The copyright covers "expressions of ideas", not the ideas themselves. You can certainly reference the original "idea" (description) and create a new "expression". A "derivative work" includes some portion of the original verbatim and that should be avoided.
The idea of the patient not being able to access billing information (the description) without purchase of the codes is an interesting ramification of the current odd situation. I seem to recall that there was a person who did set up a web site with the CPT codes so that patients could access their billing information. He was sued by the AMA and the web site was closed. I don't know if this was litigated fully or he just ran out of money. However, I think Tim Cook's suggestion that we devote our energy to some more important standards issue or open source project is a good one that we should consider. Regardless of the "fairness" or legality of the current situation with CPT codes, there are bigger fish to fry. The AMA has been very aggressive in defending all of the real and perceived IP rights to CPT and this is a battle that we really don't want to start. /Mark --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it doable to create new descriptions from just the codes. Unless the > meaning of each code is common knowledge then you have to make recourse to > the original description, which makes your description a derived work at the > very least. > > Is there any clean-room way of arriving at a description that could not be > construed to have been derived from the AMA's original description? > > Presumably the patient has the right to see the actual codes that are used > on his medical record. He also has knowledge (one would hope) of the > procedures performed. But he has not seen the CPT list, and so can create a > workable description that is not tainted by any copyrightable link to the > original codes, nor by any other contractual relationship with the AMA. > > 80n > > > > On 12/12/06, Karsten Hilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:54:32PM -0800, Rod Roark wrote: > > > > > Even absent the political ramifications, the resulting new system > > > will have useful applications. A billing service accepting the new > > > codes would still need CPT licensing, > > You guys need to keep straight what you are talking about. > > At least it gets me confused. > > > > One side suggests "writing new *descriptions*" for the > > *existing* CPT codes. In that case *there are no new > > codes* which would need any sort of acceptance by a billing > > service or even CPT licensing. > > > > The other party speaks about creating a whole different set > > of codes alltogether and trying to bring them into use for > > billing. > > > > Adrian Midgley proposes, as usual, the pragmatic solution: > > > > First, create new descriptions for the existing CPT codes > > and introduce those into use. This ought to be doable > > without interference by anyone. After all, the government > > cannot force me to use the AMA's descriptions. I can work > > with the codes alone (without *any* descriptions) if I so want > > - which is for all practical purposes exactly the same thing > > as working with alternate descriptions because the payor > > will never see those. > > > > Second, expand upon that established user base to introduce > > more codes for more purposes. > > > > I agree the first part seems doable. I am dubious about the > > second. > > > > Karsten > > -- > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
