this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
281 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

34832 readers
1 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's the display that is prohibitively and arbitrarily expensive. None of the other variables matter since all of the low power / retain image advantage is solely because of that display.

And large e-ink displays will remain niche, simply because of the company's pricing.

[–] Skiptrace@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So... Someone needs to sue them for a monopoly? Seems pretty cut and dry.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think it really applies to patent holders. The company doesn't make the displays -- they license their patent to the companies that make the displays. The licensing cost is what causes the displays to remain expensive, but I'm not sure this counts as a monopoly. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like patent holders can do pretty much what they like with the patent (and indeed, that kind of seems like the whole point of a patent).

[–] Skiptrace@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sounds like Patents need to be changed then. Especially for variations of normal technology. Like, someone should not be able to patent a new variation of an OLED display. But, if you create a NEW product (E.x something that literally doesn't exist yet that creates a new market) then you can patent that. And, patents should expire in 3 years, hard limitation.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

No disagreements! It does seem like an area that needs improvement.

[–] supert@lemmy.sdfeu.org 1 points 2 years ago

A patent is a state-granted monopoly.