7 ms·

And this is why right to repair laws are a thing. Also, genuinely I’d be interested in helping this guy hack his exoskeleton to let it work again.

kleiba 2y ago
That depends on how exactly a right to repair law is going to regulate things. Will a company have to provide parts for older models forever? Because in the article it says that he was going to fix it himself but couldn't find the part that connects the battery to his controller watch.
- jjk166 2y ago
  They shouldn't be making such unnecessary proprietary components. For cases where there really is no way around using custom hardware, at end of life the specifications should be made public so that a third party can manufacture them. In this specific case, the real issue is just the incredibly short service lifetime. While different medical devices are going to have different lifetimes, manufacturers need to continue to provide support for at least 36 months after reporting that they plan to discontinue support, which is 60% of the lifetime of this product. Typically medical devices are supported for much longer.
  - tedunangst 2y ago
    Isn't five years longer than 36 months?
    - jjk166 2y ago
      36 months is 60% of five years.
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    To play devil's advocate: > They shouldn't be making such unnecessary proprietary components. Perhaps not, but that's not right to repair. Pretty much everything in any modern smartphone is completely proprietary. And as the article said, the battery wasn't proprietary. The missing part was the battery connector. That doesn't even suggest to me that it's wildly proprietary, just that it can't be found anymore. Lots of components that are easily sourced now would be challenging for an ordinary person to source in a decade. > at end of life the specifications should be made public so that a third party can manufacture them. This also isn't right to repair. In fact, it probably doesn't help much at all: a sufficiently specialized part on a specialized medical device is going to be so niche that the cost of an aftermarket part will be huge. There's probably what, twenty of these things in the wild? A hundred? How many aftermarket manufacturers will even pick up the phone for a one-off custom part, spec or no? > manufacturers need to continue to provide support for at least 36 months after reporting that they plan to discontinue support, which is 60% of the lifetime of this product The device was supported for the regulatory limit of five years, and the owner has been using it for ten. Assuming they did give three years of support after discontinuing the product, it's now two years beyond that. For a product only approved to be sold for five years by a regulator, I think the fact that the only piece that couldn't be serviced after double that time is a battery connector is pretty impressive (all things considered). Customer service aside, I'm not sure how much more you could possibly ask from this company.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      > How many aftermarket manufacturers will even pick up the phone for a one-off custom part, spec or no? That would depend entirely upon the part. With (detailed) specs being available, quite a lot of skilled repair techs would be able to bodge something competent together (!) to meet those specs. Re-manufacturing completely 100% good parts could be a thing sure, for sufficient volumes. But real world situations for low volumes tend to be "lets get it working well enough using the tools we have available". Creativity is required. ;) The results for those situations are improved dramatically if there's detailed, good quality docs easily accessible to the people working on it.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > How many aftermarket manufacturers will even pick up the phone for a one-off custom part, spec or no? If you offered 1% of the entire device's replacement price, for a part that the average tinkerer could build, I think you'd find a stampede of competent offers. I'm sure much lower amounts would work too.
      - bastawhiz 2y ago
        If you're paying $1000 for every part on a $100,000 exoskeleton, there might be folks lining up, but that's terrible for the consumer.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        The point is there's a price where you could get the parts made, and that price is much much lower than a new model. A thousand dollars every few years is something that could go in a budget. Don't focus too much on the exact number I used, I went on the high end just to make a point, also it's supposed to be a per-major-fix price not a per-part price.
        bastawhiz 2y ago
        A thousand dollars for a part worth ones of dollars will simply never be the better alternative, sorry
- cptaj 2y ago
  Not sure about the US but in some countries this is regulated for cars. Companies are required to provide parts for a certain amount of years after discontinuation of the product. It seems abundantly reasonable that a similar requirement be imposed for prosthesis. And it would also be very reasonable for the required period to be longer than that of cars. So yeah, not forever, but definitely not a a short period either.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > Not sure about the US I think this was something that used to be regulated but is not now. There's plenty of financial justification for supporting cars 10 or more years by making parts, since most last longer than that. For niche products that are practically one-offs, I can see where it might need to be regulated because the economics won't encourage it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    I had to buy a mirror for my 23 year old car on eBay. There ought to be a law /s
    - rascul 2y ago
      The local AutoZone stocks mirrors for my 22 year old Oldsmobile. I don't know if there's a law.
ars 2y ago
He's not being blocked from repairing it, and he doesn't need to hack it. He just needs a part. (They did eventually send it to him.) If they had not, he doesn't need the right to repair it, rather would need someone to manufacture the part.
- rkhassen9 2y ago
  But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.
  - financetechbro 2y ago
    One could imagine a solid industry of 3rd party parts providers if devices are built under a right to repair framework
    - yellers 2y ago
      Once again, that thing falls under FDA regulations. You’re telling us about a world with 3rd party mix and match components, all FDA approved in any and all combinations on 5 year plus old devices?
      - justinclift 2y ago
        > under FDA regulations. That's just (!) under current FDA regulations though yeah? It's not like they're forever unchangeable.
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    I'm supportive of the right to repair in every sense, but even the strongest right to repair laws would not have helped improve the outcome in this case.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      The strongest right to repair law would probably require detailed schematics, BOMs, and (sufficiently detailed) manufacturing steps being available for all the parts. That would enable people to organise getting replacements manufactured themselves. :)
yellers 2y ago
Hang on, what about the part where the FDA only approved the thing for a 5 year use and essentially pushed the manufacturer into liability if they worked on it after that period? Maybe that’s the issue that needs repairing first.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Your point is valid, and is improved when we recognize it's not an either/or blame game when acknowledging the parts of the system that need improvement for failures like this person experienced.
- akira2501 2y ago
  It doesn't sound like a hard and fast rule. It seems like it's whatever the manufacturer asks for in terms of "intended working life." This _seems_ to be the original FDA certification for the device: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/den130034.pdf https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/den130034.p... The problem here, of course, is it's not the device itself, but the simple remote control peripheral that is designed to switch device operating modes. The FDA should force manufacturers of "two piece" systems like this to have backup controls on the device itself and to exclude these non-medical components designed for control from any regulation covering "intended design life." It seems like a daffy middle ground that the FDA lets exist and manufacturers take advantage of when they can.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    There is no part two to the certification? Edit: Seems odd that the loophole is big enough to allow not even uploading the full documentation.
  - generalizations 2y ago
    > It seems like it's whatever the manufacturer asks for in terms of "intended working life." I would guess the FDA makes their certification easier or harder to pass based on how long the device is expected to last. If the 5 year lifespan is what hits the middle ground for that company between cost-of-certification and useful-product-life, then it's up to the FDA to make a longer lifespan feasible to get certified.
squarefoot 2y ago
> And this is why right to repair laws are a thing. Yes, and also why products should be open sourced and documented when they're declared obsolete by their manufacturer, or the manufacturer cease operations. Let people be responsible for all repairs they do to their devices; this man would probably not give a damn about regulations if the alternative was essentially to become paralyzed again.
dumbfounder 2y ago
But he did have the right to repair... right? He just couldn't get the part. The article title is misleading. They don't support old medical devices, they were following the rules. Yes, they should have handled the customer service better. Escalated it. But it doesn't sound like some big evil company locking people out of their legs because they tinkered with them. Let's not lump it all in the same category. Also, this line is beyond ridiculous: "Straight’s path to paralysis started in the 1990s at the Saratoga Race Course".
- fargle 2y ago
  > "Straight’s path to paralysis started in the 1990s at the Saratoga Race Course". why is that ridiculous? seems tragic to me; not to mention the horse broke his neck as well.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  My understanding of the issue was that he did not know what the part was. It was a connector and there is dozens if not hundreds different families of them. So very likely with suitable bill of materials which right to repair would have provided it could have been found ordered and replaced by third-party.

kleiba 2y ago

That depends on how exactly a right to repair law is going to regulate things. Will a company have to provide parts for older models forever? Because in the article it says that he was going to fix it himself but couldn't find the part that connects the battery to his controller watch.

jjk166 2y ago
They shouldn't be making such unnecessary proprietary components. For cases where there really is no way around using custom hardware, at end of life the specifications should be made public so that a third party can manufacture them. In this specific case, the real issue is just the incredibly short service lifetime. While different medical devices are going to have different lifetimes, manufacturers need to continue to provide support for at least 36 months after reporting that they plan to discontinue support, which is 60% of the lifetime of this product. Typically medical devices are supported for much longer.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  Isn't five years longer than 36 months?
  - jjk166 2y ago
    36 months is 60% of five years.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  To play devil's advocate: > They shouldn't be making such unnecessary proprietary components. Perhaps not, but that's not right to repair. Pretty much everything in any modern smartphone is completely proprietary. And as the article said, the battery wasn't proprietary. The missing part was the battery connector. That doesn't even suggest to me that it's wildly proprietary, just that it can't be found anymore. Lots of components that are easily sourced now would be challenging for an ordinary person to source in a decade. > at end of life the specifications should be made public so that a third party can manufacture them. This also isn't right to repair. In fact, it probably doesn't help much at all: a sufficiently specialized part on a specialized medical device is going to be so niche that the cost of an aftermarket part will be huge. There's probably what, twenty of these things in the wild? A hundred? How many aftermarket manufacturers will even pick up the phone for a one-off custom part, spec or no? > manufacturers need to continue to provide support for at least 36 months after reporting that they plan to discontinue support, which is 60% of the lifetime of this product The device was supported for the regulatory limit of five years, and the owner has been using it for ten. Assuming they did give three years of support after discontinuing the product, it's now two years beyond that. For a product only approved to be sold for five years by a regulator, I think the fact that the only piece that couldn't be serviced after double that time is a battery connector is pretty impressive (all things considered). Customer service aside, I'm not sure how much more you could possibly ask from this company.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    > How many aftermarket manufacturers will even pick up the phone for a one-off custom part, spec or no? That would depend entirely upon the part. With (detailed) specs being available, quite a lot of skilled repair techs would be able to bodge something competent together (!) to meet those specs. Re-manufacturing completely 100% good parts could be a thing sure, for sufficient volumes. But real world situations for low volumes tend to be "lets get it working well enough using the tools we have available". Creativity is required. ;) The results for those situations are improved dramatically if there's detailed, good quality docs easily accessible to the people working on it.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > How many aftermarket manufacturers will even pick up the phone for a one-off custom part, spec or no? If you offered 1% of the entire device's replacement price, for a part that the average tinkerer could build, I think you'd find a stampede of competent offers. I'm sure much lower amounts would work too.
    - bastawhiz 2y ago
      If you're paying $1000 for every part on a $100,000 exoskeleton, there might be folks lining up, but that's terrible for the consumer.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        The point is there's a price where you could get the parts made, and that price is much much lower than a new model. A thousand dollars every few years is something that could go in a budget. Don't focus too much on the exact number I used, I went on the high end just to make a point, also it's supposed to be a per-major-fix price not a per-part price.
        bastawhiz 2y ago
        A thousand dollars for a part worth ones of dollars will simply never be the better alternative, sorry
cptaj 2y ago
Not sure about the US but in some countries this is regulated for cars. Companies are required to provide parts for a certain amount of years after discontinuation of the product. It seems abundantly reasonable that a similar requirement be imposed for prosthesis. And it would also be very reasonable for the required period to be longer than that of cars. So yeah, not forever, but definitely not a a short period either.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > Not sure about the US I think this was something that used to be regulated but is not now. There's plenty of financial justification for supporting cars 10 or more years by making parts, since most last longer than that. For niche products that are practically one-offs, I can see where it might need to be regulated because the economics won't encourage it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  I had to buy a mirror for my 23 year old car on eBay. There ought to be a law /s
  - rascul 2y ago
    The local AutoZone stocks mirrors for my 22 year old Oldsmobile. I don't know if there's a law.

ars 2y ago

He's not being blocked from repairing it, and he doesn't need to hack it. He just needs a part. (They did eventually send it to him.) If they had not, he doesn't need the right to repair it, rather would need someone to manufacture the part.

rkhassen9 2y ago
But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.
- financetechbro 2y ago
  One could imagine a solid industry of 3rd party parts providers if devices are built under a right to repair framework
  - yellers 2y ago
    Once again, that thing falls under FDA regulations. You’re telling us about a world with 3rd party mix and match components, all FDA approved in any and all combinations on 5 year plus old devices?
    - justinclift 2y ago
      > under FDA regulations. That's just (!) under current FDA regulations though yeah? It's not like they're forever unchangeable.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  I'm supportive of the right to repair in every sense, but even the strongest right to repair laws would not have helped improve the outcome in this case.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    The strongest right to repair law would probably require detailed schematics, BOMs, and (sufficiently detailed) manufacturing steps being available for all the parts. That would enable people to organise getting replacements manufactured themselves. :)

yellers 2y ago

Hang on, what about the part where the FDA only approved the thing for a 5 year use and essentially pushed the manufacturer into liability if they worked on it after that period? Maybe that’s the issue that needs repairing first.

tomrod 2y ago
Your point is valid, and is improved when we recognize it's not an either/or blame game when acknowledging the parts of the system that need improvement for failures like this person experienced.
akira2501 2y ago
It doesn't sound like a hard and fast rule. It seems like it's whatever the manufacturer asks for in terms of "intended working life." This _seems_ to be the original FDA certification for the device: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/den130034.pdf https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/den130034.p... The problem here, of course, is it's not the device itself, but the simple remote control peripheral that is designed to switch device operating modes. The FDA should force manufacturers of "two piece" systems like this to have backup controls on the device itself and to exclude these non-medical components designed for control from any regulation covering "intended design life." It seems like a daffy middle ground that the FDA lets exist and manufacturers take advantage of when they can.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  There is no part two to the certification? Edit: Seems odd that the loophole is big enough to allow not even uploading the full documentation.
- generalizations 2y ago
  > It seems like it's whatever the manufacturer asks for in terms of "intended working life." I would guess the FDA makes their certification easier or harder to pass based on how long the device is expected to last. If the 5 year lifespan is what hits the middle ground for that company between cost-of-certification and useful-product-life, then it's up to the FDA to make a longer lifespan feasible to get certified.

squarefoot 2y ago

> And this is why right to repair laws are a thing. Yes, and also why products should be open sourced and documented when they're declared obsolete by their manufacturer, or the manufacturer cease operations. Let people be responsible for all repairs they do to their devices; this man would probably not give a damn about regulations if the alternative was essentially to become paralyzed again.

dumbfounder 2y ago

But he did have the right to repair... right? He just couldn't get the part. The article title is misleading. They don't support old medical devices, they were following the rules. Yes, they should have handled the customer service better. Escalated it. But it doesn't sound like some big evil company locking people out of their legs because they tinkered with them. Let's not lump it all in the same category. Also, this line is beyond ridiculous: "Straight’s path to paralysis started in the 1990s at the Saratoga Race Course".

fargle 2y ago
> "Straight’s path to paralysis started in the 1990s at the Saratoga Race Course". why is that ridiculous? seems tragic to me; not to mention the horse broke his neck as well.
Ekaros 2y ago
My understanding of the issue was that he did not know what the part was. It was a connector and there is dozens if not hundreds different families of them. So very likely with suitable bill of materials which right to repair would have provided it could have been found ordered and replaced by third-party.