zlacker

  > including e.g. the monitor attached to the PC used for displaying
  > X-ray images

Somewhat off-topic, but I used to work in a dental office. The monitors used for displaying X-rays were just normal monitors, bought from Amazon or Newegg or whatever big-box store had a clearance sale. Even the X-ray sensors themselves were (IIRC) not regulated devices, you could buy one right now on AliExpress if you wanted to.

>>jmilli+(OP)
That's not the case in the EU. I've worked for an equipment manufacturer for dental clinics. While the monitors were allowed to be off the shelf, the operator (dental clinic) is required to make sure that they work properly and display the image correctly - obey certain brightness and color resolution/calibration standards. Our display software had to refuse to work on an uncalibrated monitor.

>>gmueck+Hc
Interesting, how does your software detect an uncalibrated monitor? Did it come with a calibration device which had to be used to scan the display output to check?

I don't suppose monitors report calibration data back to display adapters do they?

>>alias_+3G
My guess is they had some heuristic based on EDIDs, which are incredibly easy to spoof.

https://smile.amazon.com/EVanlak-Passthrough-Generrtion-Elim...

>>alias_+3G
I didn't work on that specific software team and it has been a long time since I worked there. But the software came with its custom calibration routine and I believe that the calibration result was stored with model and serial number information from the monitor EDID.

>>Gauntl+nH
Yes, but why would you go to these lengths? The purpose of the whole mechanism is to prevent accidental misdiagnosis based on an incorrectly interpreted X-ray image. This isn't DRM, just a safeguard against incorrect use of equipment.

>>gmueck+bK
People are cheap and corrupt. The speed bump this presents is real, but minor, in the face of a couple medical shops looking to save $100/pop on a dozen monitors.

I hope it's rare, but I think a persistent nag window ("Your display isn't calibrated and may not be accurate") is probably a better answer than refusing to work altogether, because it will be clear about the source of the problem and less likely to get nailed down.

>>gmueck+XI
Thanks, sounds like I need to do some reading about EDIDs; I knew _of_ them but no real understanding is what they are and what they do.

>>Gauntl+yu1
You have to draw a line somewhere, I guess. As far as I remember, protections against accidental misuse and foreseeable abuse of a device are required in medical equipment. But malicious circumvention of protections or any kind of active tampering are a whole other category in my opinion.

>>Gauntl+yu1
Medical devices are insanely expensive (a CT scanner may reach a million dollars), you won’t risk $100 on such a small thing as a screen.