Dentist Who Used Copyright To Silence Her Patients Drops Out of Sight 260
According to a report at Ars Technica, a dentist named Stacy Makhnevich, who billed herself as "the Classical Singer Dentist of New York," threatened patients who wrote bad Yelp reviews with lawsuits, along the same lines as the online dental damage-control outlined in a different Ars story in 2011. This time, though, there's something even stranger than bargaining with patients to forgo criticism: when a patient defied that demand by describing his experience in negative terms on Yelp, Makhnevich followed up on the threat by seeking a takedown order based on copyright (putatively signed over to her for any criticism that patients might write, post-visit) — then disappeared entirely when lawyers for patient Robert Lee filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the validity of the agreement.
disappeared entirely (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the dentist's qualifications were not proper and complete?
Re: (Score:2)
What if the dentist's qualifications were not proper and complete?
In the Twenty-First Century, dentists are still drilling holes in peoples' heads. The world would be a better place if every last one of them committed suicide if that's the best they can come up with.
Form Paperwork Used by Many (Score:5, Interesting)
Who knows what's up with this dentist. But the company who provides the form paperwork is really the people that the lawyers should be going after. D. Makhnevich is only one of many many who use this company's services / products.
Also this points out why I never pay much attention to Yelp: This dentist is rightfully getting a lot of heat over this business, but most of the "opinions" about her on Yelp are by people who have almost certainly never used her services. This is how it goes when businesses get bad publicity, everyone runs to trash them on Yelp regardless of if they have ever done business with whoever is the target.
There are a number of other sites that specialize in doctor ratings from patient that have a significantly different score for this clown.
Re: (Score:2)
If that company provided defective equipment that lead to harm to the patient, of course they would be liable in addition to the dentist who used them. Therefore the company that provided defective legal forms that lead to harm to the patient should, in fact, be liable as well.
the company would be liable towards the dentist, she should sue the company for bad legal advice.
but just because you find some guy to sell you some forms doesn't mean that you're off the hook yourself..
What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Insightful)
I always do. I read absolutely everything that I sign, because there are too many unscrupulous people out there. You never know what bullshit is in those contracts, and I've even refused to sign some, and some they've changed or removed clauses
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.
I would assume that clause is not there to allow your dentist to force you into a procedure you don't want or need, but to let the dentist change their plan of action during a procedure if something during the procedure warrants the change.
For example, I went in to have an old filling replaced that was showing signs of decay in an x-ray, the dentist warned me ahead of time that she wasn't sure if she'd be able to preserve enough tooth surface to let her do a new 2 surface filling. And sure enough, after she
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:4, Insightful)
But in your case the clause wouldn't have been necessary as she informed you before the procedure what may actually have to be done. You could have told her that you couldn't afford the crown, so if the tooth can't support a filling just remove it (unlikely, but it's your prerogative).
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.
I would assume that clause is not there to allow your dentist to force you into a procedure you don't want or need, but to let the dentist change their plan of action during a procedure if something during the procedure warrants the change.
For example, I went in to have an old filling replaced that was showing signs of decay in an x-ray, the dentist warned me ahead of time that she wasn't sure if she'd be able to preserve enough tooth surface to let her do a new 2 surface filling. And sure enough, after she started the procedure, she said that after she removed the old amalgam filling and some decayed areas that there wasn't enough tooth surface support a filling, so she'd need to do a crown instead.
I've been under an extremely similar scenario. The dentist simply removed the tools from inside my mouth, asked me if it was ok, and I replied. Way easier than signing some obscure paper ahead of time.
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back.
I do the same, all the time. I was once asked to take a lie detector test (for, of all things, a job at Radio Shack). When I read the forms, they reserved the right to re-sell the results of the test to anyone, in perpetuity. They also denied me any right to challenge those results. I crossed out the offensive sections and handed it in. To their credit, they (the testing company) DID read my revisions, and said it wasn't worth their while to continue under those conditions. They didn't test me, and I got the job anyway.
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Funny)
"I always do. I read absolutely everything that I sign, because there are too many unscrupulous people out there. You never know what bullshit is in those contracts, and I've even refused to sign some, and some they've changed or removed clauses"
Me too. And I have a good story. You should be aware that this works both ways, and you can use it to your advantage.
Years ago, I had to take a pee test for a pre-employment "drug screening". I have a strong philosophical objection to that practice, but I wanted the job so I did it. (I don't do that anymore, but that's another story.)
So I got to the clinic, which specialized in doing pee tests en masse. Big waiting room, lots of chairs and people, window with a woman behind it. She handed me a form to sign on a clipboard, and I sat down and read the whole thing. And it amazed me. The form said that the clinic could tell anybody (not just the company) anything they wanted about my pee test, even if it was wrong, and I waived any right to hold them responsible in any way.
I went up to the window and asked the woman: "Do I understand this correctly? You are in the business of doing these tests, yes?"
"Yes"
"But in order for you to test me, I have to waive any right to sue you or hold you responsible, even if you screw it up?"
(Annoyed look) "It's just a standard form."
I said "Well, I don't think it is. I think I'd like to own a business where nobody could hold me responsible for actually performing the service they pay me for. Seems like a pretty sweet deal." She looked pretty pissed off.
I sat back down, looking it over. And on the second page of the fine print, where it said I could not hold them responsible, I penned in "Except in case of negligence."
I signed the form and gave it back to the woman. She didn't even look at it... just signed and dated it, and threw it into the pile of papers to file.
Hahaha. I could have written in "And I get to fuck your brother" and nobody would even have noticed. But it was just as legal a contract as anything THEY handed ME.
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice Jane, that story made me laugh. If I hadn't already commented, I would have modded you +5 funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verbal contracts may be legally binding, but good luck proving it. Get it in writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, since you mentioned the verbal part I thought it was essential to your dispute. Something else has been nagging me, though, and it's your statement, "The 'bad debt' from 1991 was still on my credit report last I looked. It's 'active' and renewed for another 7 years every time it's sold from one collection agency to another."
That looked so rotten that I had a hard time believing it was legal, and a preliminary search shows it isn't [experian.com]:
"[..] Federal law requires the lender to report the original delinquency date of the account that led to charge off and any subsequent collection efforts. The original delinquency date is the date from which the seven year period is measured.
The original account and any subsequent collection accounts are deleted seven years from the original delinquency date. Because each account must include the original delinquency date, none should return to your credit history. [..]"
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, I contested the appearance on my credit report once, and the agency (no I don't remember which I challenged it on), and it was found to be "valid". The "validation" is sending a message to the claimed debt holder and asking if it's valid. There's no actual verification of the original debt. The system is broken. The only winning move is not to play.
They reported it as a "new" debt under the
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:4, Insightful)
Something similar happened to me and it bugged the heck out of me until I finally had a flash of insight. The collection agency was always willing to threaten me with "We have a recording of our last conversation. Would you like me to play it back for you?"
One day they threatened to sue. I replied "You promise?" The collection troll didn't understand. "If you sue me, then we get to go in front of a judge who will force you to shut up long enough for me to explain why I don't owe any money. I want you to sue me."
"Well, we will."
"OK. Just remember, you promised."
They called me a couple of times after that. I reminded them of the fact that they had promised to sue me and I was waiting to be served papers to appear in court. I also reminded them that they had a recording of them promising to sue me.
They hung up on me a couple of times and then I never heard from them or anyone else about it again.
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never heard so many lies from anyone other than collections. I managed to stump them by asking them to send me an itemized bill. "I'll pay it if you can bill me for it" But all they had was that they bought some IOU off someone else who had bought it from someone else... So they had no idea of what I owned for what. $20 for pencil, $350 in fees, interest, and penalties. Nope, it was $400 - best guess as to a debt amount. Begging them to send me a written bill for what I owe so I can pay it got them confused and shut them up.
Re: (Score:2)
"I managed to stump them by asking them to send me an itemized bill."
This.
In the past I have done the same thing, more than once. I was getting annoyed by letters from some collection agency in some other state, claiming I owed X dollars. I had no idea what for... it simply said I owed, and identified it by a "case number". Nothing else.
I wrote them back and reminded them that the law in my state required them to send me an itemized statement, including what they original debt was for, to whom, and that any fees, etc. must be reasonable and also itemized.
I didn't he
Re: (Score:2)
Another quite legitimate thing you can often do, is send them a letter telling them that while their claim is very nice, you simply prefer to deal with the other principle party in the transaction (i.e., whoever it is you actually owe money to). In the vast majority of cases, you have the legal right to settle the debt with the original party, collection agencies and their "fees" bedamned.
My wife was a student at Alaska Pacific University when we met (I was also a student there). She ended up not paying her last semester. They sent it to collections (not just 30 days, but some time after, I think it was over a year). I was still a student there, and I tried to pay them on her behalf. "I'm sorry, once we've sent it to collections, you must deal with the collections agency." I have no idea what the law was, I just walked out, and she still owes it 5 years later, and they'll never get their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most basic principles of contract law is that there must be agreement between the parties. Therefore, nobody can legally obligate you to some 3rd party, without your prior consent.
So if it doesn't say in your contract that the debt can be assigned to somebody else, then it can't be assigned to somebody else. Which means you have the absolute right to settle the debt with the original party, regardless of their "standard policy" in regard to collections. Their interna
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays, I tend to grab my phone and record that. A video of a legal contract is quite hard to dispute. I'm not sure why that's not more common really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he is right and you misunderstand.
The original printed contract would still be valid, but there is no way to tell when the additions were added, so you could never prove that they were there before or after the signatures, without being initialized by both parties.
Re: (Score:2)
"ANAL, however I think modifications to boiler plate contracts have to be initialized by both parties to be valid. And that's for your benefit or they could add whatever they wanted after you signed it and claim it was there all along. So, funny story, but unless you pointed out your addition to them and got someone to initial it, you probably didn't really accomplish anything."
IANAL either, but I had very good instructors in Business Law in college.
Initialing a change is not a "requirement", it is merely evidence. Two different things.
Many people do not get this concept, but a piece of paper is not "a contract". It is merely evidence of a contract.
Also, a "contract" that is a pre-printed, mass-produced, standardized form, if enforceable at all, is a very weak contract. Any contract of that nature, which cannot be negotiated by both parties, is known as a "contract of adh
Re: (Score:2)
"Actually it's not, UNLESS you have a copy of that signed statement. Otherwise they can just strike it back out and without any proof they signed it with the clause intact you would get nowhere in court."
It was on NCR paper, and I got the yellow copy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. That too many Americans sheepishly suspend their rights in the name of convenience is exactly why these practices have gotten too far out of hand in the first place. We are no longer the same people who went to war against our King because we were required to use name-brand paper (the Stamp Act) and repay the Crown for the cost of the French and Indian War.
Re: (Score:3)
I live quite well, and I know what the conditions of things I've signed for. How do YOU live not knowing what you've actually agreed to. In my state (Illinois) , the contract for the sale of a house has to be given to you 24 hours in advance of you signing it, and yes, I read it. Well, technically, I last "purchased" a house 20+ years ago, but I just refinanced it a year ago or so.
If I'm agreeing to a 15-30 year deal, then an hour (maybe two) isn't that big of a deal spending to make sure that all the mo
Re: (Score:2)
In my state (Illinois) , the contract for the sale of a house has to be given to you 24 hours in advance of you signing it,
I've bought in Texas and Alaska, and they expect you to sign within 5 minutes of sitting down. I read and had them bring me drinks (hot chocolate, mainly) and they had to wait.
As if there should have been some way to avoid bad situations, oh, but wait, there was.. READ WHAT YOU AGREE TO.
So you've read every EULA you've ever agreed to? Really?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you impulse buying houses?
A purchase that'll be, at an absolute minimum, tens of thousands of pounds and likely to have long-term consequences does not strike me as being someone one rushes through to avoid having to read small print.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you read 100% of all EULAs you agree to?
Re: (Score:2)
the big problem is they could hide a clause that requires you to maintain an internet connection so that the (hidden) cameras installed in the bedrooms can be accessed by the seller.
Re: (Score:2)
"Weeks to buy a house"? Those contracts are usually 3 to 4 pages long, and might quote 2 laws which are less than a single page each. No more than 30 minutes.
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand clicking through a EULA for a video game or something,
Ah, like all jackasses, you don't follow your own rules, but you have excuses why your way and only your way is the right way. No other way is acceptable. Got it.
Re: (Score:3)
You mistakenly assumed my stance. I stated that it would take a very long time to read everything. I have a pack from my closing. It's more than 100 pages. Reading for comprehension of a set of contracts that long would likely not be under an hour.
Maybe I read slower than you do, but it takes me about two hours. I warn the title company in advance that I am going to read everything and ask questions about anything I don't understand, so they schedule a two-hour block for my closing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mistakenly assumed my tone. I wasn't attempting to be hostile, I was shocked. I like how you immediately jumped to the juvenile name-calling, though. Classy.
My "rules" are to give attention to things that warrant attention. Are you seriously suggesting that I'm a hypocrite and that everything I say is bogus because I don't think a click-through EULA requires the same attention as a real estate contract?
I just bought a house a few years ago. The contract was 115 pages long and took an hour to read before
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one should always try to be aware of what is being signed.
That's different than "one should always read what is being signed." I don't count "skim until you think you have a general idea of what it says, but if you can "read" a 115 page contract in under an hour (average US reading speed being about 1 minute per page for recreational reading, one would assume contracts and such being a harder, not easier read, that means to me you did not "read" it), then maybe you are the unique person who is generalizing their highly unusual skill and asserting everyone else sh
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize that interacting with you was going to be such an uncivil and icky process. If you want to relax and continue this discussion without all of the childish names and vitriol, I'll be right here.
Re: (Score:2)
You do, I do, and a great many more on slashdot do as well. But we're probably the 2% who can read, write and add. The other 98% signs the whole stack without thinking it.
Zip-line (Score:2)
I once went zip-lining on vacation. Having an indemnity waiver makes sense. There is a particular amount of risk involved. This one, though, was over the top. Among other things, it stated that I would hold blameless the company and employees for injury resulting from gross negligence!
I crossed out the things that I didn't think would stand in court (but wasn't willing to find out), turned it in, and had a blast.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need no stinkin copyright to protect it.
We already have HIPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides: it's a pretty thin excuse for giving up copyright. Probably wouldn't fly if actually challenged in court.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article, it is supposedly to increase privacy protections for the patient
And how would that work, anyway? I don't have a privacy agreement with myself. I can tell the whole world all sorts of crazy stuff about myself without any recourse against me for doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
There may be a touch of justification for this. The confidentiality laws are one-sided. A patient can criticize a doctor or dentist, but under HIPAA, the doctor or dentist can't defend himself because the doctor is under an obligation of confidentiality. So you could call that a loophole.
When somebody sues a doctor for malpractice, as part of the filing the doctor is released from HIPAA confidentiality to defend himself.
This contract may be intended to say, "Since I can't defend myself in public, you can't
Re:What's most surprising about this story. (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract."
Read the Ars Technica piece by the writer who tried to say "no" to such a contract. In short: he gets booted out the door. Now imagine you're in pain and maybe scared about a possible medical emergency (as the patient in the lawsuit here was). Situations like that is why oversight of a time-critical service like this is needed.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech/ [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is the default in america that these people are free to share your medical record?
No - HIPAA [wikipedia.org]
Probably Not Enforceable Anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry, since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright.
So what did Makhnevich give patients in exchange for that? If nothing, then there is no contract.
I suppose it's remotely possible that the patients were trading their copyright for dentistry, but that seems a pretty thin argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I feel sorry for small businesses today -- are there any restaurants whose online listings aren't choking with "gross" and "I'll never go there again!"
The Better Business Bureau has a mechanism to take complaints and give the business a way to respond and resolve the issues. All this also assumes the complaints are real and not just made up derogatory astroturfing online of competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I feel sorry for small businesses today -- are there any restaurants whose online listings aren't choking with "gross" and "I'll never go there again!"
I use Yelp extensively and leave both favorable and unfavorable reviews for a variety of things and find the site to be quite helpful to find what is good and what to stay the heck away from. You can tell who has an axe to grind by looking at their other reviews.
In NYC, the Health Department has a letter system for restaurants. The restaurant must post it prominently. I find it amusing that the restaurants that object the most strongly are also the ones that get poor reviews on Yelp. Like "Gross" and "
Re: (Score:2)
"Still, I feel sorry for small businesses today -- are there any restaurants whose online listings aren't choking with "gross" and "I'll never go there again!""
But over time that's a self-defeating fad. If people post frivolous critiques, sooner or later other people will stop taking the site seriously.
Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
My ex-wife does catering for local hotels, i.e. she rents their restaurants and runs them for them. So I know a little bit about the local hotels. Last year a friend wanted to stay in my city but he wanted a top end hotel and my ex works with the mid range hotels so apart from asking her advice I looked at the internet sites. Most had very similar comments. Several comments were very obviously professionally written and I could even see the same style of writing in several comments. Anyway, one hotel interested me. It had several comments including a story about room service stealing a guests mobile phone and about how the guest was very badly treated by reception when they complained. There were lots of replies and debate about how terrible this was. The story interested me because I knew that the hotel had not opened yet and had not employed any staff.
The hotels hire advertising companies who will write glowing stories about the hotel (lies) and write bad stories about the opposition. I am talking about hotels but I am sure that the concept applied to all areas of debate on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've seen reviews that I think have to be written by the competition, such as a review of a hotel in Tokyo complaining that wifi was slow, when the hotel didn't have wifi at all (only ethernet, which was plenty fast).
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get much slower than non-existent.
<ducks>
Re: (Score:2)
My practice with hotels is to find the cheapest one available, and then only sleep there.
Because seriously: If I wanted a community swimming pool or a weight room or hot breakfast, I'd go forth and find such a thing.
But all I want from a hotel is a clean bed and a TV with a sleep timer and a sufficiently-boring cable channel that I can go to sleep easily.
If it is early, a fridge or an ice machine is nice to keep the beer cold; otherwise, the beer will stay cold long enough. (I'd mention Internet access, b
Re: (Score:3)
Try staying at a hotel for a week or two someplace where you don't speak the local language and you can't even read signs written in the local alphabet.
There are other use cases than "crash and dash".
Re: (Score:2)
I followed this strategy plenty of times and my experience is that I will end up with a smelly room (body odor and/or smoke absorbed into the carpet and curtains), excessive street noise, a half-broken water knob(*) in the shower, noisy/drunk neighbors who also went for the cheapest option, and/or a really greasy breakfast.
I w
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to mention the bed bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do with hotels that requires you to actually study up on reviews beforehand?
It's the same reason why all products and services in the world are not tuned exclusively to the needs of a Slashdot user named adolf. Everyone is not you. In fact everyone is particularly not you, as you seem to be a bit of an edge case. You leave your unpacked luggage in the car? What do you do then? Every day pop down to the car, in a towel, and carefully retrieve the day's clothing without unpacking?
I spend around a 5th of each year in hotel rooms, and can tell you that there's a lot to be said for havi
Re:Probably Not Enforceable Anyway (Score:5, Informative)
The Better Business Bureau has a mechanism to take complaints and give the business a way to respond and resolve the issues.
The BBB is a scam, they just have really good marketing like DeBeers quality marketing.
The way it works is that dues-paying BBB members get to have their records wiped of any unresolved complaints after a certain period, usually about a year although it varies between BBB offices. Non-members do not get their records wiped under any circumstances. So when a disgruntled customer files a BBB complaint about a non-member business, the BBB uses that as a marketing tool to get that business to start paying dues.
The end result is that you can only trust BBB records of non-members, because they never get wiped, while a dues-paying BBB "member in good standing" may have hundreds of unresolved complaints that have simply expired. Occasionally a BBB office will "fire" a really egregious dues-paying member, but AFAIK there is no consistent set of rules across all BBB offices for when, if ever, that is required.
Re: (Score:2)
"The BBB is a scam, they just have really good marketing like DeBeers quality marketing."
I know some people who owned a store, & they were members in good standing of BBB. But eventually they dropped their membership. I asked the owner why.
He said "The BBB can't help companies. All they can do is hurt you. Nobody calls them with favorable reviews... the only calls they get are complaints."
Re: (Score:2)
In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.
In this case it would appear that the consideration is the "increased privacy" beyond HIPAA.
It will probably still not be enforceable since the reviews are not a work for hire, and reviews are generally not protected by copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Facts are not in any way creative works, fox news notwithstanding.
I'm pretty sure that Fox News "news" are copyrightable.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm pretty sure Fox 'news' wouldn't know a fat if it bit them on the ass. I just can't work out what genre applies though; science fiction, fantasy or magical realism?
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. I even previewed and didn't see it until after I hit submit. I obviously meant 'fact' not 'fat'.
Re: (Score:2)
"In this case it would appear that the consideration is the 'increased privacy' beyond HIPAA."
Fictitious consideration is the same as none.
Re: (Score:3)
Courts do not analyze consideration with that degree of detail. In order for there to be consideration, both sides have to agree to provide something of value and/or agree not to do something that they otherwise had the right to do (provi
Re: (Score:2)
You could not have been more wrong if you'd tried.
"They can't convict a husband and wife for the same crime. [wikipedia.org]"
Proof that you can be more wrong (on television).
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly it's increased privacy, which is pretty thin also; I don't even say "Hi" first to our patients I see on the street due to potential HIPPA concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry ...
No, it is dentistry. The assignment of copyright constitutes part payment for the provision of dental services, the balance being paid in legal tender.
Reducing that logic to the extreme, the fact that a free dentists practises elsewhere would mean that no dentist can charge anything for dentistry.
I suppose
Re: (Score:2)
In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.
With EULA, the "consideration" use using the item you bought. If you don't agree, you don't get to use the item you own. So the service itself *is* the consideration. I think that sucks, but it works for EULA/copyright, so why not dentistry?
Re: (Score:2)
In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.
What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry, since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright.
What? Of course it was the dentistry service. Why do you think consideration must be unique? If that were the case, then paying the dentist with money would not be consideration since just about everybody has money.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
...this totally bites.
Re : Same thing happened to me a week ago. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whee exactly is the crime against democracy here?
1) You were allowed to write, no criminal penalties were applied.
2) You were informed that if their was a civil lawsuit you would win
3) You were informed that Nimal Baba runs a criminal enterprise that takes revenge on journalists
(1) and (2) is protection of free speech. (3) is protection of civil order. You caved to a private harassment threat. In a despotic government that sort of thing is less likely.
Dentist Who (Score:5, Funny)
The much less popular time lord.
Copyright not her only worry (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine this class action lawsuit is not the reason she is on the run. I would think that if what Lee said was true, and she was charging insurance companies $4000 for a $200 job, she has bigger problems.
All speculation, but it seems to me this is a "take the money and run before I get discovered for widespread multimillion dollar insurance fraud" disappearing act rather than a "OMG a civil law suit! Run!" disappearing act.
Three things (Score:2)
Dentist is a paranoid narcissist
Dentist is a drug addict
Dentist launders money
Behold the power of Barbra (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a followup to a previous article featured on Slashdot, showing how the Streisand effect is strong enough to shut down a health care practice.
Not necessarily, that "Mutual Privacy Agreement" is the kind of stupid shit dental consultants sell, and practices that hire these charlatans are usually in pretty bad trouble financial trouble. A fair number of Dentists develop bad personal spending habits, dentistry requires a high degree of hard won skills, which leads to big ego's and sometimes narcissistic behaviours like impulsive spending habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither good brain nor good body are likely to provide you with a good relationship.
I disagree, and I predict that without either you are much more likely to have a lousy relationship. Besides, since when did sex have anything to do with the relationship?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm an asshole because I suggest that content of character is more important than (mostly innate) qualities like intelligence and appearance?
I stand by what I said: values are more important than skills. A good person is better than a clever or a sexy person.
I have found kids to judge people only based on "niceness" too, until the adult competitive world bashes into their head that they must look at less important things. Hormones do make people care about physical appearance, but the particularly physical
Re: (Score:3)
Before you judge others you should learn English. 'Pretence' is English for the word that Americans write as 'pretense'.
Actually, 'Pretence' is the screwed up spelling Great Britain uses for the word 'pretense'.
Yes, the English people have the screwed up version of the English language and the Americans have it completely right, as always, and non-Americans aren't allowed to use the English version.
Re: (Score:2)
You Slashbitches just can't accept that some guys like females.
No, no, some of us do like females, some even as sexual partners.
On the other hand, I don't much appreciate having to negotiate my way around the dreck that morons such you tend to spew. Welcome to oblivion. Wear it proudly. You earned it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:still no match for Orly Taitz (Score:5, Insightful)
"values held by rich people who were brought up properly"... Like, knowing how to scam properly to not get caught, or at least get bailed out by taxpayer money? Or what exactly do you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
GP means not generalizing based on media stereotypes, not talking shit about people behind their backs like you're commenting on a Youtube video and not judging peoples character by irrelevant details like the amount of money in their bank accounts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"murica (Score:5, Funny)
Land of the free
Sounds better than the land of unbalanced malloc, don't you think?
Re: (Score:3)
Again, with the "blame Bush" ... oh wait .. never mind ;)