4 ms·

There are areas where I am more skeptical of how patents are used (see: publicly funded medical research that creates privately owned patents), but I just don't

There are areas where I am more skeptical of how patents are used (see: publicly funded medical research that creates privately owned patents), but I just don't see this as a problem in this case. This isn't an essential technology - it's a nice addition to our display options. There's every reason to believe that new tech has actual new costs associated with it and that inventions might require elevated rates to make developing new tech economical. I don't like everything about patents - but they give companies a premium for new tech and the companies reveal how to make the tech in return. It seems to me that if we eliminated patents w/o a new system, investing in technology would simply have a lower rate of return, and so it would happen less. I actually think that's ok - but I think people who bemoan the legal exclusivity that companies say enables them to invest in research should consider how much longer they would wait for the tech they like.

Kuinox 5y ago
Technology isn't essential until there is a breakthrough. Eink allow ultra low power display. If you make it extremely cheap it can be worldchanging: Extremely cheap screen that draw no power when there is no change.
cogman10 5y ago
The issue is the length of time. It takes a year or 2 for most companies to make these sorts of breakthroughs. Yet they are grant 20 years of ownership over the idea. It isn't as if the e-ink investment was a billion dollars and years of arduous research. By them owning the patents to e-ink, others that might contribute and advance the technology are blocked out all together. To me, it's reasonable to simply cut the tech patent timeframe. Rather than 20 years, what if we moved it back to 15, 10, or 5 years?