[dredmorbius]

I'd say you might get your wish in about five years, after present patents expire. There will doubtless be new developments, but present devices are absolutely sufficient for e-book reading and most web surfing / tablet tasks, even at monochrome and modest 0.5 -- 16 Hz refresh or so. Higher-quality display is slower to refresh, though almost all instances are well under sub-second.

Colour displays are slower as I understand.

[tpmx]

We really should shorten patent lifespans to like 10 years. And like 5 (or 0) years for pure software patents.

Things are moving faster these days, with the interwebs and all.

[nmstoker]

Yes, 20 years in the modern world is far too long given that the pace of change is dramatically faster than it was when 20 years seems reasonable. It would motivate patent holders in their efforts to get the most from a patent, as many sit far too comfortably bidding their time which defeats the public good purpose behind patents

[Retric]

It's less of a problem with how long patients last, instead it’s the ease and scope of patents granted.

[dredmorbius]

Also a matter of how many patents are accumulated by a single entity.

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.

[tpmx]

The former parameter (how long the patents last) is dramatically easier to define in law than the scope.

[dleslie]

Are you referring to the patent encumbered display tech found in the olpc laptops?

Because those were simply phenomenal. I have two and I've never had a display quite their equal in direct sunlight.

[robinsoh]

> 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...

[dleslie]

Direct sunlight being the key part of what I said; I've never had any other display that was so legible while sitting at the end of a dock with a blazing sun blasting straight down upon the screen.

Otherwise, for sure, in general conditions it was mediocre.

And yes, the whole project was sketchy as hell, in retrospect.

[Wowfunhappy]

My Panic PlayDate, which lacks the paper-like contrast of e-ink but can refresh at 50 fps, looks fantastic in direct sunlight. I believe it’s using a Sharp Memory LCD.

So there is other tech for this.

[dleslie]

But it's just black and white, right? Still, that sounds promising.

[Wowfunhappy]

Yes, and the pixels can only be either black or white, not shades of grey. (Although dithering is surprisingly effective.)

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.

[robinsoh]

> after present patents expire.

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.

[dredmorbius]

Searching "by:robinsoh e-ink patent" over the past year turns up numerous comments, mostly variants of "I've explained this before", but none with a link to the specific explanation you have in mind. If you happen to know of a reference, it's a courtesy to others to provide it directly.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...

Do you mean this comment?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28465158

[robinsoh]

> but none with a link to the specific explanation you have in mind. If you happen to know of a reference, it's a courtesy to others to provide it directly.

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?

[dredmorbius]

What I'm hoping for here is for you to point to the specific comment(s) you have in mind.

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.

[robinsoh]

> 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.

[dredmorbius]

Thank you.

I was simply looking for the substantive version of your position.

I believe you've expressed it.