Zusammenfassung
Seit dem Erscheinen seiner ersten Definition Ende der 1990er-Jahre verkörperte der Open-Source-Ansatz (OS-Ansatz) in der Softwaretechnologie eine andere Art, unser Leben im Internet zu begreifen, und einen neuen Weg für die Forscher. Die gemeinsame Nutzung der Ideen von Einzelpersonen als Mittel zur Verbesserung des Wissens, die durch die offene Begegnung von Köpfen und der Impuls, die individuellen Möglichkeiten zu maximieren, bilden den Hintergrund für den Aufbau eines digitalen Umfelds, in dem Innovation wirklich sowohl der Motor als auch das Ziel ist. Die Verfügbarkeit flexibler Lizenzierungsmethoden – die starren proprietären Schemata vorgezogen werden – unterstützt die rechtliche Umsetzung dieser „Philosophie der Offenheit“, mit erheblichen Vorteilen, wann immer eine Betriebssystemsoftware auf eine entsprechende Hardware angewendet wird. Das Zusammenspiel vieler Menschen, die am gleichen Quellcode arbeiten, erleichtert den Innovationsprozess: Da die Kosten in Form von Geld und Zeit gesenkt werden, können auch die Kosten der Endprodukte deutlich reduziert werden.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Literatur
“On the patent front, more time and energy seem to be spent on nuisance and defensive patenting of the obvious than on innovation”, Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. (2002). The case against intellectual property. The American Economic Review, 92(2), 210.
IMDRF/SaMD WG/N10FINAL:2013.
According to section 210(h):
“The term “device” (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 301(i), 403(f), 502(c), and 602(c)) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is –
5 recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,
6 intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
„7 intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes. The term “device” does not include software functions excluded pursuant to section 520(o).”
According to sect. 520(o), a software cannot be considered a device when it is used:
“(A) for administrative support of a health care facility […]
(B) for maintaining or encouraging a healthy lifestyle and is unrelated to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of a disease or condition;
(C) to serve as electronic patient records, including patient- provided information, to the extent that such records are intended to transfer, store, convert formats, or display the equivalent of a paper medical chart […]
(D) for transferring, storing, converting formats, or displaying clinical laboratory test or other device data and results, findings by a health care professional with respect to such data and results, general information about such findings, and general background information about such laboratory test or other device, unless such function is intended to interpret or analyze clinical laboratory test or other device data, results, and findings
[…]
(2) In the case of a product with multiple functions that contains –
(A) at least one software function that meets the criteria under paragraph (1) or that otherwise does not meet the definition of device under section 201(h); and
(B) at least one function that does not meet the criteria under paragraph (1) and that otherwise meets the definition of a device under section 201(h), the Secretary shall not regulate the software function of such product described in subparagraph (A) as a device.”
From sect. 520(o) it appears clear that the main criterium to identify a software as an autonomous device lies in its capability of both storing and analyzing the data collected during the activity of the device.
See para. 3.7: “A device is considered to allow direct diagnosis when it provides the diagnosis of the disease or condition in question by itself or when it provides decisive information for the diagnosis”.
Rule n. 11 (par. 6.3). This typology owes to Class IIa, apart for software capable of causing “death or an irreversible deterioration of a person’s state of health” (the riskiest devices, assigned to Class III) and those which can cause “a serious deterioration of a person’s state of health or a surgical intervention” (Class IIb). Also, a software “intended to monitor physiological processes” owes to Class IIa, unless it is thought “for monitoring of vital physiological parameters, where the nature of variations of those parameters is such that it could result in immediate danger to the patient” (in this last case, it would owe to Class IIb). A final statement reconnects all the other residual typologies to Class I.
https://www.hipaajournal.com/2019-healthcare-data-breach-report/. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
http://dataprotection.industries/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/privacy-by-design.pdf. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/public-consultations-art-704/2019/guidelines-42019-article-25-data-protection-design_it. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/subjects/privacy-default_en. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
Schuck, P. H. (1994). Rethinking informed consent in Yale law school legal scholarship repository (S. 915). The Yale law journal, University of Yale.
“Before the GDPR, data portability was grounded in competition law under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for abuse of dominance and exclusionary conduct45 as well as the Sherman Act46 and Clayton Act47 in the US. With the potential for service providers to ‘lock-in’ consumers and make it more difficult for them to leave the platform, data portability is seen as a solution allowing users to move from one service to another”, Wong, J., & Henderson, T. (2019). The right to data portability in practice: Exploring the implications of the technologically neutral GDPR in International Data Privacy Law. Oxford University Press, p. 11.
“Specifically to data portability as a right, Graef et al. consider how the RtDP clashes with competition law and consumer protection law where data portability is seen as a duty and a form of property-like control respectively”, ibidem, p. 12.
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/turning_fair_into_reality_0.pdf. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
https://www.fda.gov/media/119722/download. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
“Non-device software functions are not subject to regulation and are not within the scope of the Software Pre-Cert Pilot Program. In particular, software functions intended (1) for administrative support of a health care facility, (2) for maintaining or encouraging a healthy lifestyle, (3) to formats, or displaying data without interpreting or analyzing clinical laboratory test or other device data, results, and findings or (5) to provide certain limited clinical decision support are not medical devices and are not subject to FDA regulation”, p. 10. A statement which is perfectly coherent with section 520(o) of FD&C Act.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health/digital-health-software-precertification-pre-cert-program. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31985L0374. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
Matthias, A. (2009). From coder to creator: Responsibility issues in intelligent artifact design (S. 17). IGI Global.
Bertolini, A. (2013). Robots as products: The case for a realistic analysis of robotic applications and liability rules in law. Innovation and Technology, 233, 214–247.
Bertolini, A. (2015). Robotic prostheses as products enhancing the rights of people with disabilities. Reconsidering the structure of liability rules. International Review of Law in Computers & Technology, 29, 127–128.
As recalled by Bertolini, “[n]o fault schemes are applied in different legal systems, either radically replacing the tort law system (New Zeland) or substituting it in one or more specific fields, often motor vehicle circulation and work-related injuries”, ibid., p. 128.
Ibid.
https://docs.italia.it/italia/developers-italia/lg-acquisizione-e-riuso-software-per-pa-docs/it/bozza/index.html. Zugegriffen im December 2023.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lippi, M.E., Morello, F., Di Pietro, L., De Maria, C., Calderai, V. (2023). Gesetzgebung für Open-Source-Medizinprodukte: Aktuelles Szenario, Risiken und Möglichkeiten. In: Ahluwalia, A., De Maria, C., Díaz Lantada, A. (eds) Entwicklung von Open-Source-Medizinprodukten. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26028-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26028-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-26027-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-26028-5
eBook Packages: Life Science and Basic Disciplines (German Language)