[5560675260]

> would you feel my claim was accurate?

No, because Coca-cola isn't expensive - it costs about as much soft drinks produced by other companies. Furthermore I don't believe that there are any relevant patents left - its formula is a trade secret. IMO if this was the case with e-ink - we would see much better adoption and prices.

Is Windows expensive right now? I don't know how much exactly vendors pay to install it on hardware before sale. But I do know that Windows beats free alternatives (FreeDOS, Linux), so it's at least not unreasonably/prohibitively expensive. Furthermore Windows price is justified by its great advantage over competitors - huge ecosystem of software. Can the same be said about E ink? It's worse than literal paper for static images, worse than LCD for dynamic content. There is a niche for content that sometimes has to change, like on price tags, but those screens are significantly cheaper than what we're complaining about in this thread.

[robinsoh]

> IMO if this was the case with e-ink - we would see much better adoption and prices.

It is unclear what you mean. I already asked which specific patent needs to be canceled for your belief (hope?) to become true. I hope you don't give the same answer others here gave in the past. Which was: all of them. That just indicates a lack of understanding of the underlying physics of electrophoretics.

> Can the same be said about E ink? It's worse than literal paper for static images, worse than LCD for dynamic content. There is a niche for content that sometimes has to change, like on price tags, but those screens are significantly cheaper than what we're complaining about in this thread.

Yes. But how is that related to what I asked about? OP said it was expensive, and mentioned patents. I asked what OP meant by that. Because expensive based on what calculation? Just relative to LCDs? That's like saying a bottle of Chablis wine is more expensive than a bottle of coke. Sure. I agree 100% with that and I can only hope people understand why. It has nothing to do with patents.

[5560675260]

> I already already asked which specific patent needs to be canceled for your belief (hope?) to become true.

Why do you find "all of them" answer to be unsatisfactory? Development of same or similar technologies by entities other than E-ink is possible only under one condition: those entities are safe from patent infringement lawsuit. With only a few specific patents expire/get knocked down somehow it would still be impossible to find investors bold enough.

> Yes. But how is that related to what I asked about? ... Because expensive based on what calculation?

You've made an analogy with Windows and I've offered an explanation of why OEM licence of Windows preinstalled on a notebook isn't seen as expensive, unlike e-ink screen of a €900 picture frame.

> It has nothing to do with patents.

Well, you might be right. Maybe it's impossible to manufacture e-paper screens at a significantly lower price point. Maybe it's inherent to this specific technology and no amount of competition and investment will be able to fix it. But we will not know it for sure any time soon. Because of patents.

[robinsoh]

> Why do you find "all of them" answer to be unsatisfactory?

You're making a claim analogous to saying "Microsoft is causing operating system prices to be excessive because of their patents". And when someone asks could you provide evidence for that, you just say "all of their patents". Can you follow why that answer is unsatisfactory?

It seems pretty clear to me that this claim that patents are the problem are coming from people who have no experience in the electronics industry or understanding of the physics of electrophoretic displays.

> Maybe it's inherent to this specific technology and no amount of competition and investment will be able to fix it. But we will not know it for sure any time soon. Because of patents.

Again. Which patent? All of them? Sigh....