RE: American Physiological Society - Comments re. NIH Proposal

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Dear Ann,

I don't qualify as legally trained, but I do not have to be, in order to
recognize that the APS arguments about copyright are nonsense; nobody
proposes to take away existing copyright. It is no more a violation of
copyright for the NIH to set specific publication requirements on
extramural work, than it is for work at Bethesda. The main thing I do know
about patents is that any sensible investigator and organization get the
application on record before publishing.  I don't know a thing about
administrative law, but based on the copyright arguments, I have no reason
to think any argument in that position paper likely to be correct.

I have a specific proposal for the American Physiological Society: it
would further their own interest for them to cooperate with the NIH
proposal. If they keep fighting against the inevitable, others will see
them not only as wrong on the merits, but as too obstinate to recognize a
fair compromise. If they continue on these paths, the future system will
be organized without them: they are being offered a choice between
survival or suicide.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

I do not post to multiple lists, but others are welcome to copy or link.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Liblicense-L Listowner
Sent: Mon 11/29/2004 8:27 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: American Physiological Society - Comments re. NIH Proposal
 
See:  <http://www.the-aps.org/news/nihaccesscomments.htm>

This site contains a short, though complex, summary of legal issues raised
by the NIH proposal.  From the legally minded on this list, any comments?  
Ann Okerson/Yale Library