SHARE

4 Responses

  1. Great work. It is interesting to see how to create affordable alternatives of medical equipment in a highly competitive environment. The commons dilemma seems largely to protect the ability of a community to develop an alternative, even if this means to privatize part of the process (industrialization of the product). I can imagine that trust and reputation are important elements in getting adoption of OSH medical equipment. What barriers, besides standards, do the communities experience.

    1. Communities experience limitations in terms of IP; copyright does no protect enough the hardware artifact produced. Usually, it is sufficient if the device has no real market. However, in our case study, there is indeed a market, and the community is struggling to assess various ways to secure their innovation and make it available to the largest number.

      Interestingly another limitation was the bylaws of the association supporting the common. They were too open and became an impediment to the successful development of the solution. Typically by becoming a member, you had a right to vote during the annual board of the association. That could lead to a potential coordinated hostile takeover of the association: its assets and purpose. The membership process has been secured and is now subject to approval.

  2. This is interesting Pascal.

    Are there civil society actors who are trying to challenge the regulations that impose the ‘privatization’ of open source hardware in the medical field?

    1. Not that I am aware of, although regulatory bodies are very aware of the phenomenon and during the COVID crisis made sure open hardware innovation made it though the hospital.
      For sure it will help to change the paradigm.

      Moreover, for few year 3D printed simple medical accessories can be ‘compliant’ with medical regulation, this fiedl is progressing very fast.

Comments are closed.

Event Sponsor / Commanditaire de l'événement