Re: good samaritan
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
|From:||Jim Hall <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:31:57 +0000|
I agree fully with Ford and further to Don Hammers' comments on Company
contributions to our profession, we have also benefited from their help
here in the UK. We all gripe about the cost of equipment and their
accessories, but we should bear in mind the huge cost in bringing a new
instrument to the market place in research and development, and it is a
gamble, when all is said and done, whether their latest baby is a sales
winner. I hate to think where we would be to-day without their
investments, back to sharpening knives by hand, manual processing of
tissues etc., etc. UGH!. Shandon, along with the other manufacturers
serving our needs, have played their part in the advancement of this
technology and contributed to safer working conditions for us all, so I
hope people bear this in mind before writing them off as some suggest, for
what is after all a storm in a teacup. As my job entails evaluating
equipment from all of the manufacturers, I have to maintain an unbiased
approach to all and I would therefore stress I have no bias towards Shandon
above any of the other manufacturers. I just feel in this instance
"company bashing" is unjustified, and they can't really retaliate either,
and wanted to say so - so there.
At 09:06 10/03/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I have been following this thread with some interest, and a certain degree of
>sadness. I am troubled buy the prevalent "us against them" attitude, when
>real issue is here is a about laws that have been in effect for many many
>not just in the USA, but throughout the world. The personal attacks on Mark
>Lewis or his company are not warranted. By reminding us of the copyright
>that protect ALL OF US in this country, Mark was doing what he does every
>being helpful! Once again, the limitations of email has lead to some
>Having been on both sides of the bench (laboratory scientists and now
>never appreciated the dollar value of the services that manufacturers/vendors
>provided until I found out how much these services actually cost. Mark
>thousands of dollars of "free" advice, technical help, and even product -
>day to his company's customers (and even to those who may not be his
>customers). These services are "free" only to those who receive them.
>a significant cost to the Mark's company.
>The copying of copyrighted material in any form is in fact against the
>it can not be justified by any excuse or explanation. Plain and simple.
>However, we all do it and it is tolerated by the owners of the copyright
>as a service to the community, or (in reality) - because it can not be
>enforced. This does not make it legal or correct to do, and Mark was
>us of this.
>The "us against them" attitude baffles me. Is it because there is a perceived
>biased against vendors because they make a profit on the goods and
>they provide? If this is the case, then be reminded that the tasks that a
>laboratory professional provides is also for a profit, even though we do not
>like to think of it this way. A laboratorian's task is a nobel one,
>one for profit. In the subject case, once a copy of the operating manual for
>this processor is obtained, the equipment will be put into operation and a
>profit will be made from the fee for service that the equipment & personnel
>generates. A portion of that profit will be paid to the employees that
>work. The margin of this profit will be slightly enhanced due to the fact
>the cost of goods received (the manual) was zero. Who is the looser here?
>Remember also that the skills, knowledge, and abilities of a trained
>laboratorian are also copyrighted - by the person that has those skills.
>this person violate their own copyright, and provide their services at no
>We're all in this together folks.
>End of sermon.
>Ford M. Royer, MT(ASCP)
>Analytical Instruments, Ltd
>9921 13th Ave. N.
>Minneapolis, MN 55441-5004
>web site: http://www.aibltd.com
>"Maria L. Rivera" wrote:
>> Shame on you Mr. Lewis, this board is for information and help, if you
>> can't help, then get outta the way or you will be sueing a zillion
>> histotechs worldwide.
>> Just my two cents.
>> At 11:47 AM 3/9/1999 -0500, Vinnie Della Speranza wrote:
>> ><Mark Lewis wrote:
>> ><Before you make a copy and send it off, you might want to read up on
>> ><copyright laws and get legal counsel from your facilitiy's
>> >Mark Lewis
>> >Technical Specialist
>> >Shandon (manufacturer of the Citadel)
>> >1-800-245-6212 ext. 4013
>> >I certainly hope that anyone in the market for a tissue
>> >processor is paying close attention to the way this firm apparently
>> >does business. it seems to me that Mr. Lewis could have offered to
>> >help the individual needing the Citadel manual but instead chooses to
>> >issue a veiled threat to a good samaritan who offered to provide a
>> >copy. I thought his company sells instruments, not literature but
>> >apparently I am mistaken.
>> > ----------
>> >From: email@example.com [SMTP:MIME :firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> >Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 10:02 PM
>> >To: NTT@shcc.org; email@example.com
>> >Subject: Re: manual
>> ><<File: ENVELOPE.TXT>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ----- --
>> >I have the Citadel 2000 manual (it's almost the same thing). It's 26
>> >pages. If you give me your address, I'll mail you a legible copy (I
>> >Vinnie Della Speranza
>> >Technical Director
>> >Anatomic Pathology Laboratories
>> >University Hospital & Medical Center
>> >State University of New York at Stony Brook 11794-7025
>> >(516) 444-8249
>> >fax: (516) 444-3419
MDA Equipment Evaluator,
Department of Histopathology,
University College London Hospitals,
London, WC1E 6JJ
Tel: 0171 209 6042
Fax: 0171 387 3674
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>