> Lab126 created some of the first e-ink technology, right? Is the Kindle, or e-ink screens, or e-ink patents, the worst thing ever... or is there something else I should know about in this space?
There's a lot to unpack in that sentence. Care to elaborate?
> The fact that almost everyone wants e-Ink technology, but e-Ink prices still are still really high [2][3] leads me to believe that either there are still patents at play that prevent competition from rising up, or that the competition hasn't managed to catch up for some other reason.
I disagree. It leads me to believe the underlying technology, electrophoretics isn't capable of achieving the volume scaling and update speeds that would make it achieve mass market pricing. Also the links you provided, do not substantiate the main thesis that's being asserted, ie "there are still patents at play that prevent competition from rising up". Further, the quotation you provided was from Behzadi who was a kickstarter guy who failed to deliver the product he promised and then proceeded to blame everyone else except himself.
There's a simple question you can ask to prove this to yourself. Ask everyone who is making this claim, which specific patent is blocking them and how exactly it blocks their idea. You'll instantly realize the people making these claims are not actual display engineers with knowledge of electrophoretics. Typcially, at best, they're bullshitters trying to sound clever or at worst like Behzadi, scammers who are trying to hide having overpromised and then misspent other people's money.
> Seriously, we have to re-think patents. The amount of money all that rent-seeking crap is costing societies each year is absurd, and not just in payments to trolls, but also stifled progress - think of stuff like e-Ink that's barely affordable.
You think patents is why e-Ink is 'barely affordable'? Could you elaborate on what data you used to form that conclusion? A simple question, lets say price of a panel versus cost of the raw materials to make it? What margin do you think they're making? Do you know?
> I determined they were happy and eager because I spent each evening with them eating and watching soccer. I was down there during Christmas, and Liat airlines happened to go on strike so I was stranded there for 3 additional days. They made me feel very welcomed. I would spend the evening with them and then walk the ~2 miles back to the small house that was rented for me
In my opinion, this reminds me of a course I took about ethics. Slave owners and slave traders would say their slaves were happy because they would sing while working and play games like jump rope and hopscotch. The owners would also say their slaves loved them, especially the ones that were 'house slaves' that tended to be young women. A good example of that would be Thomas Jefferson and the underage child, Sally Hemmings who had his children. More recently Qatari companies caught using indentured/slave labor to build the FIFA stadium made similar remarks about their 'workers'.
Thank you for sharing your experience. It convinces me that people can easily find ways to convince themselves everything is fine.
> It was a British project management firm and it was the first and only time I ever experienced anything like that. It wouldn't be the most ideal situation for me, but they seem eager and happy to be there.
What was the name of the project management firm? I am curious how you determined that they seemed eager and happy to be there.
> I don't believe it should be compared to slavery since they chose to be there and they were paid well for their time
> From what I know, e-ink tech is and has been very feasible, but is on hold since it's under patent. The company that holds the patent is notoriously slow to reach any licensing deals in a timely fashion to bring a product to market. Not to mention their exorbitant licensing fees. The end product turns out to be to expensive to market.
"From what I know". Could you clarify? This is first hand knowledge based on industry experience?
Could you please cite which specific patent you're referring to and what you mean by "e-ink tech" and "has been very feasible"? I'm assuming you actually have detailed knowledge of the display technology. Could you also please cite some evidence for the "notoriously slow to reach any licensing deals"? I'm assuming you actually have detailed knowledge of these licensing deals you're referring to. Hopefully your citation will be something other than a HN post by a throwaway account and blogs that cite that specific HN post and other HN posts that infinite loop circle back on those blog posts. Hopefully you'll give the rest of us first hand evidence and a reply based on actual experience that you personally have from years working in the electrophoretic display industry where you were held back under E-Ink's titanium and carbon coated jack boot and patent-waterboarded with high viscosity electrophoretic solvent? :-D That's the evidence the rest of us have been eagerly seeking to see and hear. I look forward with bated breath. Thank you.
I ask this, perhaps a little comically disingenously since I work in the display industry (not for E Ink) and I've asked the exact same question so many times on HN and have never gotten even a remotely satisfying answer which makes me think your extremely confident claim in your post, like the many before it are just Dunning Kruger in effect. But I'll still keep a sliver of a slightly open mind so that I can be convinced. Otherwise, I would recommend everyone treat your type of comment as equivalent to someone in the farming industry alleging that a good solid operating system has been very feasible but IBM is holding back the software industry with their patents and is notoriously slow to reach any licensing deals.
> In the Ancient Greek times the Olympic Games were an opportunities for friends an enemies to come together and have FUN!
Not sure if you're being serious or being sarcastic. Any evidence for your claim?
The ancient Olympics (as the name itself implies!) is about religion. Olympus!
Violence, murder, corruption was part of it. Perhaps as much as it is today.
"Sotades at the ninety-ninth Festival was victorious in the long race and proclaimed a Cretan, as in fact he was. But at the next Festival he made himself an Ephesian, being bribed to do so by the Ephesian people. For this act he was banished by the Cretans."
"In 67, the Roman Emperor Nero competed in the chariot race at Olympia. He was thrown from his chariot and was thus unable to finish the race. Nevertheless, he was declared the winner on the basis that he would have won if he had finished the race."
> I mean the .fw/.ihex files, you have really not seen them?
Not from E Ink. .fw is from Freescale. Never seen any .ihex E Ink waveform data file. Could you point to an actual example since you seem to imply it is very common?
> They are not redistributable, and eInk DMCAs attempts at hosting them;
You're clearly mischaracterizing my post history to push your narrative instead of providing useful data for this discussion. Your communication style is abrasive enough to make me stop responding to you. Thank you.
> as always absence of evidence doesn't really mean much.
My issue is that there's folks repeatedly saying confidently that there's a patent issue. Which I initially thought was real, and genuinely asked thinking they'd share terrible tales of misbehavior and patent evil committed by the accused company. Over time (more than a year) of this repetition trying to get answers, it seems pretty clear to me that it is not real and is just based on people who have no display industry experience or even a basic understanding of electrophoretic materials just saying 'it should be better than this by now, so the problem must be the company that produces the product'. They often have a Dunning Kruger level of confidence in making their claims. Examples:
"It is indeed a complex patent and licensing issue."
"there were a bunch of patents in the way."
" Imagine where electronic ink displays could be today if E Ink wasn't such a terrible steward of the initial technology."
Not even one of the posters cared to defend their claim when I asked for just a bit of clarification about what they were basing their claim on.
Here we find ourselves again, still without any answer about which patents and what the actual issue is. If you're attempting to initiate a thread about 'communication style' then I'll respectfully wait until we get some concrete answers to the original patent question. Thank you.
You made a claim that patents are blocking progress in the display industry. When I asked you for evidence of that, you've become hostile and turned the thread into an unproductive interaction. That's my genuine observation of this thread.
> That is quite a jumble of overlapping / inter-locking patents. The goal is to prevent competition using similar technology. It looks effective. And to answer your next question, no I'm not in the display industry,
So you're not in the display industry, and yet you claim there's overlapping /inter-locking patents. Please tell the rest of us a bit more. What's inter-locking about them? So if I did: patents/search=ibm or search=microsoft does that also meet your claim? So let me guess, you believe IBM is blocking progress in the software industry?
> It's impossible to respond -- it just makes assertions that are impossible to verify, and without throwing any sources.
I have to say this is ridiculous. You're making a claim that patents are blocking progress. When I ask which patent and for details, you're response is that I'm making assertions that can't be verified. That's exactly what I'm saying about your comment.
> And people have given you some very detailed answers, which you never seem to respond constructively to.
Could you provide a link to where you see that? I disagree with that characterization.
I should also point out that still, even in this thread, again, no one has been able to tell the rest of us (who want evidence we can verify) what specific patent they're talking about. Instead the same old answer, of "all of their patents" comes out. This is the same as saying IBM patents are blocking progress in the software industry.
Of course, the throwaway post that I already said was clearly misinformed at many levels is cited as if it was gospel evidence of patent misbehavior.
> In my previous company we had to reverse engineer their waveforms in order to build usable products even though we were buying quite a lot of displays.
Yes, this is obviously true. You realize it is the equivalent of saying, I bought a Samsung LCD and then I wanted to change the LCD's internal drive voltages and drive circuit waveforms and Samsung didn't help me do that. And how is that in any way related to patents? I asked for evidence backing your claim that patents are blocking progress in the electrophoretic display industry. Would you care to answer that instead of deflecting?
> the patents on e-ink really are holding the technology back while preventing affordable access
Once again. Which patent? Which technology? All of them? I'm left convinced that you're not basing your claim on evidence, but instead just on 'feelings'.
> you have interrogated any poster who was ever mentioned patent problems, and demanded that they provide you with sources. It is not clear why they are required to do that.
OP made a claim. I asked for basic evidence. If that's interrogation, then sure. Are they required to do that? Not really. But it would certainly help convincing me. As it stands, it sounds like bullshit to me. It is the equivalent of saying IBM patents are holding back the software industry. Which patent, you ask? Oh, all of them. That's the answer you're giving.
There's a lot to unpack in that sentence. Care to elaborate?