MarmosetDec 12, 2022

From @pluralistic:

"Earlier this year, many people with Argus optical implants – which allow blind people to see – lost their vision when the manufacturer, Second Sight, went bust.

"Nano Precision Medical, the company's new owners, aren't interested in maintaining the implants, so that's the end of the road for everyone with one of Argus's 'bionic' eyes. The $150,000 per eye that those people paid is gone, and they have failing hardware permanently wired into their nervous systems.

"Having a bricked eye implant doesn't just rob you of your sight – many Argus users experience crippling vertigo and other side effects of nonfunctional implants. The company has promised to 'do our best to provide virtual support' to people whose Argus implants fail – but no more parts and no more patches."

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/12/unsafe-at-any-speed/#this-is-literally-your-brain-on-capitalism

Pluralistic: Orphaned neurological implants (12 Dec 2022) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow

Show threadJoel WebberDec 13, 2022
@Marmoset @pluralistic Holy hell, this is terrifying. And yet not surprising. I hope it at least serves as a useful example of why we need "right to repair" laws that cover the general case. Realizing, though, that this is insufficient if the technical information you need is sold on to a bottom feeding acquirer.
Show threadKevin PorterDec 13, 2022
@j15r @Marmoset @pluralistic This gruesomely illustrates how the concept of intellectual property in general is incredibly problematic.
Show threadSydneyDec 13, 2022

@kevinporter @j15r @Marmoset @pluralistic

Problematic really is the right word. There is a lot of good that can be done with the judicious application of intellectual property standards, but it so desperately needs to be reined in.

Show threadJoel WebberDec 13, 2022
@sydneybrokeit @kevinporter @Marmoset @pluralistic Agreed -- it certainly has utility, and I've benefited from IP protections myself. But we run into serious problems when we start treating it as a fundamental, inviolable right, rather than the social trade-off it actually is.
Show threadKevin PorterDec 13, 2022
@j15r @sydneybrokeit @Marmoset @pluralistic My somewhat controversial opinion is that it benefits the most powerful in society way more than it benefits most private individuals. We need to come up with a social framework that flips that balance. As it stands, we have people developing life saving technology for companies that withhold that IP from the very same people who developed it. It’s absurd.
Show threadSydney
@kevinporter @j15r @Marmoset @pluralistic Don't almost all protection-oriented laws?
Dec 14, 2022 at 8:33amWeb