There are two key issues at hand from this article: 1) The use of intellectual property and whatever financial residuals that may be associated with it in the immediate or long term. 2) Further advancement of A.I. in the healthcare field, specifically ours.
Regarding the first issue, this uncharted territory since the idea of creating A.I. systems to analyze and interpret digital libraries of slides has only been around the last 5-10 years. My guess is there's little to nothing in the pathologists' contract pertaining to using their diagnoses as part of a information database. It's no different to the pharma or tech industry where any research or groundbreaking discoveries which are made by that individual does not belong to them for proprietary uses and are considered intellectual property by the particular institution which they were employed at the time. And, particularly since the hospital can say this new A.I. system is being used for in the name of "patient care", there's really not much to hold up in court. I'm not saying the pathologists don't have a reason to be salty about it. But, they have already been compensated for their work and it's no more skin off their back for what's already been done. It's just sour grapes because they aren't getting a piece of the pie...
As far as the second, I think the statement towards the end of the article sums it up:
'For now, much of the talk is theoretical — the company is years away from selling a finished product, with a staff of fewer than 20 employees.'
This goes back to what I've said in the past. Is it inevitable: Yes. Is it going to make our skillset irrelevant in this lifetime: No. Keep calm, carry on...