4 ms·

>> Without some solution like this, it's hard to imagine any non-essential neural implants really taking off: who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup —

>> Without some solution like this, it's hard to imagine any non-essential neural implants really taking off: who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest — if there was no guarentee of patches and maintenance? Speaking as someone who lived with chronic, daily, horrific pain for years before a surgery miraculously solved most of my problems - if that surgery had not worked or wasn't available, I would have eventually signed up. Thousands or more people live with debilitating pain that drives them to suicidal ideation, drug abuse, and worse. We already live in the future you describe and people turn to far worse things than neural implants to cope.

drodgers 4y ago
Agreed. I meant 'essential' in a weak sense to include all high stakes medical cases, not just literally life and death. The key thing is that we won't be able to get much benefit from neural implants as an enhancement technology without solving this problem; there's a ton of potential value which will be left on the table because people are reasonably afraid of these risks.
manholio 4y ago
> I would have eventually signed up. You could have signed up only if excessive regulatory burden wouldn't have killed or prevented the startup from existing. I find the whole "medical startups should support their patients post bankruptcy" train of thought very disingenuous: as long as we as a society make no public concerted effort to cure these people and leave them to the mercy of the markets, then surely some relief from their problems, even if temporary, is better than none, especially if it provides valuable experience that other more successful companies can use in the future for many more patients. In view of these future possible patients, it would be downright imoral to burden such startups, which already take enormous risks, with unreasonable costs such as ensuring their devices function into perpetuity. Yes, they should be regulated to not make the problem worse after they inevitably fail - primum non nocere. But most of the other ideas proposed in the article have a toxic effect on the business viability of medical startups, possibly preventing them altogether.
- bombolo 4y ago
  Then they should escrow all of their intellectual property and at the very least release it all to public domain the instant they stop supporting the device.
  - carlmr 4y ago
    I agree. Schematics, documentation, software should be in government escrow, otherwise you're not allowed to patent. Software updates have to be saved here as well. If the company goes bankrupt all IP will be released to the people. At least then motivated people can learn how to fix things.
  - manholio 4y ago
    I strongly doubt the issue preventing support for these patients is the intelectual property in general. Source code, I agree, but things like medical patents are irrelevant if you have to replace a battery cell in a custom form factor or chemistry that is no longer manufactured, per the article. The insurers actively fought the patient changing his own battery. You also diminish the expected value of the startup because the ability to liquidate IP after comercial bankruptcy is a factor reducing risk - investors get at least something back. If you dictate confiscation of that IP, you also reduce the willingness to invest in what already is a very risky proposition. And that's how you get to a 3 trillion ponzi bubble in crypto that solves no problem, while similar investment into medical startups would create thousands of products, treatments and long term wealth. Sorry, but no amount of downvotes will make me accept a clearly populist and virtue signaling approach that will actively harm patients and discourage investment in medical innovation.
    - bombolo 4y ago
      So your solution is to just treat patients like garbage and shrug at them when your startup goes bankrupt? You want to protect overly rich VCs instead of the patients? Virtue signalling? I call this "not being like dr Mengele"… if you think that's virtue signalling you are just a bad person.

drodgers 4y ago

Agreed. I meant 'essential' in a weak sense to include all high stakes medical cases, not just literally life and death. The key thing is that we won't be able to get much benefit from neural implants as an enhancement technology without solving this problem; there's a ton of potential value which will be left on the table because people are reasonably afraid of these risks.

manholio 4y ago

> I would have eventually signed up. You could have signed up only if excessive regulatory burden wouldn't have killed or prevented the startup from existing. I find the whole "medical startups should support their patients post bankruptcy" train of thought very disingenuous: as long as we as a society make no public concerted effort to cure these people and leave them to the mercy of the markets, then surely some relief from their problems, even if temporary, is better than none, especially if it provides valuable experience that other more successful companies can use in the future for many more patients. In view of these future possible patients, it would be downright imoral to burden such startups, which already take enormous risks, with unreasonable costs such as ensuring their devices function into perpetuity. Yes, they should be regulated to not make the problem worse after they inevitably fail - primum non nocere. But most of the other ideas proposed in the article have a toxic effect on the business viability of medical startups, possibly preventing them altogether.

bombolo 4y ago
Then they should escrow all of their intellectual property and at the very least release it all to public domain the instant they stop supporting the device.
- carlmr 4y ago
  I agree. Schematics, documentation, software should be in government escrow, otherwise you're not allowed to patent. Software updates have to be saved here as well. If the company goes bankrupt all IP will be released to the people. At least then motivated people can learn how to fix things.
- manholio 4y ago
  I strongly doubt the issue preventing support for these patients is the intelectual property in general. Source code, I agree, but things like medical patents are irrelevant if you have to replace a battery cell in a custom form factor or chemistry that is no longer manufactured, per the article. The insurers actively fought the patient changing his own battery. You also diminish the expected value of the startup because the ability to liquidate IP after comercial bankruptcy is a factor reducing risk - investors get at least something back. If you dictate confiscation of that IP, you also reduce the willingness to invest in what already is a very risky proposition. And that's how you get to a 3 trillion ponzi bubble in crypto that solves no problem, while similar investment into medical startups would create thousands of products, treatments and long term wealth. Sorry, but no amount of downvotes will make me accept a clearly populist and virtue signaling approach that will actively harm patients and discourage investment in medical innovation.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    So your solution is to just treat patients like garbage and shrug at them when your startup goes bankrupt? You want to protect overly rich VCs instead of the patients? Virtue signalling? I call this "not being like dr Mengele"… if you think that's virtue signalling you are just a bad person.