The original patents expired years ago (2016/2017?) and even before them EInk had some legal setbacks (Trekstor/OED). I remember buying a Plastic Logic device that used a different tech w/ similar output (OTFT substrate), and we've seen waves of technologies/companies come and go (Liquivista, Clearink, Mirasol, QR-LPD, DES, RLCD, etc.) so there isn't any shortage of competing technologies, it just turns out development/productization of new display technologies is massively expensive (EInk worked w/ Philips to get started and had to spend hundreds of millions ramping up production) and pretty thankless - Mary Lou Jepson had some interesting public discussions on the economics of new display tech when launching/running Pixel Qi.
I've heard that Eink is notoriously hard to work with and as an outsider looking in, their product development is frustratingly slow, but it's a public company (acquired by a Taiwanese company a long while back), and looking at their financials over recent years, their operating margins seem to be 10-15%, which I guess beats a lot of other display companies, but still doesn't seem so impressive vs other semi/tech companies. That no one's disrupted them over the past few decades I think speaks to how it's more than just an IP moat at play.
They seem to be pretty much the opposite of a patent troll, no? I mean, you and I may not like how aggressively they are approaching it, but they did develop the technology.
Overall you can argue they as a company would have done better to allow the tech to broaden and reap licensing fees, but you can't argue that it isn't their decision to make. Or, you can, but you aren't arguing against these guys but the system of IP laws in general.
mrd3v0|2 years ago
criddell|2 years ago
Calling them patent trolls seems especially weird since since the Eink company actually produces a lot of stuff.
lhl|2 years ago
I've heard that Eink is notoriously hard to work with and as an outsider looking in, their product development is frustratingly slow, but it's a public company (acquired by a Taiwanese company a long while back), and looking at their financials over recent years, their operating margins seem to be 10-15%, which I guess beats a lot of other display companies, but still doesn't seem so impressive vs other semi/tech companies. That no one's disrupted them over the past few decades I think speaks to how it's more than just an IP moat at play.
ska|2 years ago
Overall you can argue they as a company would have done better to allow the tech to broaden and reap licensing fees, but you can't argue that it isn't their decision to make. Or, you can, but you aren't arguing against these guys but the system of IP laws in general.
braunboffel|2 years ago
Where? How? Please share some evidence so that your claims can be verified.
fortran77|2 years ago