Most of the cost of medical junk is the certification and other documentation. If someone repairs it onsite and does it wrong and kills someone, who's responsible? Someone is going to sue and they'll probably argue that the device manufacturer should have made their device hard to repair to keep it properly certified
Pretty much every "service contract" has the "we don't take any responsibility for anything" clause in it. It's not enforceable in court. It's just there to fool the small percentage of people that believe it *is* enforceable, and keep them from filing a lawsuit.
I am ok with companies who want to keep their equipment proprietary. What I don't want to see is a law stating that only company X can fix said equipment. If your company doesn't provide for the sale of a maintenance manual, then you can't sue if someone reverse engineers one and makes that available to the public.
The reason medical devices are so tied to vendor is largely legislative (the EU has software as a medical device regulations). When a device comes on site, it is warranted and supported by the vendors. When an engineer turns up to examine it, they have the full weight of the support of the company behind them, escalation chains, manuals on exactly how each piece should be put together. When released in a configuration, the vendor takes liability for the device, should an event be due to incorrect build quali
While there may be special considerations for the certification of medical devices, many manufacturers are starting to profiteer by making it impossible for anyone to repair their equipment, whether it is cars, farm machinery, cell phones, and even household appliances. These people join the hateful ranks of people like the printer vendors who turn off their cartridges when they still contain ink, or make it impossible to use aftermarket supplies in their equipment. We can have some effect by refusing to
Most of the cost of medical junk is the certification and other documentation. If someone repairs it onsite and does it wrong and kills someone, who's responsible? Someone is going to sue and they'll probably argue that the device manufacturer should have made their device hard to repair to keep it properly certified
Yes, but that means *nothing*.
Pretty much every "service contract" has the "we don't take any responsibility for anything" clause in it. It's not enforceable in court. It's just there to fool the small percentage of people that believe it *is* enforceable, and keep them from filing a lawsuit.
I am ok with companies who want to keep their equipment proprietary. What I don't want to see is a law stating that only company X can fix said equipment. If your company doesn't provide for the sale of a maintenance manual, then you can't sue if someone reverse engineers one and makes that available to the public.
The reason medical devices are so tied to vendor is largely legislative (the EU has software as a medical device regulations).
When a device comes on site, it is warranted and supported by the vendors. When an engineer turns up to examine it, they have the full weight of the support of the company behind them, escalation chains, manuals on exactly how each piece should be put together.
When released in a configuration, the vendor takes liability for the device, should an event be due to incorrect build quali
While there may be special considerations for the certification of medical devices, many manufacturers are starting to profiteer by making it impossible for anyone to repair their equipment, whether it is cars, farm machinery, cell phones, and even household appliances. These people join the hateful ranks of people like the printer vendors who turn off their cartridges when they still contain ink, or make it impossible to use aftermarket supplies in their equipment. We can have some effect by refusing to