservative position and not sign. Before a standard is finalized, most of the standards groups do an IP evaluation to understand if there can be any problems from patents owned from outside the standard body. But of course none of the standards organizations give immunity to risks. When approaching to a standard, how can a company analyze the risks?

The first thing to do when selecting a standard is to look at how much that standard covers. Besides the largest adoption on smartphones, one of the major reasons behind the adoption of Bluetooth as a standard by Continua, is the fact that the Bluetooth specifications are very exhaustive starting from the radio specification going through the application profile. This means that all elements of the standard are included in the ember IP agreement. Instead, ZigBee agreement provides no IP cover for  the specifications, since it use external standards like the IEEE 802.15.4 for the radio and baseband layer. The main idea is that a standard can only offer IP protection for the parts it own.

 

Standards and IP protection

The more companies one can get to sign for the IP license, the more protection is ensured from prosecutors. Bluetooth is extremely good in convincing companies to sign the IP license, as they have over 13,000 members. Z-Wave is a standard created exactly to cover the full range from radio to application. The reason why this standard has not the same popularity of Bluetooth, is connected to the fact that only one company is the owner of the Z-Wave IP. Additionally, this standard can’t count on the security of having 13.000 contributing members for its IP, which instead Bluetooth has. Standards like Z-Wave haven’t contributed to the market enough to make it worth suing or attacking them with patent trolls. Also the presence of a standard in the market is essential to determinate possible risks; Continua is very well aware of this and since Bluetooth has been around longer than other standards, it ensures that the standard is safer and has more members. As a conclusion we can state that more recent standards are more risky. The Bluetooth Low Energy, despite being considered a recent standard, is a rather straightforward process, because it is a company-based standard that can count on the security and wide membership of a standard like Bluetooth. This is a key attribute for the selection of the BL LE technology as de facto standard for the health devices by Continua Alliance. Surely, the question that organizations specifying the standards, such as Continua Health Alliance, need to investigate is whether they are conscious of the risks they take when selecting a specific standard.

References:
[1] Nick Hunn, "Essentials of Short Range Wireless", Cambridge University Press, 8 Jul.2010

The Standardization Process with Continua Alliance.

The personal telehealth system has the potential to cope with today’s major challenge and as any complex domain it consists of various levels of specifications. These various levels vary from the very concrete, for example WSDL interface definitions, to the abstract, for example the information structures, and each of these levels should be significantly dependent on each other. Now we can understand what kind of problem we have to deal with. As a starting point, a good assumption can be to think that we should relay on official standards bodies to standardize the wireless oriented health. So it would seem that creating standards for eHealth should not be that difficult. Is this assumption realistic? Not very realistic, we should say. Today, the entire eHealth sector is slowly progressing, but is still paralyzed by the national eHealth programmes. The principal problem is the national programmes need a system of uniform standards, while what they get is only a confusing and incoherent output. In my previous blog post, I have already mentioned the relevant contribute that Continua Health Alliance is having in the ecosystem of eHealth standardization. Continua Health Alliance is the only group of technology, healthcare and fitness that is succeeding in creating an ecosystem of connected personal health. According to Continua’s mission “establish a system of interoperable personal telehealth solutions that fosters independence and empowers people and organizations to better manage health and wellness”, the alliance formed by more than 220 company members around the world, plans to select connectivity standards and set guidelines for the desired interoperability. A good question that comes to my mind is to investigate if Continua Alliance isn’t just another standards body and why is this alliance different from the others. Continua is not a standards body, since the objective is not to develop new standards but to adapt or modify existing ones as much as possible. Alongside with leveraging the existing standards, also guidelines are considered essential by this open industry organization, in order to identify and resolve gaps in some standards bodies so that interoperability is improved in the eHealth system. More specifically, the Alliance is writing these guidelines for understanding how to use standards to achieve true interoperability across a variety of devices all oriented to personal telehealth. The core role of Continua is not always easy to understand. When the eHealth system was starting to appear, Continua was created as a non-profit, open industry organization to provide guidelines for the health ecosystem. If we simply analyze what this alliance is doing in the health sector, we can superficially assume that its key function is to ensure that devices from different manufacturers are compatible. Wrong assumption, because this is just a consequence of what Continua is doing in the standardization process. Its real effort is to ensure the integrity of the data flow from the measuring system to the electronic health record, which is the last component of the entire process. If we consider a typical eHealth structure, what is requested for the medics consulting a health record is to have accurate and reliable information that can flow automatically in the records. In the wireless world not always the data exchanged is not corrupted and secure. Whenever a data is flowing over an electronic link, especially if we consider a wireless link, it can be transformed and during the conversion process it might be converted to different units or manipulated in a variety of ways. This means that when the piece of data is finally ready to get to the final stage, it may have undergone to a set of manipulated data that can entirely corrupt the entire process. Therefore, we can finally understand the importance of Continua and why it is dramatically affecting the standardization process: the goal of the Continua Alliance is to provide a certification ensuring that if each stage of the process is conformed to their guidelines, then the received data will not be corrupted from that generated by a piece of medical equipment. Here comes the creation of the Continua logo, meaning that the path from the medical instrument to the medical health record is secure and that products are expected to work together. In addition, the Continua certification imposes a rigorous testing of products by independent test organizations. Of course, publishing and defining a standard is not enough to ensure a correct data flow and interoperability; this is why Countinua is very oriented towards logo certification and testing in a rigorous testing environment. As we saw previously, when the Bluetooth low energy approached the ICT market, the idea of using it for eHealth solutions didn’t take so long to become real, and obviously Continua has selected the Bluetooth Low energy in the guidelines. The testing procedure for certain standards has to follow a certain pre-decided procedure, generally selected by the standardization body. Due to the importance and diffusion of the Bluetooth technology, the Bluetooth SIG organization decided to invest millions of dollars in interoperability testing, thus making sure that once in the market its adoption was fast and diffused.
On the technical side Continua has decided to adopt a backward compatibility point of view, to ensure that devices supported by different versions of the guidelines are interoperable. At the same time regulatory changes and new reimbursement models are still studied and accepted.

Regarding the architectural structure of personal eHealth systems, Continua has the role of defining interoperable interfaces for the whole structure starting from the medical device at the patient’s home to the medical health records services. Since the beginning of its adventure, Continua selected a variety of wireless standards for the connection of medical devices to the system, including Bluetooth, USB, ZigBee amongst others; time has shown us that BL LE or Bluetooth more generally, is the selected technology for its robustness, data integrity and interoperability. In addition, for connections regarding the patient’s home to the back-end services some candidates are Cable, GPRS or CDMA, WiMax and DSL. Besides the technical aspects, the alliance plans to collaborate with the regulatory agencies of the government, such as FDA, regarding policies for the use of personal health wireless devices at home. This is the contribution of the Continua Health Alliance to the standardization process and it is a step forward in the right direction.

The Continua Health Alliance organizational structure.

Since Continua was formed, the market of smartphones and applications for health and fitness care has incredibly blossomed. Continua’s vision of end to end secure data flow remains stable through the years and the technological advancements, but how will it embrace the consumer health with the use of mobile phones is still not clear. I mentioned before the importance of the Continua certification logo; now, Continua has the complicated problem of deciding what their logo means when present in a medical device. If a consumer decides to buy a wireless health device with their logo, it means that the standard of end-to-end integrity is assured or that it is a device that connects to any consumer medical application? The boundaries between these two situations are not very defined, but what is sure is that the product bearing the mark has successfully met the certifications requirements, thus is ready to be used in the eHealth system. What is important in the standardization process, not mentioning for a second the wireless technology and compatibility issues, is that Continua’s major achievement was to stimulate partners from a diverse range of industry to come together for the commune cause of eHealth development. Even more, they have formed a regulatory group, which is discussing these issues with the powerful FDA and with other regulators around the world. This is the process necessary if we want to see evolution and standardization take place in the eHealth system.