Comment on Doctors Remove Woman’s Brain Implant Against Her Will
dono@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoAs much as I share this sentiment in general, in this case its probably more likely that this has something to with liability if something goes wrong with the implant. And I would bet the company never released the schematics and code so that aint helpin.
Could prob be solved if implants would be required to be open source so that third party servicing could happen.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
Companies that aren’t actively using their IP should be forced to license it to someone who will, or put it in the public domain.
brianary@startrek.website 3 weeks ago
All of their code and specs should be required to be put into escrow in case they go out of business.
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
That doesn’t seem like the best idea with expiramental implants. I doubt anyone would want to take on the liability for some defunct company’s implant because there’s no upside for them to do so and a lot of downsides.
gaael@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Doing stuff that makes peoples lives better with no short-term financial incentive? Sounds like a mission for public-funded institutions :)
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
There’s no real guarantee it’ll make her life better especially if it’s a 1 of 1 implant. They could just as easily try to control it and give her debilitating seizures because they have nothing to test on. I get the sentiment but I don’t think anybody would be willing to take on that risk.
pingveno@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
As part of unwinding a company that is going out of business, they usually do sell off their IP. That doesn’t mean that anyone will continue this particular experiment.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
The same rule applies to whenever they sell the IP to. Whoever buys the IP should be legally obligated to continue the experiment as a condition of buying it. The alternative—putting the IP in the public domain—doesn’t do a lot for people who need active, ongoing support for a medical device, implanted in their body. I’d make a separate, stricter rule for that case. I don’t have a clear idea what that rule should be, though, because we can’t require a medical experiment to continue indefinitely if we want anyone to develop new medical devices.
pingveno@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you start adding on mandates to the IP like that, that severely narrows the list of companies that are even capable of buying it. They have to have employees with knowledge of the specific device, which only a small number of people may be using.