131–140 of 194 posts
The picture presented has 133134 colors in it from my very rough calculation. That is not at all how the display will look.
I agree with the conclusion but how did you do your calculation? If you take a picture of a 16 colors screen you will find many more colors in that picture (main reason being that pixels won't align perfectly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn’t it those same companies that are the reason that memory isn’t $1000/megabyte?
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that they could price gouge even more than they already are and are keeping prices relatively low out of the goodness of their hearts?
> ACEP achieves a full color gamut, including all eight primary colors Last I checked there are three primary colors, and what is a full color gamut? There are several standard choices of gamut. What confuses me about color e-ink products is that it is a reflective display, yet none of them use a reflective color model (CMY) - all of them talk about RGB pigmented subpixels. Either what I learned about color reproduct…
For E-ink the colours don't actually mix with each other, so some basic maths shows that you would have even worse contrast with only three colours in a subtractive model:
Each ink colour absorbs only a single RGB channel, eg. cyan absorbs red. This means that at each location on the display, 2/3 of the light is reflected even when CMY channels are all at their maximum.
I think E-ink is neither an additive nor a subtractive colour model: it can only produce colours that exist somewhere between the extreme primary colours, ie. it's more of an "interpolating" colour model.
The inks probably come in pairs: black/white, red/cyan, green/magenta, blue/yellow. This gives the expected eight primary colours. For each pair, you would be able to pick any mix, eg. 30% black, 70% white.
For the darkest black you would have 100% black, red, green and blue. For lightest white you would have 100% white, cyan, magenta and yellow.
(This would reflect (1/3) * 3/4 + 0/4 = 25%, and (2/3) * 3/4 + 1/4 = 75% of the light respectively assuming perfect inks and equal coverage for the channels, which is pretty decent contrast)
E-ink is one of those techs that only advanced when large batches of patents expire. E-ink the company has tied up the tech stack in so many patents, NDA's, and exorbitant prices that no one wants to touch it. E-ink the technology wont go any where for 10-15 years when that next big batch of patents expire. Its just like 3D displays and VR there will be a massive consumer push new batches of patents will be filed pro…
I don't really understand how this is true. If I google, I don't see any evidence that any patent or block of patents is blocking the "tech". Could you specify which specific patent is blocking?
> tied up the tech stack in so many patents, NDA's, and exorbitant prices that no one wants to touch it.
But... you do realize there's lots of startups that enter the bistable display space? eg: ClearInk. https://www.clearinkdisplays.com/ They even use the exact same underlying principle which is electrophoresis.
If you go to any display conference you'll easily see that most of what you're saying comes across as highly inaccurate or even ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, make the cost to renew a patent each year increase exponentially, with the base proportional to the worth of the individual/company filing the patent at the time of filing. That ties the duration of a patent directly to how much value it provides to the company over time, which is the rationale for having patents in the first place. A company could only afford to hold onto a patent for as long as it ca…
> That ties the duration of a patent directly to how much value it provides to the company over time Actually I think that idea causes the opposite of what is wanted. A high value monopoly patent will stay locked up for a long time, well after the development costs and risk have been paid off. The consumer is paying high economic rent and the product has less supply. A low value product is where a longer patent makes…
Yes, but this rewards you for inventing something high-value, which is the whole point of patents.
Patents on low-value products largely exist to generate lawsuits against productive entities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I am so against intellectual monopoly like this. It does not create continuous incentive to innovate and instead allows companies with just a bit of innovation to rest on their laurels. I think there would be much more innovation in the world, aka a “higher rate of innovation” without intellectual monopolies and intellectual property restrictions.
Why would you want to innovate when the bigger competitor can just copy you without paying you anything? This current situation is unfortunate, but I think it's an imperfection of the market. If the patent owning company had been a bit less greedy, they could have made far more money with it.
Many software patents written today cover average work done by average engineers to solve average problems in a way that if you asked 100 engineers to solve said problem, the majority of them would could up with exactly the method in the patent.
Software patents are just a truncheon for incumbent companies to wield against other companies unlucky enough to try to enter the same space as patent-holding incumbent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
20 years is not a reasonable amount of time for technological products in current times.
I think 20 years might be a reasonable amount of time for hardware, which requires a heavy outlay in money to produce and which does not have almost zero cost to replicate, but not for software which can generally be copied for nothing and does not cost much to produce.
20 years ago, Nokia 3310 was released.
For consumer hardware, that's still a very very long time to hold a patent on something.
Specialized scientific/industrial hardware, maybe... consumer goods... way too long.
But that's just my personal opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you want to innovate when the bigger competitor can just copy you without paying you anything? This current situation is unfortunate, but I think it's an imperfection of the market. If the patent owning company had been a bit less greedy, they could have made far more money with it.
The whole "innovate" word is just loaded and overblown. Many software patents written today cover average work done by average engineers to solve average problems in a way that if you asked 100 engineers to solve said problem, the majority of them would could up with exactly the method in the patent. Software patents are just a truncheon for incumbent companies to wield against other companies unlucky enough to try t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it’s bad compared to every other digital display. They’re always on the order of seconds , and get even worse the more colors there are. Tri-color displays (red, white, and black) are sometimes up to a dozen seconds or worse. For example, [0] has a refresh time of fifteen seconds ! I’d be surprised if this isn’t an order of magnitude worse than that. [0]: https://www.good-display.com/product/223.html
> Because it’s bad compared to every other digital display. DASUNG seems to have a very fast refresh rate on their e-paper displays, enough so that they’re marketing an e-paper monitor.[0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGblzUc_Z1I
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe using such escalating fees would just favor the big companies who can stay ahead of the curve. But that’s fine. If a company can rake in so much money off of one product it’s still providing an obscene amount of value.
No it's not. It just entrenches the position of those who have money, to the disadvantage of everyone else.