As for needing to provide parts into the future, a friend's company does aftermarket service for many expensive pieces of government equipment. Presumably they're able to make what's needed because the government requires it of the original manufacturer.
The government could require that manufacturers either supply replacement parts or specs for someone else to manufacture them. I suppose the latter would be required to avoid gouging. It'd be interesting to think about the secondary effects—if you can't make a lot of money off of service, will you make longer-lasting products and charge appropriately?
Right to repair should cover things like putting locks on devices that are illegal to unlock to repair. Making it illegal to do whatever the Frick you want to something you bought. Making it illegal to make parts yourself or have 3rd party companies make a part.
It should not force companies to build parts for you. Forcing people to do work they do not want to is insane. That kind of talk would prevent me from building anything and letting my neighbor borrow it.
And no, saying "it wouldnt apply to you just <insert demographic>" doesn't make me feel any better about that.
> It should not force companies to build parts for you.
If a company is unable to provide long-term support in the form of replacement parts, then they shouldn't be allowed to sell it to consumers. For decades, and for most devices, it was trivial to find replacement parts and/or swap out identical parts, even if they weren't made by the original manufacturer. You can get replacement parts for cars made in the 90s, 80s, 70s.
It should not be acceptable to buy something as important and life-changing and expensive as this exoskeleton, and the manufacturer just fucks off and provides no way to maintain it long-term.
Freedom doesn't exist. Every corporation is bound by laws and regulations. "Forcing people to do work they do not want to". We aren't talking about regular people like you or me. We're talking about corporations. They're regularly "forced" to do things they don't want to, to the benefit of their customers and society as a whole. You need better arguments if you want to argue against regulating companies.
How long is long term?
Forcing companies to support cutting-edge prototypes (like exoskeleton) for decades is the best way to ensure there won't be any company making them.
Except plenty of cutting edge prototypes were made in the past when companies did provide parts
> For decades, and for most devices, it was trivial to find replacement parts and/or swap out identical parts…
This seems like a stretch for anything other than cars, pcs, and large appliances. I doubt this has been true for a long time for anything under $100 and more electrically complicated than a switch and a motor.
So just no exoskeletons ever then.
Why in the world did the reporters not try to investigate the FDA rules that supposedly prevents this, instead of trying to shame the company? Either the company is wrong, or that's the real story here.
My thoughts exactly. But then again, journalists have long ceased to be investigative or technologically versed.
It's almost like there's no money left in the profession, so there's no more expertise or time available to do proper investigating or writing.
If that were true, the job would be done by someone who took a personal interest in the subject and didn't need to be paid for reporting it. This is the opposite; it's someone doing a bad job because there's money in the profession and they want to get some of it without actually doing the work that would earn it.
I mean, I guess it does make me curious how you should go about regulating a device like this.
Like, if the metal fails and you have a horrible fall and break your hip and shoulder, that's pretty different from an iPhone that won't turn on.
If this is only approved for 5 years, shouldn't the guy be replacing it rather than repairing it? And shouldn't health insurance be covering that, at least beyond the deductible or whatever?
> I mean, I guess it does make me curious how you should go about regulating a device like this.
That's actually my point. There's an interesting policy discussion to be had here, and instead of starting it, they just decided to smear a company.
> Like, if the metal fails and you have a horrible fall and break your hip and shoulder, that's pretty different from an iPhone that won't turn on.
> If this is only approved for 5 years, shouldn't the guy be replacing it rather than repairing it? And shouldn't health insurance be covering that, at least beyond the deductible or whatever?
Probably, but (to throw out a hypothetical alternative) you can also imagine a situation where e.g. inspection can tell him if the whole device actually needs replacement.
I don't have the answer here - I just know I'd like the discussion to revolve around the merits of the situation.
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.
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".
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.
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.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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't five years longer than 36 months?
36 months is 60% of five years.
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.
> 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.
I had to buy a mirror for my 23 year old car on eBay. There ought to be a law /s
The local AutoZone stocks mirrors for my 22 year old Oldsmobile.
I don't know if there's a law.
> 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.
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.
But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.
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.
One could imagine a solid industry of 3rd party parts providers if devices are built under a right to repair framework
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?
>He just needs a part.
Right to repair, in a broad sense, also covers access to parts. This is definitely an edge case and we might want to just consider that if we're going to do experiments on disabled with the aim of helping them, and they want to continue using the tools, we might have to subsidize access to the parts until they die.
I don’t think it’s an edge case at all. Right to repair doesn’t require a manufacturer to continue making parts or spend their own money on creating a large inventory of them. It’s one thing to require Apple to sell you a phone screen they are still making, it’s another to require them to be able to sell any number of them at any time from ones they do not.
Right to repair is a negative right. There’s no reason to turn it into a positive one.
It's an edge case because the supply is so small and the hardware is so specialized. If this were an iPhone screen there's be a dozen companies in china capable of producing and selling them near cost if apple didn't interfere, and we'd have plenty of people willing to repair and resell the screens if apple would stop abusing US customs to seize repaired screens as they've done in the past.
The point still stands, no ‘right to repair’ can force manufacturers to stock X number of parts, or spin up production lines again, at some future date. Regardless of the company’s condition.
Even the pentagon can’t force that, they just pay a large amount of money to a new company to recreate the original part to the exact same spec.
Theoretically it’s possible to enact new legislation to mandate that something sufficient must be set aside in some sort of escrow system, and punish companies for not doing so, but that would probably result in most manufacturing companies fleeing the US….
The manufacturer wants them to "upgrade" to a new model. It's not like the eye implant where the vendor exited the industry.
> Medicare said it would start paying for 80 percent of exoskeletons, which at Lifeward cost about $100,000.
> And although that coverage doesn’t extend to paraplegics who have injuries to their spine as high up as Straight
Oh man, i feel for everyone who live in the USA and require any sort of medical help. Either you spend all your hard earned money or you got to get in a though fight with the medical administration.
While the US healthcare system does suck in numerous ways, is this kind of thing even available elsewhere, via socialized medicine? (Maybe the answer is yes, which would be great!)
So in the end it was a mix of bad company actions and regulations that made this repair a struggle for him.
I heard from a mobility scooter technician that there is barely any second market for the as typically the health insurance will get you a new one every few years. So similar to the companies response to just buy the newest model.
> was a mix of bad company actions and regulations
We actually don’t know the second part. What we know is that the company claimed that regulations were involved. Might or might not be true.
Wouldn’t be the first time when a company didn’t want to do something for financial reasons and they decided to read the regulations in a way which made them more money.
In other news Microsoft abandoned the surface duo after 1 yearly android update. If you don't control the software you don't really own the device, whether it be a phone or an exoskeleton.
I wonder if he posted the part on Reddit they could have helped him