[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.

[robinsoh]

OK. And you've not responded to the simple question of which patent you were referring to. That makes it clear of your 'substantive'ness and again is consistent with what I've observed on HN about this type of comments.

[dredmorbius]

See in part: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32486570

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.

[robinsoh]

Could you state clearly that you are not an industry insider. You simply made a claim that patents were being used to block progress, but had no specific evidence for it. Correct? Very simple and allows readers to form their own conclusion about your allegations.