Limits in Medical Devices are somewhat understandable given the risk of litigation. It's common for doctors to join device manufacturers in malpractice claims under a myriad of theories. That's a high risk industry. Whether there are other more practical solutions, like absolute immunity after a warranty period could be explored.
A lot of new regulations involve trying to prove safety and efficacy with electronics in fields such as medical devices where the regulations were completely nonexistent even a decade ago. The perpetual need of the regulatory state to reinvent itself to justify its own bloat leaves a lot of companies that had originally complied suddenly way out of compliance because they didn't notice every single regulatory change which likely wasn't even widely publicized.
>similar issue as for medical equipment and aviation. ham fisted red tape created with (mostly, at least I hope) the best of intentions
Medical devices aren't as nearly as bad as automobiles or airplanes, but you still need hundreds and thousands of dollars for even the simplest medical device. The main driver of cost is actually the EU's new regulations that a lot of companies, especially and ironically European countries, are having a hard time meeting.
@LoliHat@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@ai@cinerion@Humpleupagus@ai@mischievoustomato depending on the device getting approval and staving off potential liability can both be absolute monsters. it's more than enough of a barrier to support rent seeking behavior. the article I linked elsewhere in this thread has an example of DRM in a medical device (ventilators) to prevent unauthorized repairs
> not everyone can just found their own car company
similar issue as for medical equipment and aviation. ham fisted red tape created with (mostly, at least I hope) the best of intentions
> Are they all influenced by the same few people? Or do strong trends inherently create a legion of trend-followers and a lack of competition?
of course it could be outsized individual influence but I figure it's probably just a matter of the rent model being more profitable in the current market. I have to assume that without regulation to prevent various failure modes *someone* will inevitably come along that takes the short (or medium) term outlook to enrich themselves personally while screwing over everyone else including their own children :puniko_shrug:
tl;dr if unauthorized bread is profitable and not illegal then unauthorized bread will probably happen
Amazing article. I am now filled with murderous rage. It's also surprisingly relevant to this thread in its comments about rent seeking.
For example:
> But even amid all the complaining about cars getting stuck in the Internet of Shit, there's still not much discussion of why the car-makers are making their products less attractive, less reliable, less safe, and less resilient by stuffing them full of microchips. Are car execs just the latest generation of rubes who've been suckered by Silicon Valley bullshit and convinced that apps are a magic path to profitability?
I could just as well ask why landowners are letting their prime real estate sit vacant and unused, when housing rent is sky high and even a parking garage would generate a lot of revenue.
Both phenomena (shitty car makers, negligent landowners) seem to depend on a kind of loose cartel. Why don't customers flock to carmakers who don't build touchscreens and spyware into their vehicles? There aren't any. Why don't would-be renters move to a cheaper neighborhood with more housing availability? Their job requires them to be in downtown.
It amazes me that rents can be extracted from *products*, when (theoretically) anybody can make a similar product without the rent extraction. Of course, not everyone can just found their own car company. I wonder what made every car company do the same thing at the same time. Are they all influenced by the same few people? Or do strong trends inherently create a legion of trend-followers and a lack of competition?
I think there's something to be said for goods sold to sophisticated buyers, like an MRI machine to a hospital with its team of doctors and lawyers, and goods sold into average consumer markets.
If a hospital didn't scrutinize a contract regarding a $10 million piece of equipment, which they would have the power to negotiate, that's somewhat on them. There is some bargaining power at that price (assuming it's not unique, patented, and required for best practices).
But your average consumer should not be assumed to have sophistication or bargaining power re common consumer goods, especially when they come with an extensive eula. I think the contract of adhesion doctrine should be applied far more than it is, or courts should more regularly find that there was no meeting of the minds because no normal consumer could understand the agreement.
>Limits in Medical Devices are somewhat understandable given the risk of litigation.
Oh, it's not just litigation, it's actions by the regulators themselves. If you do something stupid and take two approved medical devices and sell them together as a packaged set, multiple regulators from many major countries you sell in will come upon you and make you feel lucky to only get fiscally cuddled within an inch of your countries existence. The civil trial is bad enough, but the criminal penalties for not dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s is far, far worse.
>But your average consumer should not be assumed to have sophistication or
If you are selling openly and not just to trained specialists, you are forced to assume that the buyer is a total moral and take extraordinary measures to prove that you've made yourself clear to the point that even a sub 90 IQ idjit couldn't fuck things up.
Egg donors are not paid nearly as much as their eggs would be worth in a free market.
The cartel of buyers justifies its price cap as 'protecting women':
> ASRM-SART argue that their maximum price is really about protecting women and that compensation “should not be so excessive as to constitute undue inducement.”
I have personally encountered medical devices whose programming limits them to a certain number of 'treatments.' They are physically capable of providing more treatments than that, and more treatments do not come with any health risk. I'm murky on the details, but they seem to justify this on the grounds that their machine is "by prescription", and a prescription is generally for a specific amount of drugs.