4 ms·

Yes, the code of these devices should be 100% FOSS. Also the argument about defending intellectual property doesn't make sense: the software will probably do t

Yes, the code of these devices should be 100% FOSS. Also the argument about defending intellectual property doesn't make sense: the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents. So making the code public will allow people to find a replacement in the eventuality that the manufacturer stops supporting the product. This should be imposed by the governments, in my opinion, also for another reason: when the company that makes the hardware device stops supporting it, in countries with a public healthcare system it's the state itself that has to support the patient. How can the healthcare system provide assistance to something that doesn't know internally how it works? How can it go to another company to ask to fix the device?

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago
In the case of the above implant, open hardware specifications would have been needed: the stock of replacement hardware (the computing device worn on the body) is limited. The Spectrum article gives an example of a patient that had to work with his doctor and hunt for unused devices to replace a device that was damaged from a drop.
taneq 4y ago
> the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents. How do you figure? In the case of something like an insulin pump or a pacemaker, sure, but once we start interfacing with nerves, especially once we start trying to communicate with them properly instead of just blunt-force stimulating a bunch of them, these devices are essentially software. That's not to say I necessarily disagree with your conclusion. For devices that depend on patented hardware, opening up the software still works because the hardware effectively acts as a copy protection dongle. For other devices, or for cases where the software contains critical 'secret sauce', what we need might be something more like the automotive right-to-repair legislation. Even if the device is closed source, the manufacturer must provide appropriate documentation and tooling to allow third parties maintain the device for its intended service life (which, of course, is hopefully a bit longer for a brain implant than for a hatchback!)
- alerighi 4y ago
  FOSS software doesn't mean that it has to be free. We have to remember this. It's perfectly fine to ask for a payment to have the source code. Also the fact that the software is free it doesn't mean that it can't still be covered with patents, for example a lot of patented software is free software (think about video codecs, for example, there are a ton of FOSS implementation, still it's patented). Basically you patent the algorithm, not the implementation, that is anyone that uses it still has to pay you royalties, but anyone can produce it. If you think about it, it's the same thing with drug formulas: after a period of exclusive then any company can produce it, of course paying the royalties to whoever owns the patent. It can be the same for software. Of course we have to talk about algorithms that are not trivial, as it's the case on most medical devices (most firmware just does very trivial things, that could be in principle be done by dedicated analog circuitry)
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  For an implant that important, especially one with any sort of network connectivity, I would especially want to be able to see the source code. The repeated very basic security vulnerabilities in Medtronic devices only reinforces this. The more integral these implants get, the more this feels like "you're not legally permitted to know how this part of your body works".
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > The more integral these implants get, the more this feels like "you're not legally permitted to know how this part of your body works". Imagone the human rights abuses possible with this technology. You could offer loans for digital organs. and if the paymwnt is late you turn organs off remotely!
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      Marching boldly into a cyberpunk dystopia.
jezzamon 4y ago
It depends on the device, but it's not necessarily true that the software behind it is trivial. Interfacing with the human body is tricky and knowing how to use the hardware to make the most of the limited set of electrodes or whatever interface the device has is complex.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y ago

In the case of the above implant, open hardware specifications would have been needed: the stock of replacement hardware (the computing device worn on the body) is limited. The Spectrum article gives an example of a patient that had to work with his doctor and hunt for unused devices to replace a device that was damaged from a drop.

taneq 4y ago

> the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents. How do you figure? In the case of something like an insulin pump or a pacemaker, sure, but once we start interfacing with nerves, especially once we start trying to communicate with them properly instead of just blunt-force stimulating a bunch of them, these devices are essentially software. That's not to say I necessarily disagree with your conclusion. For devices that depend on patented hardware, opening up the software still works because the hardware effectively acts as a copy protection dongle. For other devices, or for cases where the software contains critical 'secret sauce', what we need might be something more like the automotive right-to-repair legislation. Even if the device is closed source, the manufacturer must provide appropriate documentation and tooling to allow third parties maintain the device for its intended service life (which, of course, is hopefully a bit longer for a brain implant than for a hatchback!)

alerighi 4y ago
FOSS software doesn't mean that it has to be free. We have to remember this. It's perfectly fine to ask for a payment to have the source code. Also the fact that the software is free it doesn't mean that it can't still be covered with patents, for example a lot of patented software is free software (think about video codecs, for example, there are a ton of FOSS implementation, still it's patented). Basically you patent the algorithm, not the implementation, that is anyone that uses it still has to pay you royalties, but anyone can produce it. If you think about it, it's the same thing with drug formulas: after a period of exclusive then any company can produce it, of course paying the royalties to whoever owns the patent. It can be the same for software. Of course we have to talk about algorithms that are not trivial, as it's the case on most medical devices (most firmware just does very trivial things, that could be in principle be done by dedicated analog circuitry)
ryukafalz 4y ago
For an implant that important, especially one with any sort of network connectivity, I would especially want to be able to see the source code. The repeated very basic security vulnerabilities in Medtronic devices only reinforces this. The more integral these implants get, the more this feels like "you're not legally permitted to know how this part of your body works".
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > The more integral these implants get, the more this feels like "you're not legally permitted to know how this part of your body works". Imagone the human rights abuses possible with this technology. You could offer loans for digital organs. and if the paymwnt is late you turn organs off remotely!
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Marching boldly into a cyberpunk dystopia.

jezzamon 4y ago

It depends on the device, but it's not necessarily true that the software behind it is trivial. Interfacing with the human body is tricky and knowing how to use the hardware to make the most of the limited set of electrodes or whatever interface the device has is complex.