3 ms·
Okay, my mistake. if there’s no patent there, there’s no problem there. Kinda proves my point that the absence of patents allows innovation to grow, I have not
by strawhatguy 5y ago
Okay, my mistake. if there’s no patent there, there’s no problem there.
Kinda proves my point that the absence of patents allows innovation to grow, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary; it’s usually the “but what about the little guy” defense, not mentioning any “little guy” who was helped
- robinsoh 5y agoI'm trying to understand what you're trying to communicate but I don't get it. Could you elaborate what you're trying to say because it sounds like you're claiming patents are bad (absence of patents = innovation growth) but we know that patents arose initially at least to protect inventors. Anyway we've gone well outside my initial question which was about which eink patent.
- strawhatguy 5y agohm, didn't see this. Yeah, I do believe that patents tend to undermine innovation pretty much everywhere, and yes, I do acknowledge that that was not the intent. The intent was to grant a temporary monopoly on an invention, to give an inventor time to 'cash-in'. Unfortunately that means it's effectively 'closed-source': no one else can make improvements to it w/o permission, and so I think a lot of innovation happens when a patent lapses. If that hasn't happened with e-ink displays, cool, then I must've misread something. It's hard to imagine e-ink displays being patent-free however.
- strawhatguy 5y agohere's a paper on it: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.1.3 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.1.3