Andrew Magennis wrote: > My original message was intended as constructive comment for Joe > Bloggs’s new list/forum users as the lists “guidelines” on its opening > screen are very different to the AusGP list and most other similar lists. > There is no threat in my message and it ought not be threatening to > people acting lawfully.
I, and I suspect many others, perceive that there was a clear threat of possible legal action in Andrew Magennis' message. Here is what Andrew actually said, with respect to the new list at http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcn : > However all involved ought to be aware that: > > 1. Any list or website along these lines where users are led to > believe they can say anything and everything; or where an observer may > reasonably believe the site is the property of another company such as > Health Communication Network Limited may result in "misleading and > deceptive conduct" which is a contravention of the /Trade Practices > Act/. Andrew's use of the words "Any list or website along these lines", where "along these lines" clearly refers to the newly established list at the above URL, conveys to me the clear impression that he and/or HCN have formed the impression that the new list may be a contravention of the Trade Practices Act. Note that I am *not* commenting on whether the list does or doesn't contravene that Act - I am not qualified to form a useful opinion on that matter. I am merely saying that Andrew's statement (above) led me to believe that he and/or HCN and/or HCN's legal counsel had formed the opinion that the new list and its web page at the above URL contravenes that Act. I do not know whether Andrew or HCN have or haven't formed that opinion, merely that Andrew's words as reproduced above gave me the impression that he and/or HCN had formed such an opinion. > 2. The use of registered and/or unregistered trademarks such as > those owned by Health Communication Network Limited without the > express permission of the trademark owner is a violation of > intellectual property law. > > 3. The appearance of the site and what it purports to be may be > "passing off" which is a contravention of the /Trade Practices Act/. > This could occur for example if an observer reasonably believes the > site is the property of another company such as Health Communication > Network Limited. The same comments apply to these remarks as well. Indeed, in point 3 Andrew asserts that 'the appearance of the site and what it purports to be may be "passing off" which is a contravention of the /Trade Practices Act/.' That, to me, clearly implies a threat of legal action under the Trade Practice Act. Note that I am not commenting on whether such legal action would be justified, reasonable or successful. Just that Andrew's words, as reproduced above, convey to me a clear threat of such legal action. What do others on this list think? The solution to all this is for the name of the new list to be changed to something which cannot be mistaken for any official HCN communication channel, and for all references to HCN and to its products on the list web page at http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcn be clearly annotated so as to acknowledge HCN's ownership of the trademark rights in the relevant product names, and to make it crystal clear that the list has no association with HCN beyond being a vehicle for discussing HCN's health software products. And that whatever anyone says on the list is a public utterance and thus any criticism or critique of HCN and its products must be must be either based in fact, or clearly identified as personal opinion or preference, and must not be erroneous or deliberately misleading. However, it should also be made clear that justifiable criticism of HCN's product is not a crime, nor is the expression of personal preferences or recommendations for alternative products. However, I am not a lawyer, so take all of the above with a grain of salt. However, I think that the principals of unimpeded debate and justified criticism involved here are quite critical for the progress of health IT in Australia, and as such I would be happy to contribute a small sum to a fund to enable qualified and expert legal advice on the matters canvassed above to be obtained. And, in my opinion, Peter Machell has no reason to apologise for anything. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
