[robinsoh]

> Finally, I seem to remember that there were a bunch of patents in the way.

Remember? Meaning you worked in the display industry?

I work in the display industry. I've never heard anything like what you describe, except on HN comments and blogs that use HN comments as citations. Look at my comment history. I think your claim is false because everytime I've challenged a claim like yours the poster has never been able to substantiate it, but I keep an open mind, if you can provide some real citations backing your claim then I'm happy to be corrected.

[314]

Looking through your comment history it seems that you have interrogated any poster who was ever mentioned patent problems, and demanded that they provide you with sources. It is not clear why they are required to do that.

https://patents.justia.com/assignee/e-ink-holdings-inc

That is quite a jumble of overlapping / inter-locking patents. The goal is to prevent competition using similar technology. It looks effective. And to answer your next question, no I'm not in the display industry, just thought it seemed interesting.

[rjh29]

Challenging unsourced assumptions and combating misinformation is a noble goal. Is there any actual proof that companies other than e-Ink are unable to develop technology like this 7-colour display due to patents?

[314]

Not that I could find - but I didn't look for long to satisfy my curiosity. There was a case where e-Ink defended against another patent claim, but not any where they were the aggressor. The set of patents could be for defensive purposes (as in to be used in defending against other patents), or to prevent competition. I didn't find anything definite either way, but as always absence of evidence doesn't really mean much.

[robinsoh]

> as always absence of evidence doesn't really mean much.

My issue is that there's folks repeatedly saying confidently that there's a patent issue. Which I initially thought was real, and genuinely asked thinking they'd share terrible tales of misbehavior and patent evil committed by the accused company. Over time (more than a year) of this repetition trying to get answers, it seems pretty clear to me that it is not real and is just based on people who have no display industry experience or even a basic understanding of electrophoretic materials just saying 'it should be better than this by now, so the problem must be the company that produces the product'. They often have a Dunning Kruger level of confidence in making their claims. Examples:

"It is indeed a complex patent and licensing issue."

"there were a bunch of patents in the way."

" Imagine where electronic ink displays could be today if E Ink wasn't such a terrible steward of the initial technology."

Not even one of the posters cared to defend their claim when I asked for just a bit of clarification about what they were basing their claim on.

[robinsoh]

> you have interrogated any poster who was ever mentioned patent problems, and demanded that they provide you with sources. It is not clear why they are required to do that.

OP made a claim. I asked for basic evidence. If that's interrogation, then sure. Are they required to do that? Not really. But it would certainly help convincing me. As it stands, it sounds like bullshit to me. It is the equivalent of saying IBM patents are holding back the software industry. Which patent, you ask? Oh, all of them. That's the answer you're giving.

[smcleod]

To be fair, they're not wrong - the patents on e-ink really are holding the technology back while preventing affordable access to anything but the lowest specification implementations.

The justification for long running technology and drug patents is often given but it only furthers to promote aggressive capitalism and any opportunity for reasonable reform is quashed.

[robinsoh]

> the patents on e-ink really are holding the technology back while preventing affordable access

Once again. Which patent? Which technology? All of them? I'm left convinced that you're not basing your claim on evidence, but instead just on 'feelings'.

[robinsoh]

> That is quite a jumble of overlapping / inter-locking patents. The goal is to prevent competition using similar technology. It looks effective. And to answer your next question, no I'm not in the display industry,

So you're not in the display industry, and yet you claim there's overlapping /inter-locking patents. Please tell the rest of us a bit more. What's inter-locking about them? So if I did: patents/search=ibm or search=microsoft does that also meet your claim? So let me guess, you believe IBM is blocking progress in the software industry?

[314]

You seem to be unaware of your communication style. It would work better if you took some time to work out why your comments come across as hostile and unproductive.

So tell me, how long have you been in the patent-lawyer industry?

See, that does not come across as a good faith attempt to communicate. It is similar to your posting style throughout this thread. Instead of interrogating people and demanding replies, how about you read the patents and explain if you think they are overlapping / inter-locking or not. Out of interest, which company in the display industry do you work for?

[robinsoh]

You made a claim that patents are blocking progress in the display industry. When I asked you for evidence of that, you've become hostile and turned the thread into an unproductive interaction. That's my genuine observation of this thread.

[314]

I did not. You replied to another poster who made that claim, and I challenged your response.

Your communication style was abrasive enough to make me stop and respond to you.

[robinsoh]

Here we find ourselves again, still without any answer about which patents and what the actual issue is. If you're attempting to initiate a thread about 'communication style' then I'll respectfully wait until we get some concrete answers to the original patent question. Thank you.