Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 276 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#221

Post by valzam »

d3ckard wrote: post #36
pidg wrote: post #10

I own a reMarkable 2. There is certainly enough to justify the cost, if you are a prolific note-taker. Conversely, I find it hard to justify the cost of an iPad, becuase I already have a phone and several laptops. I can't see a situation where a tablet would be more useful to me, so I've never bought one. Turns out different people have different needs, and the e-ink note-taking market caters to that. Most people wou…

Let me help you - iPad is the ultimate content consumption device. It’s by far my favorite electronic device and by far the most used. I work on my computer, I communicate on my phone, but I relax on my iPad. Internet browsing, shopping, watching shorter videos (or even longer ones when cooking), sometimes playing games, reading books. Thanks for the recommendation for Remarkable 2, considering buying one for a while…

My partner has a ReMarkable 2, I have an Ipad pro 11. I got mine earlier and thought writing on it was pretty good. But it's not even close. ReMarkable feels 90% like paper, it's crazy. Ipad (at least without one of those paperlike screen protectors) isn't even comparable, it very much feels like writing on glass. She loves it (for her PhD), if you take a lot of handwriten notes it's amazing.

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#222

Post by ISL »

zerocrates wrote: post #214
8ytecoder wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evergreening. US patent system has no provision to ban this practice. India, for example, requires the patent to be substantially different from the original. It’s the same trick used by drug manufacturers.

I've never quite gotten the problem with evergreening. The story is, a drug company seeing their patent expiration come up, makes some small improvement and patents that, getting them a new term. So far I'm following along. But the narrative is, this locks out generics somehow. The new patent can't cover the subject matter of the old patent, as its automatically prior art, so only the improvements are covered by the…

I'm no expert in this sort of thing, but it would seem that if a trade-secret is required for efficient production, patenting the trade secret near the end of the patent's life would be a way to effectively extend the original patent.

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#223

Post by yorwba »

mieses wrote: post #194
dodobirdlord wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could replace E-Ink in China , and maybe they already have. But China's disregard for IP protections doesn't mean that goods created in China that violate international IP agreements can be exported.

Boox exports to the US and violates GPL.

Has anyone tried to enforce it against them?

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#224

Post by aasasd »

dctoedt wrote: post #208
throwaway287391 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if someone had rushed out of the gate in 2018, they would probably not have ad products ready for a couple of years (and last year there was covid too) - and this with the most basic tech, which we know actually took significant time to be refined. Ignorant question: are you not allowed to start developing a product, or "planning" to develop a product, before a patent it infringes on expires? I see from glanci…

> Is it that you literally can't fully make the thing, i.e. only get 99% of the way there and you're fine? Lawyer-no-longer-practicing-patent-law here: You have to look at each individual, numbered claim (at the end of the printed patent). Treat each claim as its own infringement checklist, with each term in that claim as a checklist item. IF: Every checklist item in that claim is present in what you're doing, either…

I think the question that throwaway287391 is asking is: when in product development does patent police knock on your door and have the right to drag you to the court? If I build a factory that produces chairs, and then hoard all those chairs in my house, can I be told to knock it off? What if I build the factory and then have it just stand there, producing nothing?

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#225

Post by nate_meurer »

Karawebnetwork wrote: post #138
nate_meurer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except GP didn't use the word "retard" to terminate discourse, or to shortcut debate or insult anyone in this thread. The word was purely descriptive, and this context, quite appropriate and illustrative. I can think of no other single word that better describes the behavior of the E-Ink patent holders.

> I can think of no other single word that better describes the behavior of the E-Ink patent holders. This is the central point of this issue. This person uses a word that used to mean "person with a mental health problem" to describe a situation where a company "lacks intelligence and awareness". People who have been and still are the victims of this insult do not want to be associated with the concept of "lack of i…

No, the description "lacks intelligence and awareness" is not at all what the poster wanted to convey. Not even close. As I said elsewhere, "extreme, inexplicable, self-destructive foolishness" might be an adequate substitute, but I think simply "retarded" is also effective and concise, uttered not in a spirit of wanton bullying, but rather for the purpose of vivid illustration of behaviour that is, in fact, profoundly stupid.

The word is only "problematic" to people like you who want to emphasisze its historical baggage. I suspect that there are a whole lot of other words you place off-limits. The words "stupid" and "dumb", for example, are used just as often to bully people with mental handicaps and illnesses.

If all such problematic words are to be policed out of circulation, we might actually be left with such dry descriptions as "lacks intelligence and awareness". I personally appreciate the emphasis and efficiency of the stronger phrasing.

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#226

Post by dctoedt »

aasasd wrote: post #224
dctoedt wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it that you literally can't fully make the thing, i.e. only get 99% of the way there and you're fine? Lawyer-no-longer-practicing-patent-law here: You have to look at each individual, numbered claim (at the end of the printed patent). Treat each claim as its own infringement checklist, with each term in that claim as a checklist item. IF: Every checklist item in that claim is present in what you're doing, either…

I think the question that throwaway287391 is asking is: when in product development does patent police knock on your door and have the right to drag you to the court? If I build a factory that produces chairs, and then hoard all those chairs in my house, can I be told to knock it off? What if I build the factory and then have it just stand there, producing nothing?

> when in product development does patent police [sic] knock on your door and have the right to drag you to the court?

Generally, you can be sued for infringement whenever you make, use, etc., anything that comes within the scope of any issued, unexpired, not-yet-invalidated claim.

There's a nebulous experimental-use exception to liability; it's currently of uncertain scope [0].

> If I build a factory that produces chairs, and then hoard all those chairs in my house, can I be told to knock it off?

Generally, yes — if the chairs come within the scope of an issued, unexpired claim that hasn't yet been invalidated, then simply making the chairs constitutes infringement of that claim.

> What if I build the factory and then have it just stand there, producing nothing?

If the factory itself doesn't infringe a claim, then there's no infringement under the stated circumstances.

Same disclaimer as above.

[0] See, e.g. https://www.lrrc.com/webfiles/TCL-KK_DS.pdf (not an endorsement).

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#227

Post by aasasd »

dctoedt wrote: post #226
aasasd wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question that throwaway287391 is asking is: when in product development does patent police knock on your door and have the right to drag you to the court? If I build a factory that produces chairs, and then hoard all those chairs in my house, can I be told to knock it off? What if I build the factory and then have it just stand there, producing nothing?

> when in product development does patent police [sic] knock on your door and have the right to drag you to the court? Generally, you can be sued for infringement whenever you make, use, etc., anything that comes within the scope of any issued, unexpired, not-yet-invalidated claim. There's a nebulous experimental-use exception to liability; it's currently of uncertain scope [0]. > If I build a factory that produces c…

Thanks! It seems the solution is to make a ton of legs and a ton of seats, and then to not slap them together until the day the patents expire.

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#228

Post by matwood »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #42
d3ckard wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me help you - iPad is the ultimate content consumption device. It’s by far my favorite electronic device and by far the most used. I work on my computer, I communicate on my phone, but I relax on my iPad. Internet browsing, shopping, watching shorter videos (or even longer ones when cooking), sometimes playing games, reading books. Thanks for the recommendation for Remarkable 2, considering buying one for a while…

I have heard of some using the ipad pro as a drawing tablet, in which case it competes with e.g. Wacom, whose prices for their display-drawing-tablets are on par with ipads.

I've been slowly learning to draw using paper and an iPad Pro. Obviously they are different, but the iPad Pro gets a lot of right in terms of responsiveness and pencil pressure.

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#229

Post by dTal »

m-ee wrote: post #171
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking up their patents ( https://patents.justia.com/assignee/e-ink-corporation?page=3... ), looks like their earliest patents are from 1998, so those should be expired already. That said, there's 36 pages of patents that seem related, so I'm sure that newly made e-ink technology will be covered by the newer patents.

You can also make things tough on competitors by filing a new patent that’s different enough from the original to get approved, but close enough to the original that it would be difficult to use the older patent without infringing on the new one.

Question - if that's possible, why couldn't a competitor do the same?

Re: Ask HN: Why are e-ink note-taking devices so expensive compared to iPads?

#230

Post by Misdicorl »

zerocrates wrote: post #214
8ytecoder wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evergreening. US patent system has no provision to ban this practice. India, for example, requires the patent to be substantially different from the original. It’s the same trick used by drug manufacturers.

I've never quite gotten the problem with evergreening. The story is, a drug company seeing their patent expiration come up, makes some small improvement and patents that, getting them a new term. So far I'm following along. But the narrative is, this locks out generics somehow. The new patent can't cover the subject matter of the old patent, as its automatically prior art, so only the improvements are covered by the…

I think the missing step is likely the many millions dollars it takes to defend yourself in patent court.

Even if you're likely to win, it brings a generic offering below profitability.

Post reply on HN