4 ms·

Frankly, I'm not surprised there was no backup plan in case the company went out of business. The quote from the engineer is telling, “We didn’t sell any more,

Frankly, I'm not surprised there was no backup plan in case the company went out of business. The quote from the engineer is telling, “We didn’t sell any more, we didn’t make any more, we didn’t have anything to do with it anymore.” Like a company discontinuing a model of Bluetooth speaker or size of tire, as if the implant isn't a permanent part of their patient's bodies. Just leaving a small division that supported existing users, even with just spare parts, would not have been cost prohibitive. It sounds like the suits demanded profitability and literally left them customers in the dark. I wonder if in the coming years and more and more biotech implant companies come to market some will be required for long term support. Maybe their relevant IP becomes public domain if the device is not "supported"?

dylan604 5y ago
This is a perfect case study on what should be required (legislation??) and considered before licensing a biotech company. These all should have the strictest warranties in the end user's favor. I know I know, wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which fills up faster.
- themaninthedark 5y ago
  We have laws concerning doctors, hospitals and codes of medical ethics that govern health care. I am sure that there are cases where a hospital shutdown due to bankruptcy without transferring their patients but that is not the norm. We should hold other companies in this space to the same standard. Edit: >To be maintained to satisfy retention requirements under federal and state laws. Maintenance of medical records is especially significant if the organization is defined as a Covered Entity 1 under HIPAA. Failure to maintain and protect medical records can lead to significant fines and penalties even during organization closings and bankruptcy proceedings. http://metalquest.com/files/Medical_Record_Considerations_During_Bankruptcy.pdf http://metalquest.com/files/Medical_Record_Considerations_Du...
- p1necone 5y ago
  I don't think companies should be allowed to sell products like this (requires invasive surgery, long term maintenance, more invasive surgery if something goes wrong) directly to patients. They need to sell to the government/health insurance companies, and provide all the tools/training/equipment for those organizations to do the long term support for patients.
theossuary 5y ago
Honestly this seems like a good idea. If a company stops selling/supporting a product (or never starts), its IP rights should be forfeit. Require them to be sold to a company willing to sell/support the device, or they should become public domain. This change would probably fix most issues with current US IP law.
- sneak 5y ago
  How would that keep the company in business to provide support? Seems like the same outcome, to me.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    They should be forced to fund a trust that can support all users for their lifetime.
    - subroutine 5y ago
      How much do you reckon that would cost per user?
      - kadoban 5y ago
        A fairly large amount, even for minimal support. If it's prohibitive to create cool medical devices due to this, the government can assist (guaranteed loans against future profit? whatever, I'm sure there's a bunch of ways to structure it). Maybe it will push these companies to make support easier as well, and Open Source parts of it where it makes sense to.
    - victorronin 5y ago
      I am torn. On one hand, this is great idea (exactly for such cases). I feel unbelievably bad for users. On another hand. Lifetime support of technology (say 50 years) is damn expensive. Let say you need a dozen of engineers (hardware + software) + doctors to keep it going. It's 12 people * 200k salary (if you don't like this number, pick your own) * 50 years = $120M. I think you can potentially argue that you don't need a dozen people to support this. However, I think it's a fair number to support aging hardware + software. Unfortunately, such things work only with a scale. You need 10 people to support 100 customers, 20 people to support 1000 customers and 40 people to support 10000. If they got to 10000 customers, I could see them getting enough money to fund such trust. Having just 300 customers won't be enough. Looking at the crunchbase (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/second-sight https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/second-sight). They whole funding was $130M.
kiba 5y ago
The problem is that the device and support associated with it outrageously expensive. Even if the company want to support their users, it may not be sustainable. This sort of thing required ongoing government support to sustain until the technology is ready. It seems more like proof of concept device that belongs in a lab rather than a commercially available technology.

dylan604 5y ago

This is a perfect case study on what should be required (legislation??) and considered before licensing a biotech company. These all should have the strictest warranties in the end user's favor. I know I know, wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which fills up faster.

themaninthedark 5y ago
We have laws concerning doctors, hospitals and codes of medical ethics that govern health care. I am sure that there are cases where a hospital shutdown due to bankruptcy without transferring their patients but that is not the norm. We should hold other companies in this space to the same standard. Edit: >To be maintained to satisfy retention requirements under federal and state laws. Maintenance of medical records is especially significant if the organization is defined as a Covered Entity 1 under HIPAA. Failure to maintain and protect medical records can lead to significant fines and penalties even during organization closings and bankruptcy proceedings. http://metalquest.com/files/Medical_Record_Considerations_During_Bankruptcy.pdf http://metalquest.com/files/Medical_Record_Considerations_Du...
p1necone 5y ago
I don't think companies should be allowed to sell products like this (requires invasive surgery, long term maintenance, more invasive surgery if something goes wrong) directly to patients. They need to sell to the government/health insurance companies, and provide all the tools/training/equipment for those organizations to do the long term support for patients.

theossuary 5y ago

Honestly this seems like a good idea. If a company stops selling/supporting a product (or never starts), its IP rights should be forfeit. Require them to be sold to a company willing to sell/support the device, or they should become public domain. This change would probably fix most issues with current US IP law.

sneak 5y ago
How would that keep the company in business to provide support? Seems like the same outcome, to me.
- kadoban 5y ago
  They should be forced to fund a trust that can support all users for their lifetime.
  - subroutine 5y ago
    How much do you reckon that would cost per user?
    - kadoban 5y ago
      A fairly large amount, even for minimal support. If it's prohibitive to create cool medical devices due to this, the government can assist (guaranteed loans against future profit? whatever, I'm sure there's a bunch of ways to structure it). Maybe it will push these companies to make support easier as well, and Open Source parts of it where it makes sense to.
  - victorronin 5y ago
    I am torn. On one hand, this is great idea (exactly for such cases). I feel unbelievably bad for users. On another hand. Lifetime support of technology (say 50 years) is damn expensive. Let say you need a dozen of engineers (hardware + software) + doctors to keep it going. It's 12 people * 200k salary (if you don't like this number, pick your own) * 50 years = $120M. I think you can potentially argue that you don't need a dozen people to support this. However, I think it's a fair number to support aging hardware + software. Unfortunately, such things work only with a scale. You need 10 people to support 100 customers, 20 people to support 1000 customers and 40 people to support 10000. If they got to 10000 customers, I could see them getting enough money to fund such trust. Having just 300 customers won't be enough. Looking at the crunchbase (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/second-sight https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/second-sight). They whole funding was $130M.

kiba 5y ago

The problem is that the device and support associated with it outrageously expensive. Even if the company want to support their users, it may not be sustainable. This sort of thing required ongoing government support to sustain until the technology is ready. It seems more like proof of concept device that belongs in a lab rather than a commercially available technology.