Who’s brand will we trust for certifying this OS? Likely government, I’d imagine. Does any institution have credible expertise, here, or should the FDA should be hiring and experimenting (in the organizational sense)?

I agree with the fact that some electronic implants are in use for epilepsy or Parkinson disease. And I understand how these devices can improve patients’ lives…

But thse implants are quite “simple” because they operate in a rudimentary (although very efficient) way… for example applying a continuous stimulation at a specific frequency on a specific brain area.

But the development of distributed and communicating components over the brain with extended read/write abilities on it, is a really serious ethical concern.

Continuing in this way, we can imagine devices which could impact personality, decision making or emotional states in a greater extent than it was never done before.

If all devices have different operating systems, then devices cannot talk to each other, or updates to an existing device might not work.

I should also like to point out that more attention should be paid to the security of these devices as well. Denning et al wrote a sobering paper last year on the vulnerability of brain-computer interfaces to hacker attacks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19569895

However, I just want to address two important questions :
* why humans would need a global operating system connected to their brain ?
* What are ethical issues of using this kind of device ?

It is necessary to answer these questions before developing such systems.

And in my opinion there is too much ethical issues compared to beneficial promises.