Hello,

Does anyone know of a third party company that will provide support to the Hemocare BB System after June 2007?

thank you

Jersey

I thought they were sunsetting support as of Dec 31. Do you have support through June?

Yes we have support until June 2007. I have heard of a site who had a Oct 06 date and others with Dec 06 date as well. Could it be the contract date? I'm not really sure why we have different dates.

Our parent company made a special deal with Mediware to offer support through Dec.2007 because they have so many facilities to try to get switched over to HCLL.

Korchek.com

Check your contract. I understand that Mediware changed it a few years back so you don't own the software and can't continue to use it without their support. We are off it now, but got some nasty letters insisting that we return the software to them or send a letter verifying that we had destroyed it. They threatened to send in a software verification team to see if we were inappropriately using any vendor's software. They didn't make many friends with our administration with this attitude. They were a great company to deal with when we started in 94.

Mediware did change their contracts. The latest were very different from the ones we had been signing for 20 years and 180 out from the original. I have the original from 1984. Contracts are negotiable. You have to read them before you sign them. The different dates on the current contracts reflect the different dates of the original signing.

Unless you are a lawyer, you can read a contract and still not understand it. That's one of the reasons I went to law school. My advice: get a professional (lawyer) to read it and explain your rights and duties (those are legal terms as well) as the proposed contract reads. One thing I always include in my contracts with vendors is a non-delegation clause. A non-delegation clause prohibits the vendor from delegating their duties under the contract to a third party, i.e., a subcontractor. Without this clause the vendor is free to delegate any duty to a third party.

BC, JD

Check your contract. I understand that Mediware changed it a few years back so you don't own the software and can't continue to use it without their support. We are off it now, but got some nasty letters insisting that we return the software to them or send a letter verifying that we had destroyed it. They threatened to send in a software verification team to see if we were inappropriately using any vendor's software. They didn't make many friends with our administration with this attitude. They were a great company to deal with when we started in 94.

So Mabel did they show up??

I agree Mediware has always been really great to deal. I am sad to have to part with the product and have to be forced into another system by forces that I can not control.

I have heard that they reached a perpetual license agreement with their customers. However, I would need Mr Currie to explain what that means.

For Mr Currie to explain. I assume if a document is filed with the courts is in the public domain unless sealed by a judge. Correct me if I'm wrong.

According to court documents recently filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of NY, Mediware contracts grant their customers perpetual licenses to their software. The actual filing can be found by searching the courts database at the link below, Docket # CV-06-3962. The courts ECF system will require a PACER password https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl

"Perpetual license" means that there is no termination clause. It is often useful to have a termination clause that defines the length of the contract (say, 10 years). Perpetuality is implied unless a termination clause is added. Conditions added to the contract can also give a reason to terminate. For example, a condition might be, "XYZ company will provide widgets to ABC company so long as ABC has an office in Houston." As soon as ABC shuts down their Houston office, XYZ's duty to provide widgets automatically ends. Until then, XYZ's contract with ABC is perpetual. A fixed term contract defines an end date. "XYZ company will provide ABC company with their annual need for widgets for 10 years."

The above is also called a "needs" contract, which is what many reagent contracts are. The required terms of a contract usually called for are (1) name of the parties, (2) subject matter, (3) price, and (4) quantity. Additional terms can be place of delivery and terms of acceptability. "Subject matter" is the product or service being provided. Here is a simple contract mistake I came across years ago: The lab where I was working at the time contracted with a reagent supplier to provide, among other things, anti-IgG reagent. When we received our first shipment, the anti-IgG was clear rather than green. We had failed to specify that we wanted green anti-IgG. The price quoted was for clear anti-IgG. We thought we had negotiated a good price for green anti-IgG, the supplier thought they had negotiated a good price for clear anti-IgG. We mutually rescinded that portion of the contract, but the supplier could have held us to the contract.

BC

This is interesting: Mediware v. Korchek, with Korchek counterclaiming. The actual case is 2:06-cv-03963-JS-WDW. I searched using 06-3962 (06 being the year in which the case was filed).

Which exact document (1 through 20) are you referring to? I read the main complaint ($1.20 at $0.08 per page) and some history. I did a search of the complaint for "perpetual" and didn't find any references to user agreements. Mediware charges Korchek with breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relationships by using proprietary information to provide competing services to Mediware customers (those types of cases can be hard to prove damages and can get nasty). I read the answer and did not find "perpetual" either ($1.04 to view). It contains the standard denials and affirmative defense of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" (legalese for "even if I did what you said I did, it didn't hurt you.") Oh, and Korchek claims "unclean hands" by Mediware. This usually means that the plaintiff did something wrong that prevents them from making a claim against the defendant. All that was missing from the textbook defenses was "laches," which means the plaintiff took too long to bring an action against the defendant and defendant relied on the lack of suit to their detriment. This would be where plaintiff knew that defendant was doing something, and defendant knew plaintiff knew defendant was doing something, and plaintiff failed to object in a timely manner, so defendant (rightly) assumed that plaintiff was okay with what defendant was doing and kept on doing it. The counterclaim is well-written. A quick reading of the complaint and answer/counterclaim leads me to favor Korchek without knowing the facts. But, I couldn't find anything regarding a perpetual license in the court documents after spending about $5 at $0.08 per page.

Are you referring to an agreement otherwise known as software banking? I have been involved with a few of those contracts. As long as you pay the annual banking fees you have access to the software code as banked by the vendor.

As far as I can tell, this case has not been resolved. There are 20 documents, beginning with the complaint, then the summons return, then the motion for leave to appear pro hac vice ("for this purpose", meaning that the proposed attorney does not have privileges in this court but would like temporary privileges for this case), notice of appearance, stipulation enlarging defendant's time to answer (because defendant waived formal service) followed by the answer and counterclaim, initial conference scheduling order, mandatory disclosures, motion to compel parties to enter into a phone conference (parties must get together to discuss the case and see if it can be decided outside of court), more motions, an amended complaint by Mediware (usually because in the conference one party finds out they have made a mistake in the complaint or the other party tells them that they are making a false claim and they better drop or amend the complaint or face stiff sanctions), and the last document is a response to the motion for leave to file an amended complaint (this is really ceremonial, because a motion to file an amended complaint is always granted).

So, long story short, I couldn't find the document to which you referred without downloading a bunch of stuff I don't want to pay to read. If you could tell me which document number you are referring to I can check it out.

BC

We haven't seen any software police yet.

we are also using Korcheck to support the Hemocare system as we update our Donor Services computer system.