3 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoFOSS 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 agoFor 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 agoMarching boldly into a cyberpunk dystopia.