4 ms·

> There's a competitive advantage in keeping pacemakers' source code proprietary? There definitely is. If your company takes ~2 years to develop a pacemaker's

> There's a competitive advantage in keeping pacemakers' source code proprietary? There definitely is. If your company takes ~2 years to develop a pacemaker's software, it's not to your advantage to let your competitors catch up. I'm not saying it's a good thing that it's closed source, but there is definitely incentive to keep your research to yourself.

pdonis 10y ago
> If your company takes ~2 years to develop a pacemaker's software, it's not to your advantage to let your competitors catch up. Why should the patient who has the pacemaker implanted care? This seems like a clear situation in which the patient's interests trump everybody else's. Pacemaker manufacturers should be competing in how well their devices meet patient needs. Closed source doesn't meet a key patient need.
- whorleater 10y ago
  As heartless as this sounds: the patient isn't the only person in the equation. There are investors that fund the medical research, a company has employees to pay, the hospital wants the best pacemaker available, etc.
  - anonbanker 10y ago
    you're right. that sounds pretty heartless.
  - llukas 10y ago
    Sure - why not ask patient for paid subscription for privilege of using pacemaker? Somebody please think of the investors...
    - whorleater 10y ago
      And in the same vein, why not ask investors to if they'll fund a pacemaker company in a purely philanthropic fashion? Isn't it better to get pacemakers in a limited fashion than not at all?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Sure. Soon we'll have cloud-connected subscription-based freemium pacemakers that will shut down and kill everyone when the company making them gets acquihired. I mean, I get the business incentives involved, but I also think it's high time to realize they're getting insane and should be altered.
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
  Medical device software is subject to a level of rigor in development process that little else is. Exactly what patient need do you believe open source would meet that is not being met by the current closed-source development process?
  - llukas 10y ago
    What happens in closed source development model if pacemaker company ceases to develop one or goes belly up?
    - unimpressive 10y ago
      Well now, this isn't quite the same thing as your normal IoT device. You would need to be Really Damn Sure any updates are bug-free before you could push them, which would take actual financial resources. Open source would help here, but not quite as much as it normally would.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
      Manufacturer must support the product for 10 years after the last sale. In the case that they go belly up, that I don't have experience with, but it's likely that another company would step in to fill the role. Support can be quite lucrative.
  - abraae 10y ago
    The need to avoid Therac-25 [1] type bugs in the proprietary code that are fatal to the patient. Open source in conjunction with a bug bounty would make me far more confident than simply trusting that some large corporate has got their shit wired tight when history throws up so many counter-examples. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - pdonis 10y ago
c22 10y ago
If every pacemaker manufacturer is required to publish source couldn't you just release it under a license that doesn't allow your competitors to use your code and wouldn't it be readily apparent if they did?

pdonis 10y ago

> If your company takes ~2 years to develop a pacemaker's software, it's not to your advantage to let your competitors catch up. Why should the patient who has the pacemaker implanted care? This seems like a clear situation in which the patient's interests trump everybody else's. Pacemaker manufacturers should be competing in how well their devices meet patient needs. Closed source doesn't meet a key patient need.

whorleater 10y ago
As heartless as this sounds: the patient isn't the only person in the equation. There are investors that fund the medical research, a company has employees to pay, the hospital wants the best pacemaker available, etc.
- anonbanker 10y ago
  you're right. that sounds pretty heartless.
- llukas 10y ago
  Sure - why not ask patient for paid subscription for privilege of using pacemaker? Somebody please think of the investors...
  - whorleater 10y ago
    And in the same vein, why not ask investors to if they'll fund a pacemaker company in a purely philanthropic fashion? Isn't it better to get pacemakers in a limited fashion than not at all?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Sure. Soon we'll have cloud-connected subscription-based freemium pacemakers that will shut down and kill everyone when the company making them gets acquihired. I mean, I get the business incentives involved, but I also think it's high time to realize they're getting insane and should be altered.
HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
Medical device software is subject to a level of rigor in development process that little else is. Exactly what patient need do you believe open source would meet that is not being met by the current closed-source development process?
- llukas 10y ago
  What happens in closed source development model if pacemaker company ceases to develop one or goes belly up?
  - unimpressive 10y ago
    Well now, this isn't quite the same thing as your normal IoT device. You would need to be Really Damn Sure any updates are bug-free before you could push them, which would take actual financial resources. Open source would help here, but not quite as much as it normally would.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
    Manufacturer must support the product for 10 years after the last sale. In the case that they go belly up, that I don't have experience with, but it's likely that another company would step in to fill the role. Support can be quite lucrative.
- abraae 10y ago
  The need to avoid Therac-25 [1] type bugs in the proprietary code that are fatal to the patient. Open source in conjunction with a bug bounty would make me far more confident than simply trusting that some large corporate has got their shit wired tight when history throws up so many counter-examples. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- pdonis 10y ago

c22 10y ago

If every pacemaker manufacturer is required to publish source couldn't you just release it under a license that doesn't allow your competitors to use your code and wouldn't it be readily apparent if they did?