4 ms·

> 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 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.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      I believe he's clearly indicated that he think this is in the best interests of the patients, not the VCs. Not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue or if you're just trying to score points. He wants the patients to actually get their devices that make their lives bearable rather than these devices continuing to remain theoretical.
      - littlestymaar 4y ago
        > He wants the patients to actually get their devices that make their lives bearable rather than these devices continuing to remain theoretical. Yes he did say that, but it's a false dilemma fallacy. Startups with insufficient regulation don't get you “devices that would otherwise remained theoretical”, they give you FTX and Theranos. If you want to build a health start-up but cannot uphold basics ethical principles (like: do not abandon your patients on their own if your business plan failed), you should just seek another market.
      - beebeepka 4y ago
        I wouldn't be so sure. I read manholio's posts multiple times and their position it still unclear to me. "Immoral to the investors" but some - I believe feinted - concern for the people. I am having a hard time treating investments as oxygen masks on airplanes.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    > 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. I'm extremely glad that the types of people involved in crypto are in no way incentivised to do the same thing to the medical industry. Theranos was bad enough. I'm not sure why you'd ever want to see crypto's web of scams and lies replicated in the medical industry. At least with crypto the harm is mainly limited to finances. When the grifters are peddling drugs and medical devices the consequences are much more dire. > 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. Not allowing bad actors free reign over people's health isn't populist or virtue signalling. The majority of these regulations were written in blood.

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.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    I believe he's clearly indicated that he think this is in the best interests of the patients, not the VCs. Not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue or if you're just trying to score points. He wants the patients to actually get their devices that make their lives bearable rather than these devices continuing to remain theoretical.
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      > He wants the patients to actually get their devices that make their lives bearable rather than these devices continuing to remain theoretical. Yes he did say that, but it's a false dilemma fallacy. Startups with insufficient regulation don't get you “devices that would otherwise remained theoretical”, they give you FTX and Theranos. If you want to build a health start-up but cannot uphold basics ethical principles (like: do not abandon your patients on their own if your business plan failed), you should just seek another market.
    - beebeepka 4y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure. I read manholio's posts multiple times and their position it still unclear to me. "Immoral to the investors" but some - I believe feinted - concern for the people. I am having a hard time treating investments as oxygen masks on airplanes.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > 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. I'm extremely glad that the types of people involved in crypto are in no way incentivised to do the same thing to the medical industry. Theranos was bad enough. I'm not sure why you'd ever want to see crypto's web of scams and lies replicated in the medical industry. At least with crypto the harm is mainly limited to finances. When the grifters are peddling drugs and medical devices the consequences are much more dire. > 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. Not allowing bad actors free reign over people's health isn't populist or virtue signalling. The majority of these regulations were written in blood.