Hi everyone and to all the usual suspects. I must write something here.

Basically, I have thought a lot about this, and I, for one, see this as being most likely the following. At first, this was a small operation with a EULA probably written by the same person using C++ or VB. As it has grown due to how well it has been written and marketed, the need for an attorney or attornies to write the EULAs was necessary. Unfortunately, the one area or clause is what has everyone in an uproar.

I think the basic issue is whether we have PURCHASED the software or whether we have a SUBSCRIPTION to the software. Clearly, it has not been stated anywhere that I can find that this software is a subscription type. Their clearly is subscription software in existence which has nothing to do with ASPs or otherwise. I cannot go into detail, but there are very large companies that offer subscription software under the expectation that each year the subscription will be renewed and support continues, updates and upgrades provided and even brand new products will be shipped quarterly. However, if the annual subscription is not paid, the software must be removed from the computer and the vendor can and will cripple the software and possibly bring legal action and win large settlements as they have. Of course, this is a large company with their own attorneys.

But, that is one comparison. The other comparison or analogy is the one which applies here. It is like purchasing Word 2003 or Office 2003, etc. Once paid for, the license is yours to keep and the software may be used forever. If you wish to upgrade to 2007 you can, but you do not have to. Of course, you will not have the latest technology, but I know people still using '97. I don't associate with these people, however. <G> a joke if you don't know, lol, but close to the truth. Of course, Microsoft at some point will not supportl, say, Windows 2000 and, even more damaging, will not allow you to upgrade from it.

The EULA for the trial version clearly states that it is time restricted and it will fail to work after thirty days. (Interesting that you cannot copy and paste from the EULA) So, it is not that difficult to put in time limitations. Even if a full working copy, time constraints of say 395 days to give a month grace period could be activated if a new registration key were not inserted. I am not at all suggesting that this is the case, and I highly doubt it is, but I just bring up the possibility as the devil's advocate.

Remember, just a few years ago, Microsoft could only stop piracy by activation, but now they have Windows Genuine Advantage, a small piece of software (may as well call it spyware) that slips in through your Windows Updates if you are not watching, and checks your hardware configuration and compares it to your 25 character producty key. If there is not match, this information is sent back to Bellevue and soon strange things start happening to your OS. It starts with your Windows Media Player which is certainly hitting below the belt. Vista will be worse. If you don't believe me, ask my friend. She had an OEM version which, of course, being a copy meant for an Original Equipment Manufacture is meant to only be released with hardware, namely the PC at Dell, HP or some online vendor. So, the technology does exist. Again, no suggestion here.

It is interesting to ponder what would happen in the courts. On one hand, by installing the software, you have signed the EULA, but that is what the courts are for. My guess is the court we decide for the owner of the software, but maybe not since it can be proven that any piece of information can 1) be printed and 2) be transferred to another EMR.

I do see Vinny's point, although I do have to disagree with him on the paper issue. We have NO paper. None. So, all of our information on each patient is either a 1 or a 0. We have extensive backups, but that is a posts for a different time.

I do also have to disagree somewhat with Paul. I know basically what occurred, and I know it must have been terrible. But, Beta testing is slightly different, I believe, than he is writing. Sorry in advance Paul. I may very well be wrong. Freedom of speech and the blogs and all. But, Beta testing benefits both parties. It clearly benefits the software writer, because they get the feedback they must have in the many beta versions in order to sell a basically bug-free full version. Then comes SP1 and 2, but still. These Betas generally go to the users who are somewhat more familiar with computers and software and specifically that software. This is because they will tend to "bang" on the software harder, find more bugs, and send more feedback. The user, however, benefits greatly since they get to use the latest and greatest cutting edge software and also get a long trial before possibly buying the real product. But, almost every software vendor, especially Microsoft, Sun, Apple etc. will state that they do not support the product for the very reason they are putting it out there to test. One, there are too many bugs to answer calls for, and the tech support can't fix what they don't even know exists yet.

Finally, though, it comes down to do we own the software in question or are we subscribing to it. That is the part that needs to be more clear. I think everyone is willing and more than happy to pay the $500 per year, that has nothing to do with it. I think clarification on the above is the vital thing.

Bert
Pediatrics
Brewer, Maine