And if it wasn't patentable, there is a good chance that it would never have been developed or industrialized. It will eventually go off patent and be widely available
> Don't forget that if e-ink wasn't patented, there's a good chance that it would be cheap enough to integrate into everyday utilities.
Why do you (and several others on HN) keepi making this claim with so much confidence? Do you work in the electrophoretic display industry? Do you know what the costs are to make electrophoretic displays? Is there any evidence that patents are what dominate the costs of producing electrophoretic displays? Or do you think there is even a slight possibility that the dominant factor of price is actually volume and scale of production?
Wacom is a good example of patent lock-in. For years they held all the necessary patents to the battery less EMR pen technology and only ever made high end pro-level devices and only ever licensed the technology to makers of high end pen input devices. End result - a generation of digital artists deprived of tools they needed (especially affordable pen displays, only Wacom used to sell those due to the patents they held and at mind-bogglingly high prices).
Now finally a few years ago their patents finally lapsed, forcing them to finally compete with other companies on price and quality.
End result - affordable 13 inch pen displays available at about third to quarter of the old Wacom price from multiple vendors.
I can only imagine the situation is similar if the original E-ink developers managed to patent all the necessary technologies to bloc everybody else.
Same thing for 3D printing - it only really took off once Stratasis could no longer milk their FDM patents to block all progress in affordable 3D printing area.
> I can only imagine the situation is similar if the original E-ink developers managed to patent all the necessary technologies to bloc everybody else.
All this imagination is amazing to me as a person who actually works in the display industry. It is like someone walked into a sports car showroom and announced that these cars are too expensive because of patents and it has nothing to do with volume and actual cost of iron and rubber. And then a bunch of other people all agreed with them and started blogging about it. Because that's what I see happening here. I wonder when someone like this will walk into an Apple showroom and start exclaiming that these apple products are all too expensive because of patents and not because of other factors.
As for Wacom and Stratasis, I have no idea since I don't work in those industries. But I've never seen convincing proof put forth. Circumstantial sure, but clear data that would convince me that "Stratasis used FDM patents to block all progress in 3d printing" doesn't seem to be available.
You have two mechanisms to protect from copying: trade secrets and patents.
If you document it, it’s not a trade secret anymore. If another person figures it out, it’s also not a trade secret anymore.
And Apple (and others) document plenty of stuff in patents. However, those aren’t loved by this community either.