Re: odd copyright issue (medical diagnostic program)

On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Colin Seeger <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Cynthia Chapman <cbccin[_at_]proaxis.com> forwarded
> a message from Barbara B. Reitt:
> >
> > I've encountered a requirement from a copyright owner from whom I have
> > sought permission to reprint something which appalls me. Briefly: my
> > client is being asked to warn readers that they may not make clinical
> > use of a diagnostic screen that is under copyright and that we are
> > reprinting without first getting permission and paying a fee to the
> > copyright owner. (The screen in question is the widely used Mini-Mental
> > State Examination, and the owner of the copyright is a corporation set
> > up by the screen's original author, Dr. Milton Folstein.)
> >
> > I should emphasize that my objection is not to the normal operation of
> > copyright law and the need for my client, in this instance, to obtain
> > permission before reprinting the MMSE screen. My objection is to this
> > author's attempt to control the CLINICAL use of his screen and to derive
> > income from its application in medical care generally. I see this as
> > both a greedy over-reaching misapplication of copyright law and a move
> > that, unopposed, could stifle scientific and medical progress. (Will
> > every practitionaer have to pay a fee before making clinical use of
> > techniques and treatment approaches described in copyrighted medical
> > literature? What a prospect!)
> >
> > Are any of you aware of anyone's contesting this proviso by the
> > Mini-Mental LLC (Folstein's corporation)? Or of any hospital or
> > clinic that has agreed to pay the fee before allowing clinicians on
> > staff to administer the MMSE to patients? Or of any court cases
> > challenging this?
>
> I am wondering how much the good doctor is prepared to spend on
> investigation and enforcement, given that his "warning" will doubtless
> be heeded to the same extent as the admonition againt copying which
> appears on every single CD ever issued. I wish I could say "good
> luck" but it's not quite what I was thinking.

I gather that the creator of the test objects to its being copied without compensation to him. Why is this any different in principle than, say, ETS objecting to a purchaser of one its its tests making copies to administer to schools and students who have not paid for it? The fact that the creator of a clinical test wants to be paid for copies made for the purpose for which the test was created is no more "appalling" than a pharmaceutical company insisting on its patent royalties for useful medications.

What I find "appalling" is Mr. Seeger's advice that anyone who wants to use the material should just go ahead and use it without compensation to the creator as it is too uneconomical to investigate and prosecute the infringement.

Larry Weiss
<pgw[_at_]idt.net> Received on Sun Apr 02 2000 - 19:07:11 GMT