21–30 of 30 posts
If they could open it, send pictures and send dumps of its firmware, I'm sure there would be people around the world curious enough to reverse engineer it, and with that knowledge available, they could (at least potentially) get some support.
Companies going bust should have their IP (code, design, patents etc) transferred to FOSS licenses automatically; at least here going bust is a strain on the tax payer, so give it back to the tax payer. Then someone else can pick this up and potentially fix these devices. Or at the least it’s good for the world to have the tech open to be studied.
But who would that "someone" be, and to what conditions? Or do you expect the people in the article to just write the drivers for their own implants themselves?
[0] https://weilandresearch.bme.umich.edu/ [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-doctor-20...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone under whichever conditions they choose. We, society, grant temporary monopolies in the form of copyright/patents "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". They do not intend to further use that monopoly, so they lose it.
You’re missing the point. The chance of someone investing in the development of drivers for niche failed outdated niche product is nil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But who would that "someone" be, and to what conditions? Or do you expect the people in the article to just write the drivers for their own implants themselves?
> Or do you expect the people in the article to just write the drivers for their own implants themselves? No, but a community of volunteers might. ThreadX [0] is proof enough that an OSS community can keep a piece of software certified under strict security standards. I don't see why the same couldn't be achieved with software for medical devices. [0] https://threadx.io/faq/#what-happens-with-the-existing-safet...
And if you manage to get it approved for sale, then there are regulatory requirements around support and maintenance of the device that aren't going to happen for free.
It's a nice idea, but unless you get funding from a philanthropic billionaire, I don't see it happening
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or do you expect the people in the article to just write the drivers for their own implants themselves? No, but a community of volunteers might. ThreadX [0] is proof enough that an OSS community can keep a piece of software certified under strict security standards. I don't see why the same couldn't be achieved with software for medical devices. [0] https://threadx.io/faq/#what-happens-with-the-existing-safet...
A couple reasons come to mind. (1) you can't separate the software from the rest of the device: it has to be Approved as a whole. (2) certification isn't enough. e.g., you could submit the software to a quality agency who would certify that it meets IEC62304, but then the entire device and its clinical test data still has to be submitted to the FDA, along with its Quality Record and all that (submission process, main…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone under whichever conditions they choose. We, society, grant temporary monopolies in the form of copyright/patents "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". They do not intend to further use that monopoly, so they lose it.
You’re missing the point. The chance of someone investing in the development of drivers for niche failed outdated niche product is nil.
If they could open it, send pictures and send dumps of its firmware, I'm sure there would be people around the world curious enough to reverse engineer it, and with that knowledge available, they could (at least potentially) get some support.
Companies going bust should have their IP (code, design, patents etc) transferred to FOSS licenses automatically; at least here going bust is a strain on the tax payer, so give it back to the tax payer. Then someone else can pick this up and potentially fix these devices. Or at the least it’s good for the world to have the tech open to be studied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple reasons come to mind. (1) you can't separate the software from the rest of the device: it has to be Approved as a whole. (2) certification isn't enough. e.g., you could submit the software to a quality agency who would certify that it meets IEC62304, but then the entire device and its clinical test data still has to be submitted to the FDA, along with its Quality Record and all that (submission process, main…
Sounds like a good reason for these theoretical grassroots programmers to circumvent the regulatory agencies that are more of a hindrance than a help. ‘We cant do that because bureaucracy’ is such a non-starter.
If they could open it, send pictures and send dumps of its firmware, I'm sure there would be people around the world curious enough to reverse engineer it, and with that knowledge available, they could (at least potentially) get some support.
Only if the user base is large enough to gather enough interest. I expect someone reverse-engineering popular devices like nintendo switch but not bionic eyes used by a few hundred people.
Reading this has me horrified and wanting to help with the effort.