Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source Robotic Surgeon

Posted by Soulskill on from the with-many-eyes-all-bugs-are-still-potentially-lethal dept.

GlobalEcho writes "Researchers have created a second version of the Raven robotic surgeon, with open-source control code. 'UW researchers also created software to work with the Robot Operating System, a popular open-source robotics code, so labs can easily connect the Raven to other devices and share ideas.' Unfortunately for them, according to The Economist, 'there is [a] legal problem. Intuitive Surgical, the company behind the da Vinci [robot], holds patents that could make launching a commercial competitor tricky — at least in the immediate future."

5 of 42 comments (clear)

  1. Already in 2004 / 2005... by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... I was at the robotics lab of Polytechnical University, Milano. They already then battled with the same problem: patents lurking, and companies behind them. Patents are in the way of becoming an ever bigger obstacle to innovation. Which is sad.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  2. Patents have outlived their usefulness by mykos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They were created to encourage invention for the good of the public. Now they lean heavily toward the good of corporations instead, benefiting the public far less.

    The internet is here. We can share our ideas with the human race faster than ever before, and any one of six billion people can collaborate with any other of the six billion, unlike when patents were invented and you maximum collaborators might be in the dozens.

    1. Re:Patents have outlived their usefulness by Calibax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes patents are not useful, but sometimes they are.

      Intuitive Surgical have spent many millions developing surgical robotics and even more millions getting the products certified and convincing doctors (some of the most conservative people around) that they can be used safely. It's reasonable that they receive substantial rewards for their work for some limited time period. It's far, far less expensive to develop the second example of a brand new concept. It's reasonable to assume that absent some legal impairment Intuitive products would be quickly copied and their prices undercut.

      Truly novel products are EXACTLY why patents are are still needed. This is especially true for medical devices that can directly benefit humanity. Just because we have a substantial number of unfortunate software patents doesn't mean that the concept, when properly applied, isn't valid. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    2. Re:Patents have outlived their usefulness by javilon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you are describing is the process of commercialising a product, and also the process of regulation capture. Most of the money invested here hasn't gone to research and development, but has been used to create barriers to competition. So instead of having three or four companies competing for a market we end up with only one. We have created a monopoly and therefore slowing progress in an area that could benefit all of us.

      Many many researches with new ideas about how to improve on robotic surgery are not pursuing them because they know it is almost impossible to bring them to market unless you sell them to Intuitive Surgical for peanuts.

      So many missed opportunities.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  3. Patents are vitally important to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not the troll you think it is. I would never have made a career of coding had I not read the gnu manifesto in 1988, then spent a solid month blowing off my job and damn near getting fired so I could read the emacs source code.

    Without patents we would have trade secrets. many vitally important processes and inventions would go to their inventors graves. consider that we have ancient archaelogical artifacts that in some ways are superior to modern products but that we cannot reverse engineer.

    Had the recipe for coca cola ever been patented you could make it in your kitchen. only a very few are trusted with the complete recipe, with the chemistry of natural flavorings being so complex no one has ever managed to reverse engineer it.

    Patents do not impede innovation they drive it. where would we be had not mp3 been patented? apple would not have invented QuickTime comprssed auipdio and Xiph would not have created ogg vorbis, both of which are better than mp3, because mp3 while not the best would have bend regarded as good enough.

    Now I'm not saying that the oaten system is not abused or not in need in reform. what I am saying is that patents must only be granted when they really are novel and unobvious. patents are granted all the time despite prior art being readily at hand, and they are granted when any schoolchild could have thought the invention up with but a few moments thought.

    My understanding is that the patent office is paid when patents are granted. every capitalist knows that's the wrong kind of incentive.

    Instead one should pay to apply, with substantial, interest bearing bond required for any grant of a patent to be enforceable. when the term expires ones bond is refunded with interest. if so much as one claim is quashed then the bond is forfeited and used for some productive purpose other than just operating the patent office, such as funding an online corpus of prior art.

    I'll write this up at more length sometime soon at http://www.softwareproblem.net/social/