Lets go through the "evidence" you've provided.
> Wired discusses patent restriction here
It doesn't. That paragraph is a quote from Yashar Behzadi, the disgraced ex-CEO of Popslate that stole the money of their indiegogo funders. "Popslate shuts down after raising $1m on Indiegogo". http://oaxis.com/en/popslate-shuts-1m-indiegogo/
> Just look at the relevant patents still being filed by the company here (mostly trash)
I'm not going to debate that with you. But I'm sure you'll consider a patent filed by IBM on linked lists as innovative?
> See patent suits across the globe - Germany:
Yes, good, they lost a patent suit against a 3rd party buyer. I think that indicates the legal system is working properly.
> Here is the position for their patent lawyer,
And what is wrong with that? What exactly is objectionable there?
> Here are articles discussing the 115k yearly buy-in for their tech
Except you've managed to confuse E Ink with the MIT MediaLab Consortium. "MIT Media Lab's News in the Future group and its Things that Think consortium, which consists of about 40 companies, including Microsoft and other heavyweights. Each of the participating corporations paid up to €115,000 per year and thus obtains the right to use any patents awarded to MIT without paying additional royalties. "
> Wonder why 2016 saw a rapid increase in EPD devices? It's because they lost that 2015 case in the EU.
I haven't seen such a rapid increase.
I remember you used the term "bullshit" to describe my opinions. I've read through your initial claims that were presented with such confidence that any reader would assume they were gospel truth. It is clear to me now that Dunning Kruger is quite in effect with your claims.