[wiskinator]

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.

[yellers]

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.

[akira2501]

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.

[tomrod]

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.

[anigbrowl]

Or, you know, the company works with both the FDA and the customer to iron out this legal wrinkle instead of taking a zero-sum approach.

[dumbfounder]

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".

[Ekaros]

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.

[fargle]

> "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.

[kleiba]

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.

[cptaj]

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.

[jjk166]

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.

[squarefoot]

> 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.

[ars]

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]

But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.

[the_gorilla]

>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.