[robinsoh]

> And people have given you some very detailed answers, which you never seem to respond constructively to.

Could you provide a link to where you see that? I disagree with that characterization.

I should also point out that still, even in this thread, again, no one has been able to tell the rest of us (who want evidence we can verify) what specific patent they're talking about. Instead the same old answer, of "all of their patents" comes out. This is the same as saying IBM patents are blocking progress in the software industry.

Of course, the throwaway post that I already said was clearly misinformed at many levels is cited as if it was gospel evidence of patent misbehavior.

> In my previous company we had to reverse engineer their waveforms in order to build usable products even though we were buying quite a lot of displays.

Yes, this is obviously true. You realize it is the equivalent of saying, I bought a Samsung LCD and then I wanted to change the LCD's internal drive voltages and drive circuit waveforms and Samsung didn't help me do that. And how is that in any way related to patents? I asked for evidence backing your claim that patents are blocking progress in the electrophoretic display industry. Would you care to answer that instead of deflecting?