>the entire e-ink industry and innovations are held back by the e-ink patent
>>100132343How else would you be able to innovate on fucking eink?
>>100132343>the entire e-ink industryits technically called e-paper. e-ink is a brand owned by e ink Corporation. kinda like how apu is just amd's brand for cpu+igpu
>>100132490Faster refresh rateBetter colorFoldables Less ghosting Higher PPI
>>100132667every innovation of eink just leads to the average modern day phone screen, its a meme
>>100132490Is innovation happening?The problem is like this.>Be wealthy enough to not be a slave, but not wealthy enough to own slaves.>Inventing something takes lots of R&D costs.>Eventually you get to something marketable.>If you spend even more money you can make it a little better (diminishing returns) but you've already spent an ass load.>Be wealthy enough to own slaves.>See a new product.>Spend what is to you a little bit of money to take the next step.>Completely obliterate the original product in the market because you can offer better cheaper thanks to scale and being wealthy enough that you can loss leader if you need to.>Original inventor can't recoup investment in the original invention, becomes a slave.Patent is supposed to promote development by insuring that even if a fat cat iterates on the design they at least owe a cut of the dough.But instead having big pimp energy and whoring out their patents like they should, they're hording them thinking eventually they'll get an absurd offer, so nothing happens except the next middle class man to invent the same thing independently will be murdered by a lawyer if he brings it to market.Registered patents should have a compulsory license responsibility. If you aren't letting it advance society, someone who will should be able to license use through the patent office. USTPO figures its fair value and compensates the patent holder with an IRS credit.
>>100132734You literally don't even understand what makes e ink desirable
>>100132813all the things you just listed:nothing
>>100132916Youre an actual retard that has never touched an e ink device
>>100132765>>but you've already spent an ass load.I can give you another if you want to.
>>100132927>0kek
>>100132343Why don't you build your own e ink technology chud?I see nothing wrong with creators of an invention doing what they please with their work
>>100132667All of these are either gimmicks or they're already good enough. We're talking about reading books for gods sake.
>>100133308>We're talking about reading books for gods sake.Not reallyThe reason why you only think of reading books when it comes to e-ink is because of how slow progression isColor e-ink sucks right now, but it's a growing market bevause people can read comics and graphic novels that were made with color Android devices with e-ink displays are a growing market too, with companies like bigme and boox being big namesFoldables, while definitely more niche, would be great for portability and mimicking a real book, even the e-ink company showed off foldable e-reader prototypes before
>>100132813>>100132916>>100132927instead of insulting each other just tell him what makes e-paper desirable, its very simple:Why do people prefer reading physical books over reading on screen?paper does not produce its own light, it reflects ambient light. Normal screen produces its own light.e-paper reflects ambient light like normal paper.
>>100133458>Color e-ink sucks right nowAnyone else remember Pixel Qi transflective displays, or just me? The tech has existed for over a decade, but no one else can use it yet.
>>100132343When was the patent made and which patent? Patents only last like 15-20 years at most.
>>100132765its retarded that they last always 20 years, independently of what they are about or on which pace their field advances, even more retarded is that 30 years ago that was not the case, when tech started to get develop faster.
>>100134672not necessarily, unless I'm terribly wrong. I can read my kindle paperwhite in the dark, it's just 1000x less strainous to my eyes
i'll be the first to buy an eink monitor with good colors
>>100132667saturation is the biggest issue right now, followed by ghosting. kaleido 3 panels can play video, I have a tablet that does just that. ghosting is largely a software/firmware issue, and I've seen it get much better with a couple of updates since launch.there are other options that I'm interested in watching, but unfortunately many of the companies behind them are just scams like reinkstone (actual product, shit company)
>>100134996I used to have an ADP1 and even that did it. I'd have the brightness on minimum and use it in direct sunlight with zero issues.
>>100132490Cheaper
>>100139449 >>100134996i mean game boys had them
>>100134672>instead of insulting each other just tell him4chan is healing
>>100132343Nonsense, it's a myth. E-Ink EPD patents expired years ago, and never held anyone back anyway. EPD is just a dead end tech.
>>100132496It's technically called electrophoretic display. There have been all sorts of different reflective displays (for example IMOD which has even been used in at least one e-reader)
>>100134672>e-paper reflects ambient light like normal paper.Nigger, good paper is EMISSIVE, because it's optically brightened. That's why it's so white, whiter than physically possible actually. Any attempt at making a purely reflective display will inevitably result in poor contrast under anything except direct sunlight, and stray shadows making it inconvenient, so you have to enable additional frontlight and make the contrast even worse. This is what I do on modern EPDs. EPDs is just a meme for eyestrain snake oil buyers. They are like cheapskate audiophiles.
This is why I hope that you can never ever patent or copyright anything AI comes up with or even partially comes up with or is part of the work in any way.
>>100132343yes patents are le bad
>>100133308Eink has very low power consumption, would be interesting to game on it or watch videos.
>>100132343>patentsNo one remembers electrowetting.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf1GjCaYzYg
>>100142233while i haven't looked into the numbers, i'd be surprised if they use less power than a transflective lcd while being constantly refreshed like for video or a gamethe main reasons they're low power is because A) they're transflective, so require no back/front lighting, and B) the image persists when no power is applied (or inversely, they use power only to change the image)transflective lcd's require power to maintain the image, so for the purposes of something like a digital picture frame or ebook reader, maybe the eink comes out on top, i'm not sure, transflective lcd's use extremely little power, but for constant refreshing? i doubt it
