Is it possible this means it was a mistake to buy those systems, because they are not based on open source software? One objection is that these systems may ha

Is it possible this means it was a mistake to buy those systems, because they are not based on open source software? One objection is that these systems may have been the only ones on offer that met requirements. I think one has to consider collective effects, though: were people prepared to 'irrationally' say "I'm still not buying it, because it's not open source", we would end up with open source MRI machines. Of course that's unlikely to happen at present simply because there is NOT a consensus that open source software is important or even a good thing in this context -- but this argument addresses THIS objection. That kind of stance happens in some situations, and not currently in this one. I don't think that's an immutable state of affairs. Also, I don't think it's because of the high direct costs of saying "no": refusing to pay kidnappers also has a high direct cost and an analogous collective benefit (I'm not aiming for a hyperbolic moral comparison there, I just picked that because, as an extreme case, it makes the point clear).