User talk:Beanie Bo

I feel like if we want more people to care about these issues, we should branch further out from tech companies and really focus on other hardware and equipment in other industries. Anyway... link dump!

Louis' video on ventilators (mostly general info and needs more specific incidents) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqGiGgRSCI4

FDA report that med OEM's are basically gaslighting the dangers of right to repair https://www.fda.gov/media/113431/download

How ventilator OEM locks (may) have led to more sick and dead during the COVID pandemic https://www.techdirt.com/2020/04/10/manufacturers-refuse-to-allow-hospitals-to-fix-ventilators-that-are-last-hope-many-covid-19-patients/

COVID ventilators https://www.vice.com/en/article/hospitals-need-to-repair-ventilators-manufacturers-are-making-that-impossible/

AdvaMed gaslighting about the dangers of right to repair https://www.advamed.org/2022/04/28/the-fallacy-of-right-to-repair-for-medical-devices/

General article with multiple case studies from Proto magazine of Massachusettes General Hospital https://protomag.com/policy/who-has-the-right-to-repair-medical-equipment/ Beanie Bo (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT. https://lrs.sog.unc.edu/bill/medical-equipment-right-repair-act UNC

For Hospitals and Patients, We Need New Medical Device ‘right to Repair’ Laws. Crothall Healthcare (hospital network?) https://www.crothall.com/blog/for-hospitals-and-patients-we-need-new-medical-device-right-to-repair-laws/

Congress Will Consider National Right-to-Repair Legislation for Medical Equipment https://www.vice.com/en/article/congress-will-consider-national-right-to-repair-legislation-for-medical-equipment/ Beanie Bo (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you please stop stalking my contributions page? :P AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure I'll never surpass you, but I can try! Beanie Bo (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Medical Device Company Tells Hospitals They're No Longer Allowed to Fix Machine That Costs Six Figures https://www.404media.co/medical-device-company-tells-hospitals-theyre-no-longer-allowed-to-fix-machine-that-costs-six-figures/

(Cambridge study) The Right to Repair Software-Dependent Medical Devices https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-medicine-and-ethics/article/abs/right-to-repair-softwaredependent-medical-devices/F08B93DD92327BAA34D4D67476A424C9 Beanie Bo (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ethical and Legal Implications of Remote Monitoring of Medical Devices

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7772635/ Beanie Bo (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I got notifications for this! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't even know how to stop that lol Beanie Bo (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

New Senate Right to Repair bill to reduce barriers to fixing medical equipment including ventilators https://pirg.org/media-center/new-senate-right-to-repair-bill-to-reduce-barriers-to-fixing-medical-equipment-including-ventilators/

Hospitals need ventilators to keep severe COVID-19 patients alive. They might not be able to fix them without paying the manufacturer $7,000 per technician.https://www.businessinsider.com/ventilator-manufacturers-dont-let-hospitals-fix-coronavirus-right-to-repair-2020-5?op=1

A Medical Device Maker Threatens iFixit Over Ventilator Repair Project https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-medical-device-maker-threatens-ifixit-over-ventilator-repair-project/

Deadly DRM: Right to Repair a Life-or-Death Problem During the Coronavirus Pandemic https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/312560-deadly-drm-right-to-repair-a-life-or-death-problem-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic

Ventilator Companies Finally Make the Life Saving Devices Easier to Repair https://www.vice.com/en/article/ventilator-companies-finally-make-the-life-saving-devices-easier-to-repair/

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1816&context=shlr Beanie Bo (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

During the COVID crisis, manufacturers like General Electric, Dräger, Steris, locked down the supply of spare parts, software and repair manuals behind expensive certifications for technicians, Beanie Bo (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thats the thing, you can’t. I’m choosing to click the subscribe button to this without unsubscribing! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Medtronic's failure to deliver:

https://robertleeread.medium.com/medtronic-open-source-ventilator-does-not-meet-uks-rapidly-manufactured-ventilator-systems-81947c72a7ac

https://news.medtronic.com/2020-04-08-Medtronic-Provides-Ventilator-Progress-Update

https://hackaday.com/2020/03/30/professional-ventilator-design-open-sourced-today-by-medtronic

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/03/30/medtronic-makes-plans-for-a-ventilator-open-source.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Pubmed article related to open-sourcing med equipment:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7195895 Beanie Bo (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Chatgpt dump

Yes — there are several other documented instances from the COVID‑19 pandemic where ventilator manufacturers or contract suppliers promised large scale production, open designs/manuals, or rapid delivery — and later failed to deliver in full, or placed proprietary/restrictive conditions. Here are some of the more notable ones:

----

Notable examples

1. Medtronic / Covidien / Newport Medical Instruments

• A U.S. government-funded project by Newport aimed to build a low-cost ventilator for pandemics, but after Newport was acquired by Covidien, the project stalled and no ventilators were delivered. (MDPI)
• The review of open-source ventilator designs notes that many manufacturers claimed “open” but had restrictive licenses (e.g., for pandemic only, or time-limited) so they were not true open-source hardware. (PMC)
• Also, some manufacturers (including Medtronic) did not make repair manuals freely available or permitted third-party servicing. (Prospect)

2. Repair/access issues across ventilator manufacturers

• Technical repair freedom: Several sources highlight that many ventilator makers imposed “software locks” or refused to release service manuals, making it hard for hospitals or third-party technicians to repair machines during the crisis. (Vice)
• From one piece: > “Major manufacturers… hoarding parts and service manuals.” (Popular Mechanics)

3. Ford Motor Company / General Electric manufacturing promise

• Ford (in partnership with GE) committed to making 50,000 ventilators by mid-July, but hit global parts-supply delays and delivered fewer than half by the initial deadline. (The Washington Post)
• The Washington Post article noted: “the push … has also run into hiccups: … the company … had made fewer than half the devices by its initial deadline.” (The Washington Post)

----

What patterns emerge

• Promises vs reality timing: Many big-scale pledges (tens of thousands of ventilators) were made under pandemic urgency, but supply chain, regulatory, design and manufacturing complexity delayed or reduced output.
• “Open source” vs restricted access: Some companies claimed to open manuals/designs, but in practice the license was limited (pandemic only), or key details/components remained proprietary, meaning third-party manufacturing or wide replication was difficult. (See open source review) (PMC)
• Right to repair / servicing barriers: While the crisis emphasised the need for rapid servicing of ventilators in use, many manufacturers kept tight control on parts, manuals, and repair rights — limiting flexibility for hospitals/biomedical engineers.
• Mergers, acquisition & strategic decisions: Some delays trace back to corporate strategy — e.g., the Newport/Covidien acquisition and subsequent shelving of a low-cost design. (World Socialist Web Site)

----

Beanie Bo (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

----

3. Licensing / Design Restrictions of Existing Manufactures (EU / UK Context)

• According to an expert report for the UK’s UK COVID‑19 Public Inquiry, existing ventilator manufacturers refused to grant licences of their approved designs to allow scale-up by third parties (for reasons including component shortages, liability concerns). (UK Covid-19 Inquiry)
• In effect, rather than sharing open designs or allowing mass third-party manufacture, many health-system actors found little scope to replicate validated ventilators rapidly. Key takeaway: The promise/hope of open access or broad manufacturing collaboration met resistance from proprietary design holders — limiting scale-up.

----

4. Design & Manual / Consumables Shortcomings (Imported Devices)

• As part of the UK inquiry: one supplier’s devices were delivered “with just two days of consumables necessary to use such ventilators and no information about future consumable supply” — meaning they were functionally unusable for extended patient care. (UK Covid-19 Inquiry Transcripts) Key takeaway: Technical and logistical details (manuals, consumables, servicing) often failed to match the headline promise of “ready to use”.

----

Beanie Bo (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

----

🔒 3. Ventilator Right-to-Repair Failures (Philips, Dräger, Hamilton, etc.)

The claim: Manufacturers pledged to “do everything possible” to keep ventilators running during the crisis.

Reality:

• Many refused to share repair manuals or software keys with hospitals.
• Philips and Dräger in particular restricted access to firmware updates, citing “liability and security.”
• Hospitals were forced to cannibalize parts or rely on gray-market servicing. Why it’s comparable: These companies didn’t frame it as open source, but they publicly signaled cooperation while continuing to enforce proprietary repair barriers — effectively undermining pandemic response. → Vice and Popular Mechanics ran exposés accusing them of “hoarding repair data during a global emergency.”

----

🧠 4. Dyson (CoVent Project)

The claim: Build 10,000 new ventilators “within weeks” for the UK NHS.

Reality:

• No units were ever delivered to hospitals; the design never gained regulatory approval.
• Dyson claimed “we are ready,” but later internal documents (UK COVID Inquiry, 2025) showed there were known compatibility and safety concerns. Why it’s comparable: The company over-promised technological readiness to the public and government, despite the project being unproven. → This was more about engineering hubris than IP restriction, but the PR mismatch was just as stark.

----

⚖️ 5. Newport / Covidien (Pre-Pandemic Project That Might Have Saved Lives)

The claim (pre-2012): Newport Medical Instruments was developing a $3,000 ventilator under a U.S. pandemic preparedness contract.

Reality:

• Covidien (Medtronic’s parent company later) bought Newport in 2012 and canceled the project, citing “profitability concerns.”
• The U.S. government had to restart the program from scratch in 2014 — it was unfinished when COVID-19 hit. Why it’s comparable: Not a “pandemic promise broken,” but a strategic decision that crippled later emergency readiness, closely tied to corporate consolidation and IP control.

----

Beanie Bo (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. At the beginning of the Shortage of medical ventilators during the COVID pandemic article, the stubnotice template is on the same line as the first paragraph. This means that non-administrators can not make any changes in the whole first paragraph.

Could you put a newline in after the stubnotice template, so others can edit. Thanks.

I am asking you because I think it was one of your edits that removed the newline. (May have been something the visual editor did.)

I reported the issue on the bugs noticeboard. Under how do you edit beginning of an article with StubNotice? Drakeula (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't know why that happens, but I went ahead and added a new space in there. I wasn't aware that the first paragraph couldn't be edited. Not sure if that's a bug or not, but thanks for letting me know! Beanie Bo (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pretty sure it is a bug, as discussed here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Regarding the merge for License euthanasia, was it merged with Retroactively amended purchase or Post-purchase EULA modification? It seems there is a double merge request, so I just wanted to double check with you. Mr Pollo (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This was the first I've actually used the merge request, so my mistake if I used it wrong! I added it to Post-purchase EULA modification, so we're good. The other article "Retroactively..." appears to be AI generated and not worth saving in my opinion. Beanie Bo (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah no worries, thanks for letting me know! Mr Pollo (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply