Please don't start with this BS again. Every time e-ink is mentioned in this forum, the same. There is absolutely no proof that e-Ink is boycotting their own business, much less using patents. There are eInk devices and manufacturers to spare.
eInk is just expensive to manufacture.
Personally I think there is just no demand.
You could build a large reflective LCD for a fraction of the price; you would have none of the problems of eInk -- such as the bad refresh rate -- and users have a hard time distinguishing an eInk panel from a reflective-LCD panel anyway (see the Pebble). Even accounting for the energy consumption it would probably be a close call in cost, unless you plan on updating the panel only a couple times per week. The fact that no one of the LCD panel manufacturers are doing this even with leftovers from other production lines just shows how little demand there is, outside of HN-welcome hobbyist projects and other low-power areas such as smartwatches.
The "e-ink patent" trope here is very suspicious. I understand that many people on HN think all intellectual property is bad and would love to throw away parts the U.S. Constitution that provide for that. (Curiously HN gets people who want to be as rich as Elon Musk, but don't think anything should cost money!)
But why the obsessive focus on e-ink? This isn't some silly "click a button" software patent. This is a real "invention" that involves complex physics, material science, and expensive specialized manufacturing lines. If anything seems like an "invention" of the sort that the framers of the constitution had in mind, this does.
So I must believe that the mention of "patents" whenever e-ink is mentioned is some sort of coordinated FUD attack by a competitor or someone with some sort of agenda.
I agree with your conclusion that the reason e-ink seems expensive is lack of demand. More demand could drive production efficiencies and scale.
I think that, in the e-ink case, the monopoly price is outweighting the benefit for society that the monopoly grant brought. I agree it's not a frivolous one, but whatever licensing they do so others can use their tech, seems to be both restrictive and onerous.
eInk is just expensive to manufacture.
Personally I think there is just no demand.
You could build a large reflective LCD for a fraction of the price; you would have none of the problems of eInk -- such as the bad refresh rate -- and users have a hard time distinguishing an eInk panel from a reflective-LCD panel anyway (see the Pebble). Even accounting for the energy consumption it would probably be a close call in cost, unless you plan on updating the panel only a couple times per week. The fact that no one of the LCD panel manufacturers are doing this even with leftovers from other production lines just shows how little demand there is, outside of HN-welcome hobbyist projects and other low-power areas such as smartwatches.