3 ms·
I'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 claim
by robinsoh 5y ago
I'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