See, I don’t want a tablet. Tablet implies fast refresh rates, minimal ghosting, fast processor, etc.
It’s a different purpose than a screen I can stick on a wall and only look at a few times in the morning. That lower quality on the panel and hardware should bring costs on the tech lower.
Hell, I don’t even really need 8 shades of color.
If someone can stick a low power processor on there and make it run on some rechargeable AAAs, even better.
Just to be clear, the costs are in licensing the eink tech from the company that owns the patents. The processors in the eink tablets available today are not expensive processors.
It’s the display that is prohibitively and arbitrarily expensive. None of the other variables matter since all of the low power / retain image advantage is solely because of that display.
And large e-ink displays will remain niche, simply because of the company’s pricing.
I don’t think it really applies to patent holders. The company doesn’t make the displays – they license their patent to the companies that make the displays. The licensing cost is what causes the displays to remain expensive, but I’m not sure this counts as a monopoly. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like patent holders can do pretty much what they like with the patent (and indeed, that kind of seems like the whole point of a patent).
Sounds like Patents need to be changed then. Especially for variations of normal technology. Like, someone should not be able to patent a new variation of an OLED display. But, if you create a NEW product (E.x something that literally doesn’t exist yet that creates a new market) then you can patent that. And, patents should expire in 3 years, hard limitation.
Well, those products didn’t exist when they made eink displays. The whole point of a patent is to grant a temporary monopoly in exchange for the patent holder making details of the invention public. The patent holder gets a monopoly on producing and selling that thing so they can recoup their investment, and competitors can make derivatives after the patent period.
If a product already exists, you can’t patent it because it falls under the “prior art” restriction.
That said, I absolutely agree that patents should have a much shorter duration. I think the right number is somewhere in the 5-7 year range, but others certainly have different opinions. What I’d like is an actual, national discussion about it instead of just random ranting on social media.
See, I don’t want a tablet. Tablet implies fast refresh rates, minimal ghosting, fast processor, etc.
It’s a different purpose than a screen I can stick on a wall and only look at a few times in the morning. That lower quality on the panel and hardware should bring costs on the tech lower.
Hell, I don’t even really need 8 shades of color.
If someone can stick a low power processor on there and make it run on some rechargeable AAAs, even better.
Just to be clear, the costs are in licensing the eink tech from the company that owns the patents. The processors in the eink tablets available today are not expensive processors.
It’s the display that is prohibitively and arbitrarily expensive. None of the other variables matter since all of the low power / retain image advantage is solely because of that display.
And large e-ink displays will remain niche, simply because of the company’s pricing.
So… Someone needs to sue them for a monopoly? Seems pretty cut and dry.
I don’t think it really applies to patent holders. The company doesn’t make the displays – they license their patent to the companies that make the displays. The licensing cost is what causes the displays to remain expensive, but I’m not sure this counts as a monopoly. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like patent holders can do pretty much what they like with the patent (and indeed, that kind of seems like the whole point of a patent).
Sounds like Patents need to be changed then. Especially for variations of normal technology. Like, someone should not be able to patent a new variation of an OLED display. But, if you create a NEW product (E.x something that literally doesn’t exist yet that creates a new market) then you can patent that. And, patents should expire in 3 years, hard limitation.
Well, those products didn’t exist when they made eink displays. The whole point of a patent is to grant a temporary monopoly in exchange for the patent holder making details of the invention public. The patent holder gets a monopoly on producing and selling that thing so they can recoup their investment, and competitors can make derivatives after the patent period.
If a product already exists, you can’t patent it because it falls under the “prior art” restriction.
That said, I absolutely agree that patents should have a much shorter duration. I think the right number is somewhere in the 5-7 year range, but others certainly have different opinions. What I’d like is an actual, national discussion about it instead of just random ranting on social media.
No disagreements! It does seem like an area that needs improvement.
A patent is a state-granted monopoly.