Imagine where electronic ink displays could be today if E Ink wasn't such a terrible steward of the initial technology.
Colour displays are slower as I understand.
Things are moving faster these days, with the interwebs and all.
In days of yore (and possibly still today), IBM would reach into its bag of thousands of patents, extract a handful, and allege infringement. The target might well successfully prove otherwise.
IBM would reach into its bag of thousands of patents, and extract another handful. The first defence had already cost the target several millions in litigation, not recoverable even on a finding of non-infringement.
This was explained to me in person by an individual with a long history of fighting such fights, back in the 1990s.
Because those were simply phenomenal. I have two and I've never had a display quite their equal in direct sunlight.
That's odd. I've had and evaluated the XO-1 using Jepsen's displays and found them to be of low quality for even that timeframe. Even basic things like the resolution were terrible for that time. There's good reasons why they (both OLPC and PixelQi) were unsuccessful. OLPC was a disaster and in my opinion just a way to transfer money from the education budgets of developing countries and UN funding into the pockets of people who enjoyed hanging out in swanky incredibly costly offices at 1 Cambridge Way with guys like Nicholas Negroponte, Joi Ito and Jeffrey Epstein instead of actually achieving real progress. [1]
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/09/05/133159/mit-media...
Otherwise, for sure, in general conditions it was mediocre.
And yes, the whole project was sketchy as hell, in retrospect.
So there is other tech for this.
My Pebble Time Smartwatch had a color memory LCD which was also easy to read in direct sunlight, but the PlayDate's screen looks a lot better.
Which specific patents are you referring to? If you can't answer that question without googling "eink patents", then like many others who've made this claim on HN you're not in the industry and don't actually know anything about electrophoretic chemistry and don't realize what the real obstacles are. See my comment history for details.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
Do you mean this comment?
It is unclear what exactly you want explained to you. Or what reference you are referring to. I asked what patent you are pointing to as evidence of the allegation that you made and instead of addressing that, you're asking me for evidence that no such patent exists? How will I be able to do that?
You're ... being somewhat less than helpful here, and are doing much the same as you've repeatedly accused others of doing: hand-waving vaguely in some general direction without being specific.
I'd be interested in discussing, or even simply understanding, what point(s) you're making. But you're failing to make them here, or indicate where you've made them previously.
If you have a specific comment that discusses the objections to the e-ink patent encumbrance concept, please link them or make them again here.
You seem to be intentionally engaging in a circular argument. The parent post said "after present patents expire". So please answer a simple question. Which specific patents are you referring to? Are you going to google and give a random list of eink patents? I hope you can see why I think that's a counterproductive response.
I stand by what I wrote earlier.
I'll repeat it again. " Which specific patents are you referring to? If you can't answer that question without googling "eink patents", then like many others who've made this claim on HN you're not in the industry and don't actually know anything about electrophoretic chemistry and don't realize what the real obstacles are. See my comment history for details. "
It is the equivalent of saying IBM is blocking progress in the software industry because of IBM patents.
I hope it is clear how ridiculous that claim is. That's why I asked the simple question to which I still haven't gotten an answer.
I was simply looking for the substantive version of your position.
I believe you've expressed it.
At this point, I'm investigating the issue. I don't jump immediately to conclusions. And I'd wanted, as noted several times above, simply to understand what your own argument / evidence is.
There's also a comment in HN history by an insider using a throwaway who discusses the dynamics by which control is exercised. And it's not through specific patents, as my comment linked above notes. Quantity has a quality all its own, as Stalin reputedly said.
I'm sure you can find it with as much ease as I'd turned up your own earlier relevant comments.
I suspect we'll have an opportunity to address this question again in future.
What do you mean? Any data or evidence for that?