4 ms·
> Monopoly and patents, I believe. So yes, it's technically not expensive to make, but licensing. R&D costs money, take that to mean what you want. Unfortunatel
by robinsoh 5y ago
> Monopoly and patents, I believe. So yes, it's technically not expensive to make, but licensing. R&D costs money, take that to mean what you want. Unfortunately the laws in our world have not caught up with technology changes.
What monopoly? There's no monopoly on bistable displays or even electrophoretic displays. What patents? Please try to be specific. I work in the display industry. The only place I hear stuff like what you're saying is on HN, which previously got picked up by Boing Boing and then blogs and then comments on HN which referenced those blogs. Surely, if this patent hell or monopoly hell was true we would have heard about it. Surely I would have heard about this problem from colleagues, coworkers or even gossip at conferences. Could you elaborate on your claim ? Please see my comment history to see why I keep asking about this. Hopefully this time I can get a positive data point where I can learn something unlike what I got the last time I tried to ask about this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27980391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27980391
- tadfisher 5y agoWhat is unsatisfactory about the patents that other commenters have repeatedly pointed out to you, and that obviously cover electrophoretic display technologies and manufacturing methods? Perhaps these are avoidable, but could you elaborate how, as someone who works in the display industry? For reference, here are a few more, easily found via Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9792861B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9792861B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9792862B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9792862B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7050040B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7050040B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8724212B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8724212B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8643939B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8643939B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9778538B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9778538B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7259744B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7259744B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7256765B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7256765B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7548366B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7548366B2/en
- robinsoh 5y ago> What is unsatisfactory about the patents that other commenters have repeatedly pointed out to you The same thing that I said in my past replies. See below. " And I have to point out that just googling for E Ink patents doesn't help us understand what point you are making. It is the equivalent of me claiming that Microsoft is blocking operating system progress and then justifying it by giving you a set of Microsoft patents. I hope the analogy is clear. " > Perhaps these are avoidable, but could you elaborate how, as someone who works in the display industry? This is the equivalent of someone claiming "patents are blocking progress" and then when I ask "why is that?", they reply "elaborate how patents are not blocking progress".