8 ms·

Just to clarify, if you have a problem with what eInk is doing here, then you basically have a problem with patents altogether. This is essentially the prototyp

Just to clarify, if you have a problem with what eInk is doing here, then you basically have a problem with patents altogether. This is essentially the prototypical case for patents: * Invented a novel, physical device[1] * Granted monopoly from the government for 20 years to extract monopoly rent from sale of the product in exchange for making the design publicly available Now, personally, I bite the bullet here and say "maybe we should come up with a better incentive system than patents". But I find it hard to fault eInk specifically since this is exactly how patents are supposed to work. [1] I mention it's a physical device because there are other more controversial types of patents like software patents and patents on genes which are more widely understood to be bullshit.

spijdar 6y ago
Maybe it's how it's "supposed" to work in principle and by the books they're doing something wrong, but on the other hand, have why haven't other patented technologies ended up in such a limbo state? Lots of tech has been patented, some by ruthless and litigious companies like Apple, and yet somehow there don't seem to be that many broad technologies like electrophoretic displays that have ended up like eInk products. What makes these displays so different? (Edit: to be clear, I don't mean to sound snarky or rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious since these displays seem to be in a pretty unique situation)
- adwf 6y ago
  It does happen to other products. Notably 3D printing was held up by a 1989 patent for 20 years - when it expired in 2009 it resulted in a massive boom leading to lots of new innovations in the space.
_ph_ 6y ago
I am not sure that is how patents are supposed to work. Few people would object to eInk getting profits from their inventions. But the problem seems to be the strange ways eInk markets their products. It seems to be that they are not encouraging more companies to use their products an rather hold back their technology. Patents were created as an incentive not only to do research but to publish the results of the research. So that many companies would have access to the technology and can license the patents when producing products based on that technology. That is not quite aligned with a company reluctantly marketing their technology.
- mortenjorck 6y ago
  Indeed, I don't think it's hard to imagine an alternate timeline where E Ink simply negotiated royalties with a handful of manufacturers over the past 10-15 years and we saw an explosion of e-paper displays as OEMs iterated on E Ink's processes and experimented with more scalable, cost-effective variants. E Ink could have been the ARM of low-power display technology, raking in a billion dollars a year in royalties while the ecosystem flourished, but they couldn't let go of being the monopoly provider for their technology. What a waste.
  - ahepp 6y ago
    I wonder why say, SoftBank, doesn't buy them and do what you're describing? Is there something commercial players realize about e-ink that the rest of us don't? Or do they lack vision (seems unlikely under current market conditions)?
    - robinsoh 6y ago
      I wouldn't have high expectations of SoftBank but it does illustrate one key point. Everyone noticed that SoftBank was willing to burn a couple of billion on stuff like WeWork. It is considered reasonable in the VC/private venture industry to take bets on AI/ML, internet services. If those companies fail, nobody is going to fire you even if you vouched for obvious disasters like WeWork. The same VCs would never even consider taking a stake in startups that do the incremental improvements in pieces of display technology like TFT or material science improvements. I work in the display industry and I can only smile when people say it is being held back by patents and stuff like that because the real reason is really about investment. > Is there something commercial players realize about e-ink that the rest of us don't? Or do they lack vision (seems unlikely under current market conditions)? What I know is that their technology is limited by the physics of moving large particles. Their volumes are not high enough to achieve high scale. There was another post that explained this very well by showing the multi-billion cost of a typical LCD factory. I think E-ink can only re-purpose existing LCD factory lines and they can't get good yields on their products doing that.
RIMR 6y ago
I do basically have a problem with patents altogether, but even in the current patent system, the way eInk is doing business is regressive and prevents innovation. They're far more concerned with maximizing their bottom line than actually pushing for adoption of the technology. Even the founders of modern capitalism warned us of rent-seeking behavior like this that is actually counter to the goals of markets. It's perfectly fair to condemn this, as well as the patent system that enables and encourages it.
- rswail 6y ago
  Why is this "rent seeking"? eInk came up with an idea, reduced it to practice, patented that and now have a 20 year monopoly. What they choose to do with it is up to them. It's a property right that they own. It's specifically mandated as a monopoly power that they have been granted. After 20 years, anyone can make an eInk display. You can argue that 20 years is too long, or that the patent is invalid, or that they aren't exploiting their idea in the most community oriented way, but calling this "rent seeking" and "counter to the goals of markets" is flat out wrong. The "free market" is entirely about each individual making their own behavioral decisions, within the regulations of the market, to promote their own benefit. You might not like the way the idea of patents has been reduced to practice, but that doesn't make the idea of patents a bad one.
ant6n 6y ago
Most devices that I can go and buy are covered by patents. EInk does not really have many devices I can go out and buy. I doubt it's due to patents. They just seem to have a strategy of not wanting to sell their products to many people.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > They just seem to have a strategy of not wanting to sell their products to many people. Alternately, product designers and consumers seem to have a preference for LCD or OLED devices because they are better for common use cases and they have no need for the niche features that EInk provides.
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > consumers seem to have a preference for LCD or OLED devices Have anything to back that claim up, or is this your opinion? Because considering there’s only one major category of consumer devices with eInk displays and they are used in all the leading devices in that category, I’m not sure I personally agree. Without additional product categories available to purchase and because there is a pent up desire to buy them despite them not existing, I don’t feel your conclusion can be proven categorically.
    - bdowling 6y ago
      I found the following article by Googling "tablet sales versus ebook reader sales": "Kindle Sales – The E-Reader Device Is Dying A Rapid Death" https://justpublishingadvice.com/the-e-reader-device-is-dying-a-rapid-death/ https://justpublishingadvice.com/the-e-reader-device-is-dyin... I'm aware that many people find reading on an E Ink display e-book reader preferable to reading on a tablet or phone. When consumers pull out their wallets to make a purchase, however, they prefer tablets and phones.
      - ant6n 6y ago
        E-Readers are single-purpose device. EInk are a screen technology. Comparison to phones only make sense if it was possible to purchase tablets, phones, laptops, monitors with eink screens. There exist some tablets (e.g. remarkable), but they are pretty expensive.
TheRealSteel 6y ago
>then you basically have a problem with patents altogether That's correct, I do. Patents should protect the rights long enough to bring a product to market, not stop all competition in an entire field of technology for decades
- lukifer 6y ago
  Patents outlaw thinking.
  - abeppu 6y ago
    I think it's worse than this. Patents can reward shallow, crappy thinking. You can patent an idea which you haven't figured out how to build -- which I think almost always means you can patent it before you've finished figuring out enough to make it useful.
acabal 6y ago
In this particular case, I don't think the problem is patents (thought I do have a lot of problems with patents as a concept), rather poor business decisions by eInk. They are indeed using patents as originally envisioned: They have an effective monopoly on epaper displays. However their poor business decision of ultra-high pricing has prevented a serious market for their product from forming. Had they lowered their price per display, or done some kind of affordable licensing scheme with manufacturers, it's totally possible for them to have made tons of money while still allowing epaper displays to flourish in the market. But that's not what they did; who knows what kind of money they're actually making, but the fact that the epaper market is basically on Kindle life support isn't the patent's fault. (Edit: Perhaps Amazon had a hand in preventing wide adoption of epaper, in order to more effectively squash Kindle competitors?)
- CrazyCatDog 6y ago
  Yes—-there has got to be more to the story-otherwise they could hire a sophomore Econ major, learn about elasticity, and pull in exponentially higher earnings. I have seen contracts between large manufacturers where one pre-purchases exclusivity variants, like: 1) Exclusive licensing for x years 2) Exclusive licensing for x years after the first time buyer deploys tech not to exceed W years (usually 10) 3) Very limited sales/licensing to others This smells like (3) + (2) here.
- gowld 6y ago
  If eInk is undervaluing their business, why hasn't anyone bought the company and run it better?
  - citizenpaul 6y ago
    You can't buy a business if the owner doesn't want to sell.
- robinsoh 6y ago
  > However their poor business decision of ultra-high pricing I work in the display industry and what I know for sure is that they can't make big 20", 32", 42" displays. Something about factory production issues so they're literally like hand making the big displays which to me seems like the reason why they cost so much. So I'm suspicious of your claim. Could you let us know which ultra-high prices you're referring to? What panel size? What DPI? What bin range and contrast range? Do you actually work in the industry and have knowledge of costs and pricing? > Perhaps Amazon had a hand in preventing wide adoption of epaper, in order to more effectively squash Kindle competitors? I'm sorry to be harsh but you sound ridiculous when you say that. And now I'm pretty certain you don't have industry knowledge. You do realize that Amazon spent hundreds of millions trying to scale up Liquavista to produce fast colour displays for the Kindle. It failed because again physics of electrowetting is complex especially when you go from handmaking 100 demo displays to trying to produce 1000 on a rolling production line. Maybe a billion and maybe then they could have succeeded but I guess Jeff had other cost issues or personal reasons that ended that.
tomc1985 6y ago
"Don't hate the player, hate the game!" But yes I agree that patent reform is sorely needed, for this reason amongst others. There has to be a middle ground where ideas can flourish while their creators can still extract profit.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cle 6y ago
> Just to clarify, if you have a problem with what eInk is doing here, then you basically have a problem with patents altogether. What in the world? So I can't agree that the patent system is net positive, and disagree with a company's specific business decisions under that system? What a blatant false dichotomy.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  Can you elaborate how the patent system is good in general, yet e-ink is abusing it in a unique way? I don’t have a ton of knowledge on patents or E-ink’s business practices.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    Answering my own question via a helpful comment I found below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26172785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26172785
  - ketralnis 6y ago
    Surely I'm allowed to be unhappy with the result without claiming to be a legal expert with the perfect solution
snvzz 6y ago
>"maybe we should come up with a better incentive system than patents". Patents are on ideas. Does anybody in this planet actually believe that, without an artificial incentive, ideas won't happen?
- evrydayhustling 6y ago
  Patents are not on ideas. They are on ideas reduced to practice. If you can find another method for the same outcome, it's not covered by the patent. If you improve on the method , you can patent the improvement and charge the original holder to license it. The biggest thing wrong with patents are the logistics (lengthy, expensive filings and 20y monopolies are ridiculous today) and the lack of oversight in identitying prior art or vague, overreaching scopes.
  - Teever 6y ago
    Ideas reduced to practice are still ideas. They're just metaideas.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > charge the original holder to license it. Or the holder can charge so much for their idea that yours, which depends on theirs, is effectively worth nothing because it's priced above its value.
  - snvzz 6y ago
    Patents are an extremely strong restriction on freedom, and need an even stronger justification. That they "might", "maybe", be an incentive to creativity is not exactly a strong justification. It is highly likely patents are doing more damage than good.
    - rswail 6y ago
      Their justification, at least in the United States is Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” You can argue the meaning of "limited times" and "discoveries" and the interpretation of all that, but the justification is that by providing a limited monopoly, the inventor gets a period to make money uncontested, after which the invention is available to the community. The alternative, a "trade secret", means that the invention may die with the death of the inventor and be lost to the community.
kristopolous 6y ago
Innovation happened before patents and it's happening fine in industries without monopoly protections, such as food and clothing. There you need innovation And fair prices And good service And availability. You can't just hide behind a protection, extract economic rent and keep everyone else out. Also countries without strong rigorous patent protections are swiftly outmanoeuvring those with protections. When copyrights were extended in 1976 and 1998 for example, there was no measurable effect to the amount of copyrighted works being produced. If the incentivize hypothesis held, there should be a measurable increase in the velocity of copyrighted works pivoting on the dates of those extensions. No such increase was observed. Where is the data to back up the claim? There is none. So the incentivization hypothesis is not only disputed by evidence but also lacks any supporting evidence, so it's incorrect. It's a testable hypothesis that's been tested. It doesn't exist, no matter how much you close your eyes and think it's true, it's simply not real. Patents and protections simply do not incentivize innovation, the evidence suggests they stifle and hamper it. No amount of fundamentalist dogma of desperately clutching wrong answers can change this reality.
mqus 6y ago
The key thing with most patents is that the fees have to be "fair" (which is afaik also a legal requirement). In eInks case, the fee seems to be too high[1]. Now, does anyone want to go to court over this? nope. [1] I'm just judging on the reaction here and on how competitive the prices are
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The key thing with most patents is that the fees have to be "fair" (which is afaik also a legal requirement). It is generally not. Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing terms are often contractually required from holders of standards-essential parents that are participants in standards-setting organizations responsible for the relevant standards, but are generally not required by law outside of such contracts.
amluto 6y ago
I will bite the bullet here. I think the patent system is a net negative, and I think eInk is a great example of how the patent system discourages useful innovation. I can imagine alternate patent systems that would better encourage innovation. I can also imagine that no patent system at all could work fairly well.
- robinsoh 6y ago
  > I think eInk is a great example of how the patent system discourages useful innovation. Could you explain this? Because which patent is discouraging useful innovation? I'm actively working in the display industry and have no idea what you are referring to. I've asked this question before and I only get conspiracy theory answers like "secret consortium", or lazy answers like patent thicket. If you aren't actually working in the display industry, then how exactly do you know what is blocking useful innovation? Because if you were to ask me what's blocking useful innovation, it is the fact that investors are much more willing to put billions into AI/ML or an internet service startup than they are into scaling up a niche display technology or improving yields so that the price can come down.
  - amluto 6y ago
    I do not work in the display industry, but I can point at the 3D printing industry as an example. Several years ago, some critical patents expired, resulting in a burst of innovation. Or take 2D printers, where parties to giant cross licensing agreements can make printers and it’s very hard for anyone else to sell into the US market. And yes, if I were an investor in display technology, I would be quite hesitant to touch electronic ink style displays due to patents. Here’s a fascinating paper on the usefulness of patents: https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-03...
    - robinsoh 6y ago
      > I can point at the 3D printing industry as an example. Several years ago, some critical patents expired, resulting in a burst of innovation Yes, I've read that as well from magazines but I must admit I've never checked the journalist claims or seen what critical patent expired that made the 3d printing industry flourish. Because it could just have well been access to open source designs that only flourished in the 2000s but I know nothing about 3d printing so I'm just speculating and making it clear that I'm doing that. So when it comes to posts here about my own industry which I feel I know pretty well, I see claims that seem farcical to me so I've been asking, which critical patent does EInk have? So far, I've not had any answer. > And yes, if I were an investor in display technology, I would be quite hesitant to touch electronic ink style displays due to patents. If I was your boss, I'd again ask a simple question. Which patent? If you can't identify it, then do you think it is possible it is an incorrect belief based on perhaps a lack of understanding of the display industry?
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Patents are broken. They reward deep pockets, those who have enough money to fight a long, expensive, court battle. They do not reward innovation. I know startups who have failed to get a patent because their invention was not "specific enough", and some who have failed to protect their invention because their patent was too specific to defend. They maintain the status quo, which is entirely antithetical to their purpose. They maybe work in biotech, and other industries where the capital investment is colossal and needs protecting. In most other industries, especially web tech, they're a net negative and need to be abolished.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  >They reward deep pockets >They do not reward innovation. I suppose, although I think an eink display is reasonably innovative, and I don't think the company has particularly deep pockets in comparison to the companies we generally complain about around here.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Eink is innovative. That doesn't mean patents reward innovation. As others have said, they're chasing a monopoly on these types of displays, aided by their use of patents. That's not something we should be encouraging. The point of patents was to give a limited window for the inventor of a thing to exclusively capitalise on the thing, in return for making the details of the thing public so that others could in turn expand and improve on the thing. This is not what's happening here.
- Jemm 6y ago
  > They reward deep pockets, those who have enough money to fight a long, expensive, court battle. You have just described the legal system as a whole.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Yes, indeed. And the legal system is also broken because of it.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Just to clarify, if you have a problem with what eInk is doing here, then you basically have a problem with patents altogether. Not necessarily; having a problem with the way someone uses a legal property right is not the same thing as having a problem with them having the legal right to do what they are doing, i.e., the property right itself.
rk06 6y ago
in theory, the patents will allow industries to get an edge in tech and produce better product, and the cost is that some portion of the profits will go to eInk (patent author). The problem with eink is that patents are not sufficient to produce the desired tech, there is some secret ingredient which is not open, rendering all benefits useless

spijdar 6y ago

Maybe it's how it's "supposed" to work in principle and by the books they're doing something wrong, but on the other hand, have why haven't other patented technologies ended up in such a limbo state? Lots of tech has been patented, some by ruthless and litigious companies like Apple, and yet somehow there don't seem to be that many broad technologies like electrophoretic displays that have ended up like eInk products. What makes these displays so different? (Edit: to be clear, I don't mean to sound snarky or rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious since these displays seem to be in a pretty unique situation)

adwf 6y ago
It does happen to other products. Notably 3D printing was held up by a 1989 patent for 20 years - when it expired in 2009 it resulted in a massive boom leading to lots of new innovations in the space.

_ph_ 6y ago

I am not sure that is how patents are supposed to work. Few people would object to eInk getting profits from their inventions. But the problem seems to be the strange ways eInk markets their products. It seems to be that they are not encouraging more companies to use their products an rather hold back their technology. Patents were created as an incentive not only to do research but to publish the results of the research. So that many companies would have access to the technology and can license the patents when producing products based on that technology. That is not quite aligned with a company reluctantly marketing their technology.

mortenjorck 6y ago
Indeed, I don't think it's hard to imagine an alternate timeline where E Ink simply negotiated royalties with a handful of manufacturers over the past 10-15 years and we saw an explosion of e-paper displays as OEMs iterated on E Ink's processes and experimented with more scalable, cost-effective variants. E Ink could have been the ARM of low-power display technology, raking in a billion dollars a year in royalties while the ecosystem flourished, but they couldn't let go of being the monopoly provider for their technology. What a waste.
- ahepp 6y ago
  I wonder why say, SoftBank, doesn't buy them and do what you're describing? Is there something commercial players realize about e-ink that the rest of us don't? Or do they lack vision (seems unlikely under current market conditions)?
  - robinsoh 6y ago
    I wouldn't have high expectations of SoftBank but it does illustrate one key point. Everyone noticed that SoftBank was willing to burn a couple of billion on stuff like WeWork. It is considered reasonable in the VC/private venture industry to take bets on AI/ML, internet services. If those companies fail, nobody is going to fire you even if you vouched for obvious disasters like WeWork. The same VCs would never even consider taking a stake in startups that do the incremental improvements in pieces of display technology like TFT or material science improvements. I work in the display industry and I can only smile when people say it is being held back by patents and stuff like that because the real reason is really about investment. > Is there something commercial players realize about e-ink that the rest of us don't? Or do they lack vision (seems unlikely under current market conditions)? What I know is that their technology is limited by the physics of moving large particles. Their volumes are not high enough to achieve high scale. There was another post that explained this very well by showing the multi-billion cost of a typical LCD factory. I think E-ink can only re-purpose existing LCD factory lines and they can't get good yields on their products doing that.

RIMR 6y ago

I do basically have a problem with patents altogether, but even in the current patent system, the way eInk is doing business is regressive and prevents innovation. They're far more concerned with maximizing their bottom line than actually pushing for adoption of the technology. Even the founders of modern capitalism warned us of rent-seeking behavior like this that is actually counter to the goals of markets. It's perfectly fair to condemn this, as well as the patent system that enables and encourages it.

rswail 6y ago
Why is this "rent seeking"? eInk came up with an idea, reduced it to practice, patented that and now have a 20 year monopoly. What they choose to do with it is up to them. It's a property right that they own. It's specifically mandated as a monopoly power that they have been granted. After 20 years, anyone can make an eInk display. You can argue that 20 years is too long, or that the patent is invalid, or that they aren't exploiting their idea in the most community oriented way, but calling this "rent seeking" and "counter to the goals of markets" is flat out wrong. The "free market" is entirely about each individual making their own behavioral decisions, within the regulations of the market, to promote their own benefit. You might not like the way the idea of patents has been reduced to practice, but that doesn't make the idea of patents a bad one.

ant6n 6y ago

Most devices that I can go and buy are covered by patents. EInk does not really have many devices I can go out and buy. I doubt it's due to patents. They just seem to have a strategy of not wanting to sell their products to many people.

bdowling 6y ago
> They just seem to have a strategy of not wanting to sell their products to many people. Alternately, product designers and consumers seem to have a preference for LCD or OLED devices because they are better for common use cases and they have no need for the niche features that EInk provides.
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > consumers seem to have a preference for LCD or OLED devices Have anything to back that claim up, or is this your opinion? Because considering there’s only one major category of consumer devices with eInk displays and they are used in all the leading devices in that category, I’m not sure I personally agree. Without additional product categories available to purchase and because there is a pent up desire to buy them despite them not existing, I don’t feel your conclusion can be proven categorically.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    I found the following article by Googling "tablet sales versus ebook reader sales": "Kindle Sales – The E-Reader Device Is Dying A Rapid Death" https://justpublishingadvice.com/the-e-reader-device-is-dying-a-rapid-death/ https://justpublishingadvice.com/the-e-reader-device-is-dyin... I'm aware that many people find reading on an E Ink display e-book reader preferable to reading on a tablet or phone. When consumers pull out their wallets to make a purchase, however, they prefer tablets and phones.
    - ant6n 6y ago
      E-Readers are single-purpose device. EInk are a screen technology. Comparison to phones only make sense if it was possible to purchase tablets, phones, laptops, monitors with eink screens. There exist some tablets (e.g. remarkable), but they are pretty expensive.

TheRealSteel 6y ago

>then you basically have a problem with patents altogether That's correct, I do. Patents should protect the rights long enough to bring a product to market, not stop all competition in an entire field of technology for decades

lukifer 6y ago
Patents outlaw thinking.
- abeppu 6y ago
  I think it's worse than this. Patents can reward shallow, crappy thinking. You can patent an idea which you haven't figured out how to build -- which I think almost always means you can patent it before you've finished figuring out enough to make it useful.

acabal 6y ago

In this particular case, I don't think the problem is patents (thought I do have a lot of problems with patents as a concept), rather poor business decisions by eInk. They are indeed using patents as originally envisioned: They have an effective monopoly on epaper displays. However their poor business decision of ultra-high pricing has prevented a serious market for their product from forming. Had they lowered their price per display, or done some kind of affordable licensing scheme with manufacturers, it's totally possible for them to have made tons of money while still allowing epaper displays to flourish in the market. But that's not what they did; who knows what kind of money they're actually making, but the fact that the epaper market is basically on Kindle life support isn't the patent's fault. (Edit: Perhaps Amazon had a hand in preventing wide adoption of epaper, in order to more effectively squash Kindle competitors?)

CrazyCatDog 6y ago
Yes—-there has got to be more to the story-otherwise they could hire a sophomore Econ major, learn about elasticity, and pull in exponentially higher earnings. I have seen contracts between large manufacturers where one pre-purchases exclusivity variants, like: 1) Exclusive licensing for x years 2) Exclusive licensing for x years after the first time buyer deploys tech not to exceed W years (usually 10) 3) Very limited sales/licensing to others This smells like (3) + (2) here.
gowld 6y ago
If eInk is undervaluing their business, why hasn't anyone bought the company and run it better?
- citizenpaul 6y ago
  You can't buy a business if the owner doesn't want to sell.
robinsoh 6y ago
> However their poor business decision of ultra-high pricing I work in the display industry and what I know for sure is that they can't make big 20", 32", 42" displays. Something about factory production issues so they're literally like hand making the big displays which to me seems like the reason why they cost so much. So I'm suspicious of your claim. Could you let us know which ultra-high prices you're referring to? What panel size? What DPI? What bin range and contrast range? Do you actually work in the industry and have knowledge of costs and pricing? > Perhaps Amazon had a hand in preventing wide adoption of epaper, in order to more effectively squash Kindle competitors? I'm sorry to be harsh but you sound ridiculous when you say that. And now I'm pretty certain you don't have industry knowledge. You do realize that Amazon spent hundreds of millions trying to scale up Liquavista to produce fast colour displays for the Kindle. It failed because again physics of electrowetting is complex especially when you go from handmaking 100 demo displays to trying to produce 1000 on a rolling production line. Maybe a billion and maybe then they could have succeeded but I guess Jeff had other cost issues or personal reasons that ended that.

tomc1985 6y ago

"Don't hate the player, hate the game!" But yes I agree that patent reform is sorely needed, for this reason amongst others. There has to be a middle ground where ideas can flourish while their creators can still extract profit.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cle 6y ago

> Just to clarify, if you have a problem with what eInk is doing here, then you basically have a problem with patents altogether. What in the world? So I can't agree that the patent system is net positive, and disagree with a company's specific business decisions under that system? What a blatant false dichotomy.

dwaltrip 6y ago
Can you elaborate how the patent system is good in general, yet e-ink is abusing it in a unique way? I don’t have a ton of knowledge on patents or E-ink’s business practices.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  Answering my own question via a helpful comment I found below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26172785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26172785
- ketralnis 6y ago
  Surely I'm allowed to be unhappy with the result without claiming to be a legal expert with the perfect solution

snvzz 6y ago

>"maybe we should come up with a better incentive system than patents". Patents are on ideas. Does anybody in this planet actually believe that, without an artificial incentive, ideas won't happen?

evrydayhustling 6y ago
Patents are not on ideas. They are on ideas reduced to practice. If you can find another method for the same outcome, it's not covered by the patent. If you improve on the method , you can patent the improvement and charge the original holder to license it. The biggest thing wrong with patents are the logistics (lengthy, expensive filings and 20y monopolies are ridiculous today) and the lack of oversight in identitying prior art or vague, overreaching scopes.
- Teever 6y ago
  Ideas reduced to practice are still ideas. They're just metaideas.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > charge the original holder to license it. Or the holder can charge so much for their idea that yours, which depends on theirs, is effectively worth nothing because it's priced above its value.
- snvzz 6y ago
  Patents are an extremely strong restriction on freedom, and need an even stronger justification. That they "might", "maybe", be an incentive to creativity is not exactly a strong justification. It is highly likely patents are doing more damage than good.
  - rswail 6y ago
    Their justification, at least in the United States is Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” You can argue the meaning of "limited times" and "discoveries" and the interpretation of all that, but the justification is that by providing a limited monopoly, the inventor gets a period to make money uncontested, after which the invention is available to the community. The alternative, a "trade secret", means that the invention may die with the death of the inventor and be lost to the community.

kristopolous 6y ago

Innovation happened before patents and it's happening fine in industries without monopoly protections, such as food and clothing. There you need innovation And fair prices And good service And availability. You can't just hide behind a protection, extract economic rent and keep everyone else out. Also countries without strong rigorous patent protections are swiftly outmanoeuvring those with protections. When copyrights were extended in 1976 and 1998 for example, there was no measurable effect to the amount of copyrighted works being produced. If the incentivize hypothesis held, there should be a measurable increase in the velocity of copyrighted works pivoting on the dates of those extensions. No such increase was observed. Where is the data to back up the claim? There is none. So the incentivization hypothesis is not only disputed by evidence but also lacks any supporting evidence, so it's incorrect. It's a testable hypothesis that's been tested. It doesn't exist, no matter how much you close your eyes and think it's true, it's simply not real. Patents and protections simply do not incentivize innovation, the evidence suggests they stifle and hamper it. No amount of fundamentalist dogma of desperately clutching wrong answers can change this reality.

mqus 6y ago

The key thing with most patents is that the fees have to be "fair" (which is afaik also a legal requirement). In eInks case, the fee seems to be too high[1]. Now, does anyone want to go to court over this? nope. [1] I'm just judging on the reaction here and on how competitive the prices are

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The key thing with most patents is that the fees have to be "fair" (which is afaik also a legal requirement). It is generally not. Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing terms are often contractually required from holders of standards-essential parents that are participants in standards-setting organizations responsible for the relevant standards, but are generally not required by law outside of such contracts.

amluto 6y ago

I will bite the bullet here. I think the patent system is a net negative, and I think eInk is a great example of how the patent system discourages useful innovation. I can imagine alternate patent systems that would better encourage innovation. I can also imagine that no patent system at all could work fairly well.

robinsoh 6y ago
> I think eInk is a great example of how the patent system discourages useful innovation. Could you explain this? Because which patent is discouraging useful innovation? I'm actively working in the display industry and have no idea what you are referring to. I've asked this question before and I only get conspiracy theory answers like "secret consortium", or lazy answers like patent thicket. If you aren't actually working in the display industry, then how exactly do you know what is blocking useful innovation? Because if you were to ask me what's blocking useful innovation, it is the fact that investors are much more willing to put billions into AI/ML or an internet service startup than they are into scaling up a niche display technology or improving yields so that the price can come down.
- amluto 6y ago
  I do not work in the display industry, but I can point at the 3D printing industry as an example. Several years ago, some critical patents expired, resulting in a burst of innovation. Or take 2D printers, where parties to giant cross licensing agreements can make printers and it’s very hard for anyone else to sell into the US market. And yes, if I were an investor in display technology, I would be quite hesitant to touch electronic ink style displays due to patents. Here’s a fascinating paper on the usefulness of patents: https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-03...
  - robinsoh 6y ago
    > I can point at the 3D printing industry as an example. Several years ago, some critical patents expired, resulting in a burst of innovation Yes, I've read that as well from magazines but I must admit I've never checked the journalist claims or seen what critical patent expired that made the 3d printing industry flourish. Because it could just have well been access to open source designs that only flourished in the 2000s but I know nothing about 3d printing so I'm just speculating and making it clear that I'm doing that. So when it comes to posts here about my own industry which I feel I know pretty well, I see claims that seem farcical to me so I've been asking, which critical patent does EInk have? So far, I've not had any answer. > And yes, if I were an investor in display technology, I would be quite hesitant to touch electronic ink style displays due to patents. If I was your boss, I'd again ask a simple question. Which patent? If you can't identify it, then do you think it is possible it is an incorrect belief based on perhaps a lack of understanding of the display industry?

marcus_holmes 6y ago

Patents are broken. They reward deep pockets, those who have enough money to fight a long, expensive, court battle. They do not reward innovation. I know startups who have failed to get a patent because their invention was not "specific enough", and some who have failed to protect their invention because their patent was too specific to defend. They maintain the status quo, which is entirely antithetical to their purpose. They maybe work in biotech, and other industries where the capital investment is colossal and needs protecting. In most other industries, especially web tech, they're a net negative and need to be abolished.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>They reward deep pockets >They do not reward innovation. I suppose, although I think an eink display is reasonably innovative, and I don't think the company has particularly deep pockets in comparison to the companies we generally complain about around here.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Eink is innovative. That doesn't mean patents reward innovation. As others have said, they're chasing a monopoly on these types of displays, aided by their use of patents. That's not something we should be encouraging. The point of patents was to give a limited window for the inventor of a thing to exclusively capitalise on the thing, in return for making the details of the thing public so that others could in turn expand and improve on the thing. This is not what's happening here.
Jemm 6y ago
> They reward deep pockets, those who have enough money to fight a long, expensive, court battle. You have just described the legal system as a whole.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Yes, indeed. And the legal system is also broken because of it.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Just to clarify, if you have a problem with what eInk is doing here, then you basically have a problem with patents altogether. Not necessarily; having a problem with the way someone uses a legal property right is not the same thing as having a problem with them having the legal right to do what they are doing, i.e., the property right itself.

rk06 6y ago

in theory, the patents will allow industries to get an edge in tech and produce better product, and the cost is that some portion of the profits will go to eInk (patent author). The problem with eink is that patents are not sufficient to produce the desired tech, there is some secret ingredient which is not open, rendering all benefits useless