Medentry blatantly rip off Government organisations, Students and Parents with no regard for the law!
Medentry_original_copied_quests_and_sources.doc
Caveat Emptor - Buyer beware - is our advice to you!
Please note the following before clicking through for our complimentary test.
CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE for interesting reading.
Please note the Judge's viewpoint here.
"Furthermore, if there was any breach, it would have been as a result of a simple mistake on Edward Boyapati’s part. I reject the proposition that the cross-respondents displayed third party logos on the MedEntry website other than in the belief that consent had been given. The logos were taken down when a request to do so was made."
# Ed Boyapati was a lecturer at RMIT for many years and holds a doctoral research degree. I do not accept that he accidentally placed and left up via a simple mistake the logos of six prominent organisations and after letters from our legal advisers and the organisations was forced to take them all down. I find the judge's viewpoint incredible in the light of clearly deliberate, deceptive and contumacious behaviour by Ed Boyapati.
Justice Bryson
“Cautious conduct by the court is appropriate because the spectacle or the appearance that a lawyer can readily change sides is very subversive of the appearance that justice is being done. The appearance which matters is the appearance presented to a reasonable observer who knows and is prepared to understand the facts.”
Facts speak louder than words is what we say.
Enrol with confidence in our courses endorsed by doctors across Australia.
Try our complimentary test to check your UMAT skills.
We believe that copying questions from third party sources and selling them to students without letting them know that they are copied is deceptive. We further believe that if students knew this they would not purchase eight hundred questions from this UMAT training provider in the first place. Always ask for a guarantee that all questions are created originally and not "ripped off" elsewhere. Some UMAT suppliers even note that: "Our UMAT materials are thoroughly researched and of the highest quality." We are not quite sure what "thoroughly researched" means in this context.
The Judge stated: "The evidence established that Ann Boyapati created about half the questions and answers in the works in suit from scratch. Whilst the evidence established that she derived the balance of the questions and answers from third party sources, she used these sources in different ways, selecting, adapting and modifying them to varying degrees to suit her purpose of compiling sets of practice exams that simulated the UMAT. Even where she made minimal modification to a pre-existing question, she exercised skill and judgment in selecting the question and including it in either section 1 or 2, depending on whether it concerned logical reasoning or interaction skills. There was also a degree of skill and judgment involved in organising the sequence and, to a lesser extent, the number of questions in section 1 or 2 so as to simulate the UMAT."
Through a quirk in the law it is legal to flagrantly place references to an individuals bankruptcies on a website without further ado and yet such actions are not deemed defamatory. Are such actions those of a reasonable person? What might a reasonable person reading such things infer? In like manner through another quirk in the law it is legal to lift questions here and there from other authors and form a new product or test via compilation. This was as amazing to us as it is incredible. As to whether or not Medentry/the Boyapatis breached copyright of the original owners of these questions was not the contention of this matter before the court but solely as to whether or not Medentry/the Boyapatis had copyright in the compilation of eight hundred questions and at law they do as pointed out by the Judge's ample precedents. In both points here what is the spirit of the law? Has this spirit been honoured?
Please download this free sample of some highly researched questions and you as a reasonable person be the judge. You may evidence first hand how some questions and answers were selected, adapted and modified to varying degrees to suit the purpose of compiling sets of practice exams that simulated the UMAT. Thanks to many disgruntled students who have submitted many questions to us this year and our own research over the last four years we are now submitting all verbatim questions used by Medentry over the last four years to several United States publishers to confirm whether or not Medentry has permissions or licences to use such questions which were lifted and compiled in order to sell them commercially for financial gain. Such permissions or licences were not tendered to the court and given the fact that the applicants are three honest doctors and an honest academic as clearly implied in the reasons for judgement we are curious as to why no evidence to this effect was presented.
Questions for students.
1. Would you have enrolled with Medentry if you knew these facts prior to enrollment?
2. Is this ethical considering the Medentry team consists of three doctors and one academic?
3. Do you consider UMAT materials selected, adapted and modified in this manner are thoroughly researched and of the highest quality?
4. How do you feel about paying money to Medentry for these questions?
5. What might a reasonable person having knowledge of such things infer?
Let us know your sincere considerations here in terms of a reasonable person.
# Definition of a reasonable person.
A hypothetical person who exercises "those qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which society requires of its members for the protection of their own interest and the interests of others."
Thought for the erudite.
"The law condemns and punishes only actions within certain definite and narrow limits; it thereby justifies, in a way, all similar actions that lie outside those limits."
Leo Tolstoy
Best wishes
Dallas
info@icarus.edu.au
