3 ms·
And yet people are collectively paying $300M licensing these non-copyrightable codes? With that kind of money somebody must have looked into not paying for lice
by onionisafruit 1y ago
And yet people are collectively paying $300M licensing these non-copyrightable codes? With that kind of money somebody must have looked into not paying for licensing
- mr_toad 1y agoI’m sure it’s crossed the mind of many people in the industry. But it’s a comprehensive taxonomy of all diseases, medical conditions, causes, procedures and treatments. Starting from scratch would be much more expensive than just paying the licensing.
- onionisafruit 1y agoWhat I mean is using it without paying the license, because if GP is accurate there is no copyright preventing it.
- mr_toad 1y agoIn that case its probably cheaper for most organisations just to pay the license fees than risk paying legal fees which would probably be more, even if they won.
- sowbug 1y agoHere in California, Senate Bill 478 bans many junk fees, such as the mandatory "service fee" to buy a concert ticket. It's a stretch, but I could see an argument that if hospitals use a billing system that's incomprehensible without licensing an expensive codex, then the hospital is on the hook to provide the codex to you. Fight fire with fire.