Jon Patrick wrote: > I think this view does not take account of the mechanism for providing > SCT nor the need to support it in further development. > Someone has to pay to maintain it and develop it to a useful point. In > OZ the government has decided to absorb that cost and provide it free to > vendors and users. SCT has a potential to make a difference. If > physicians take Horst's position it will not advance and its potential > will be lost - that will truly make it a waste of money.
Agreed. there are conceivably better IP management regimes for SNOMED CT, but the one we have in Oz is Good Enough. We must also remember that Horst is extra-angry at anything remotely connected with The Government right now... Tim C > Horst Herb wrote: >> On Wednesday 02 May 2007, Ian Cheong wrote: >>> See: >>> http://www.ihtsdo.org/ >> >> Sadly, this has not changed the silly counterproductive status quo: >> http://www.ihtsdo.org/about-us/faq/#c528 >> >> So, for the time being, I could not care less. >> >> Horst >> _______________________________________________ >> Gpcg_talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
