> Lab126 created some of the first e-ink technology, right? Is the Kindle, or e-ink screens, or e-ink patents, the worst thing ever... or is there something else I should know about in this space?
There's a lot to unpack in that sentence. Care to elaborate?
In my defense, I said it was a horrible idea at the time, we'd have to stream everyone's audio to the cloud to get the keyword spotting to work...
Also, Lab126 did not create e-ink! E-ink came out of the Media Lab long before the first kindle.
I'm glad that they're finally making one with a stylus, when I was there (more then a decade ago) there was a prototype tablet you could write on that had a brilliant new sort of user interface.
> Seriously, we have to re-think patents. The amount of money all that rent-seeking crap is costing societies each year is absurd, and not just in payments to trolls, but also stifled progress - think of stuff like e-Ink that's barely affordable.
You think patents is why e-Ink is 'barely affordable'? Could you elaborate on what data you used to form that conclusion? A simple question, lets say price of a panel versus cost of the raw materials to make it? What margin do you think they're making? Do you know?
AFAIK, that was the situation at least in 2016, per media articles back at the time [1]:
> And E Ink, the company, has such a patent moat that it has acted as a monopoly, which Behzadi says has kept prices perhaps too high. But E Ink lost a big patent fight in 2015, and the market could expand soon.
The fact that almost everyone wants e-Ink technology, but e-Ink prices still are still really high [2][3] leads me to believe that either there are still patents at play that prevent competition from rising up, or that the competition hasn't managed to catch up for some other reason. It might also be the case that all of this is simply due to the aftershock of COVID supply chain disruptions, in any case I haven't found a better explanation yet.
> The fact that almost everyone wants e-Ink technology, but e-Ink prices still are still really high [2][3] leads me to believe that either there are still patents at play that prevent competition from rising up, or that the competition hasn't managed to catch up for some other reason.
I disagree. It leads me to believe the underlying technology, electrophoretics isn't capable of achieving the volume scaling and update speeds that would make it achieve mass market pricing. Also the links you provided, do not substantiate the main thesis that's being asserted, ie "there are still patents at play that prevent competition from rising up". Further, the quotation you provided was from Behzadi who was a kickstarter guy who failed to deliver the product he promised and then proceeded to blame everyone else except himself.
There's a simple question you can ask to prove this to yourself. Ask everyone who is making this claim, which specific patent is blocking them and how exactly it blocks their idea. You'll instantly realize the people making these claims are not actual display engineers with knowledge of electrophoretics. Typcially, at best, they're bullshitters trying to sound clever or at worst like Behzadi, scammers who are trying to hide having overpromised and then misspent other people's money.
The biggest challenge I've had is that trade schools and certifications are inconsistent, so it's not easy to vet candidates; a lot of hiring is intra-island, requiring significant up-front investment in people without knowing that they'll work out; and equipment and regulations (especially electrical) are highly variable, making it hard for a crew to deliver consistent quality.
That context gives a lot of room for crews and contractors to take advantage of inexperienced project managers and investors, and since the corrupt teams aren't brought back they tend to be the ones which are available for the next gig. When you find a great team you treasure them and even find work to keep them busy and happy between projects.
It's actually a remarkably similar dynamic to H1B engineer mills in the US. Many H1B engineers are brilliant, the best of the world looking for a challenge in America. But many are pawns in outsourcing meat markets.
I know nothing about the Caribbean, but I can tell you about middle America. I’ve heard a lot of people talk about having a job foreman for the home renovation/whatever project tell them “so-and-so had a beer at lunch, but they’re good. Do you mind?”
FYI, that’s a trap. If there is a jobsite accident that afternoon, you are liable for allowing someone who’s been drinking to work.
Many construction crews in the islands consist of a combination of European and US expats and Dominicans with a few Haitian laborers thrown in.
On all the islands I worked on, it was rare to find people actually from that island who were capable of that kind of work.
The Dominicans and the Haitians were fine, but the US and European guys mostly treated it as one big vacation. They would stay out all night partying and then come to work and do just enough to not get fired.
As another commenter mentioned, those guys knew they could always find work elsewhere even if only temporarily because skilled trades were in high demand. So they could quickly move on until they burned another bridge.
I was on one job in Antigua where the project managers were able to avoid this completely. They flew in hundreds of people from Indian and had them live in a “tent town” where they never left except to go to work each day. No alcohol or drugs allowed.
Myself and two others were flown in to install all the cabinets and other mill work. With the except of the stone guys from Turkey, we were the only non Indians on the entire project.
So they flew in labor and kept them in a pen without freedom or anyway to get home in order to ensure they did quality work. That sounds a lot like slavery with extra steps.
It was a British project management firm and it was the first and only time I ever experienced anything like that. It wouldn't be the most ideal situation for me, but they seem eager and happy to be there.
I don't believe it should be compared to slavery since they chose to be there and they were paid well for their time. I don't imagine there was any other way to house that many individuals on Antigua. There certainly weren't enough hotel rooms or condos available during the tourist season.
They had quite a bit of authority as well. I was on site for less than 5 minutes when one of the safety guys made me leave because I did not have steel toed boots.
> It was a British project management firm and it was the first and only time I ever experienced anything like that. It wouldn't be the most ideal situation for me, but they seem eager and happy to be there.
What was the name of the project management firm? I am curious how you determined that they seemed eager and happy to be there.
> I don't believe it should be compared to slavery since they chose to be there and they were paid well for their time
I'm not going to dox myself by revealing the firm; I believe I was the only American on site at the time and I was certainly the only one performing millwork installation.
I determined they were happy and eager because I spent each evening with them eating and watching soccer. I was down there during Christmas, and Liat airlines happened to go on strike so I was stranded there for 3 additional days. They made me feel very welcomed. I would spend the evening with them and then walk the ~2 miles back to the small house that was rented for me.
I don't know how much all of them were paid, but the framers were making a weekly salary of $750 IIRC (or so they claimed) and that was beyond a decent wage 15 years ago. Especially considering all of their expenses were paid. I flew down there on my own with all of my personal tools, did most of the work to secure a temp work visa on my own, and I only pulled in about $1250 per week back then for work that required quite a bit more skill than rough framing.
> I determined they were happy and eager because I spent each evening with them eating and watching soccer. I was down there during Christmas, and Liat airlines happened to go on strike so I was stranded there for 3 additional days. They made me feel very welcomed. I would spend the evening with them and then walk the ~2 miles back to the small house that was rented for me
In my opinion, this reminds me of a course I took about ethics. Slave owners and slave traders would say their slaves were happy because they would sing while working and play games like jump rope and hopscotch. The owners would also say their slaves loved them, especially the ones that were 'house slaves' that tended to be young women. A good example of that would be Thomas Jefferson and the underage child, Sally Hemmings who had his children. More recently Qatari companies caught using indentured/slave labor to build the FIFA stadium made similar remarks about their 'workers'.
Thank you for sharing your experience. It convinces me that people can easily find ways to convince themselves everything is fine.
> From what I know, e-ink tech is and has been very feasible, but is on hold since it's under patent. The company that holds the patent is notoriously slow to reach any licensing deals in a timely fashion to bring a product to market. Not to mention their exorbitant licensing fees. The end product turns out to be to expensive to market.
"From what I know". Could you clarify? This is first hand knowledge based on industry experience?
Could you please cite which specific patent you're referring to and what you mean by "e-ink tech" and "has been very feasible"? I'm assuming you actually have detailed knowledge of the display technology. Could you also please cite some evidence for the "notoriously slow to reach any licensing deals"? I'm assuming you actually have detailed knowledge of these licensing deals you're referring to. Hopefully your citation will be something other than a HN post by a throwaway account and blogs that cite that specific HN post and other HN posts that infinite loop circle back on those blog posts. Hopefully you'll give the rest of us first hand evidence and a reply based on actual experience that you personally have from years working in the electrophoretic display industry where you were held back under E-Ink's titanium and carbon coated jack boot and patent-waterboarded with high viscosity electrophoretic solvent? :-D That's the evidence the rest of us have been eagerly seeking to see and hear. I look forward with bated breath. Thank you.
I ask this, perhaps a little comically disingenously since I work in the display industry (not for E Ink) and I've asked the exact same question so many times on HN and have never gotten even a remotely satisfying answer which makes me think your extremely confident claim in your post, like the many before it are just Dunning Kruger in effect. But I'll still keep a sliver of a slightly open mind so that I can be convinced. Otherwise, I would recommend everyone treat your type of comment as equivalent to someone in the farming industry alleging that a good solid operating system has been very feasible but IBM is holding back the software industry with their patents and is notoriously slow to reach any licensing deals.
> In the Ancient Greek times the Olympic Games were an opportunities for friends an enemies to come together and have FUN!
Not sure if you're being serious or being sarcastic. Any evidence for your claim?
The ancient Olympics (as the name itself implies!) is about religion. Olympus!
Violence, murder, corruption was part of it. Perhaps as much as it is today.
"Sotades at the ninety-ninth Festival was victorious in the long race and proclaimed a Cretan, as in fact he was. But at the next Festival he made himself an Ephesian, being bribed to do so by the Ephesian people. For this act he was banished by the Cretans."
"In 67, the Roman Emperor Nero competed in the chariot race at Olympia. He was thrown from his chariot and was thus unable to finish the race. Nevertheless, he was declared the winner on the basis that he would have won if he had finished the race."
I mean, I read a rather detailed comment on here a few years back from someone actually in the industry, lamenting the stranglehold a particular company was inflicting on innovation.
Edit: And looking closely at that comment chain, I see you were there, questioning the patent stagnation narrative back then also. I guess you're consistent anyway.
Edit 2: Man, you have asked this question a lot. And people have given you some very detailed answers, which you never seem to respond constructively to. Care to comment on this?
...
Throaway to not get sued.
E-ink, the company, holds the patents of the pigment core tech that makes "paper-like" displays possible and strongarms the display manufacturers and the users of their displays to absolute silence. Any research project or startup that comes up with a better alternative technology gets bought out or buried by their lawyers ASAP.
E-ink don't make the display themselves, they make the e-ink film, filled with their patented pigment particles and sell it to display manufacturers who package the film in glass and a TFT layer and add a driver interface chip, all of which are proprietary AF and unless you're the size of Amazon, forget about getting any detailed datasheets about how to correctly drive their displays to get sharp images.
In my previous company we had to reverse engineer their waveforms in order to build usable products even though we were buying quite a lot of displays.
With so much control over the IP and the entire supply chain and due to the broken nature of the patent system, they're an absolute monopoly and have no incentive to lower prices or to bring any innovations to the market and are a textbook example of what happens to technology when there is zero competition.
So, when you see the high prices of e-paper gadgets, don't blame the manufacturers, as they're not price gouging, blame E-ink, as their displays make up the bulk of the BOM.
Tough, some of their tech is pretty dope. One day E-ink sent over a 32" 1440p prototype panel with 32 shades of B&W to show off. My God, was the picture gorgeous and sharp. I would have loved to have it as a PC monitor so I tried building an HDMI interface controller for it with an FPGA but failed due to a lack of time and documentation. Shame, although not a big loss as an estimated cost for that was near the five figure ballpark and the current consumption was astronomical, sometimes triggering the protection of the power supply on certain images.
> Which you never seem to respond constructively to. Care to comment on this?
It's impossible to respond -- it just makes assertions that are impossible to verify, and without throwing any sources.
The only thing I can verify myself is that waveform data from e-ink is overzealously copyrighted and protected, to the detriment of OSS projects, but this exclusively applies to e-Ink technology itself, not competitors.
I don't work in the display industry, but I do think that e-ink just sucks enough by itself that one does not need to invent any type of outlandish conspiracy about how a company would boycott itself in order to limit their market share.
Every single time I have ever seen a color e-Ink display it has been absolutely disappointing. Both Triton and Kaleido were low-contrast, gray-ish blurry messes (and Kaleido is so little an improvement over Triton it makes me wonder what exactly has improved in the last decade). ACeP is the only color technology which really stands out somewhat (this panel, by the way), but it is limited by the extremely low refresh rate and color resolution (we are talking multiple tens of seconds to refresh). And as for the core grayscale market, most people would be better served by a memory reflective LCD, since it is visually indistinguishable from e-Ink, similar or even better contrast, much faster refresh rate, and actually better in average power consumption for most applications except maybe price tags (since e-Ink sucks a lot of power when refreshing).
The fact that not only e-Ink really fails to thrive but that they do have competition which thrives (e.g. smartwatches like Garmin use transflective LCDs that are color & exactly as viewable in sunlight as e-Ink, perhaps more) should also put an stop to the idea that they somehow exert control over the low-power, daylight-viewable display market.
> It's impossible to respond -- it just makes assertions that are impossible to verify, and without throwing any sources.
I have to say this is ridiculous. You're making a claim that patents are blocking progress. When I ask which patent and for details, you're response is that I'm making assertions that can't be verified. That's exactly what I'm saying about your comment.
I mean the .fw/.ihex files, you have really not seen them?
They are not redistributable, and eInk DMCAs attempts at hosting them; you have to get from your existing firmware. It's not simple to just reverse them since they vary on the temperature. I mean, there is now free code for driving most eink controllers, but not free replacements for these files, as far as I know.
> I mean the .fw/.ihex files, you have really not seen them?
Not from E Ink. .fw is from Freescale. Never seen any .ihex E Ink waveform data file. Could you point to an actual example since you seem to imply it is very common?
> They are not redistributable, and eInk DMCAs attempts at hosting them;
> And people have given you some very detailed answers, which you never seem to respond constructively to.
Could you provide a link to where you see that? I disagree with that characterization.
I should also point out that still, even in this thread, again, no one has been able to tell the rest of us (who want evidence we can verify) what specific patent they're talking about. Instead the same old answer, of "all of their patents" comes out. This is the same as saying IBM patents are blocking progress in the software industry.
Of course, the throwaway post that I already said was clearly misinformed at many levels is cited as if it was gospel evidence of patent misbehavior.
> In my previous company we had to reverse engineer their waveforms in order to build usable products even though we were buying quite a lot of displays.
Yes, this is obviously true. You realize it is the equivalent of saying, I bought a Samsung LCD and then I wanted to change the LCD's internal drive voltages and drive circuit waveforms and Samsung didn't help me do that. And how is that in any way related to patents? I asked for evidence backing your claim that patents are blocking progress in the electrophoretic display industry. Would you care to answer that instead of deflecting?
> Finally, I seem to remember that there were a bunch of patents in the way.
Remember? Meaning you worked in the display industry?
I work in the display industry. I've never heard anything like what you describe, except on HN comments and blogs that use HN comments as citations. Look at my comment history. I think your claim is false because everytime I've challenged a claim like yours the poster has never been able to substantiate it, but I keep an open mind, if you can provide some real citations backing your claim then I'm happy to be corrected.
Looking through your comment history it seems that you have interrogated any poster who was ever mentioned patent problems, and demanded that they provide you with sources. It is not clear why they are required to do that.
That is quite a jumble of overlapping / inter-locking patents. The goal is to prevent competition using similar technology. It looks effective. And to answer your next question, no I'm not in the display industry, just thought it seemed interesting.
Challenging unsourced assumptions and combating misinformation is a noble goal. Is there any actual proof that companies other than e-Ink are unable to develop technology like this 7-colour display due to patents?
Not that I could find - but I didn't look for long to satisfy my curiosity. There was a case where e-Ink defended against another patent claim, but not any where they were the aggressor. The set of patents could be for defensive purposes (as in to be used in defending against other patents), or to prevent competition. I didn't find anything definite either way, but as always absence of evidence doesn't really mean much.
> as always absence of evidence doesn't really mean much.
My issue is that there's folks repeatedly saying confidently that there's a patent issue. Which I initially thought was real, and genuinely asked thinking they'd share terrible tales of misbehavior and patent evil committed by the accused company. Over time (more than a year) of this repetition trying to get answers, it seems pretty clear to me that it is not real and is just based on people who have no display industry experience or even a basic understanding of electrophoretic materials just saying 'it should be better than this by now, so the problem must be the company that produces the product'. They often have a Dunning Kruger level of confidence in making their claims. Examples:
"It is indeed a complex patent and licensing issue."
"there were a bunch of patents in the way."
" Imagine where electronic ink displays could be today if E Ink wasn't such a terrible steward of the initial technology."
Not even one of the posters cared to defend their claim when I asked for just a bit of clarification about what they were basing their claim on.
> you have interrogated any poster who was ever mentioned patent problems, and demanded that they provide you with sources. It is not clear why they are required to do that.
OP made a claim. I asked for basic evidence. If that's interrogation, then sure. Are they required to do that? Not really. But it would certainly help convincing me. As it stands, it sounds like bullshit to me. It is the equivalent of saying IBM patents are holding back the software industry. Which patent, you ask? Oh, all of them. That's the answer you're giving.
To be fair, they're not wrong - the patents on e-ink really are holding the technology back while preventing affordable access to anything but the lowest specification implementations.
The justification for long running technology and drug patents is often given but it only furthers to promote aggressive capitalism and any opportunity for reasonable reform is quashed.
> the patents on e-ink really are holding the technology back while preventing affordable access
Once again. Which patent? Which technology? All of them? I'm left convinced that you're not basing your claim on evidence, but instead just on 'feelings'.
> That is quite a jumble of overlapping / inter-locking patents. The goal is to prevent competition using similar technology. It looks effective. And to answer your next question, no I'm not in the display industry,
So you're not in the display industry, and yet you claim there's overlapping /inter-locking patents. Please tell the rest of us a bit more. What's inter-locking about them? So if I did: patents/search=ibm or search=microsoft does that also meet your claim? So let me guess, you believe IBM is blocking progress in the software industry?
You seem to be unaware of your communication style. It would work better if you took some time to work out why your comments come across as hostile and unproductive.
So tell me, how long have you been in the patent-lawyer industry?
See, that does not come across as a good faith attempt to communicate. It is similar to your posting style throughout this thread. Instead of interrogating people and demanding replies, how about you read the patents and explain if you think they are overlapping / inter-locking or not. Out of interest, which company in the display industry do you work for?
You made a claim that patents are blocking progress in the display industry. When I asked you for evidence of that, you've become hostile and turned the thread into an unproductive interaction. That's my genuine observation of this thread.
Here we find ourselves again, still without any answer about which patents and what the actual issue is. If you're attempting to initiate a thread about 'communication style' then I'll respectfully wait until we get some concrete answers to the original patent question. Thank you.
You're clearly mischaracterizing my post history to push your narrative instead of providing useful data for this discussion. Your communication style is abrasive enough to make me stop responding to you. Thank you.
From my perspective, this looks like an unfortunate misunderstanding - you both have good things to say, and somehow got caught in a snag. This is all too easy to do on the internet.
The cure is to be 10x more generous in your interpretation of the other person. People come from very different backgrounds and are therefore working with very different mental models, concepts, data, and so on. Differences in perspective too easily turn into judgments and even condemnations of the other person and that's what we're trying to avoid here, so we can keep having curious conversation with each other.
Your post history is public and people can judge for themselves if your account is pushing this single issue. I'll be popping up whenever I see you post to remind people that you don't want to say where you work in the display industry. Again, people can make their own judgements about that.
From my perspective, this looks like an unfortunate misunderstanding - you both have good things to say, and somehow got caught in a snag. This is all too easy to do on the internet.
The cure is to be 10x more generous in your interpretation of the other person. People come from very different backgrounds and are therefore working with very different mental models, concepts, data, and so on. Differences in perspective too easily turn into judgments and even condemnations of the other person and that's what we're trying to avoid here, so we can keep having curious conversation with each other.
> Because those were simply phenomenal. I have two and I've never had a display quite their equal in direct sunlight.
That's odd. I've had and evaluated the XO-1 using Jepsen's displays and found them to be of low quality for even that timeframe. Even basic things like the resolution were terrible for that time. There's good reasons why they (both OLPC and PixelQi) were unsuccessful. OLPC was a disaster and in my opinion just a way to transfer money from the education budgets of developing countries and UN funding into the pockets of people who enjoyed hanging out in swanky incredibly costly offices at 1 Cambridge Way with guys like Nicholas Negroponte, Joi Ito and Jeffrey Epstein instead of actually achieving real progress. [1]
Direct sunlight being the key part of what I said; I've never had any other display that was so legible while sitting at the end of a dock with a blazing sun blasting straight down upon the screen.
Otherwise, for sure, in general conditions it was mediocre.
And yes, the whole project was sketchy as hell, in retrospect.
My Panic PlayDate, which lacks the paper-like contrast of e-ink but can refresh at 50 fps, looks fantastic in direct sunlight. I believe it’s using a Sharp Memory LCD.
Which specific patents are you referring to? If you can't answer that question without googling "eink patents", then like many others who've made this claim on HN you're not in the industry and don't actually know anything about electrophoretic chemistry and don't realize what the real obstacles are. See my comment history for details.
Searching "by:robinsoh e-ink patent" over the past year turns up numerous comments, mostly variants of "I've explained this before", but none with a link to the specific explanation you have in mind. If you happen to know of a reference, it's a courtesy to others to provide it directly.
> but none with a link to the specific explanation you have in mind. If you happen to know of a reference, it's a courtesy to others to provide it directly.
It is unclear what exactly you want explained to you. Or what reference you are referring to. I asked what patent you are pointing to as evidence of the allegation that you made and instead of addressing that, you're asking me for evidence that no such patent exists? How will I be able to do that?
What I'm hoping for here is for you to point to the specific comment(s) you have in mind.
You're ... being somewhat less than helpful here, and are doing much the same as you've repeatedly accused others of doing: hand-waving vaguely in some general direction without being specific.
I'd be interested in discussing, or even simply understanding, what point(s) you're making. But you're failing to make them here, or indicate where you've made them previously.
If you have a specific comment that discusses the objections to the e-ink patent encumbrance concept, please link them or make them again here.
> If you have a specific comment that discusses the objections to the e-ink patent encumbrance concept, please link them or make them again here.
You seem to be intentionally engaging in a circular argument. The parent post said "after present patents expire". So please answer a simple question. Which specific patents are you referring to? Are you going to google and give a random list of eink patents? I hope you can see why I think that's a counterproductive response.
I stand by what I wrote earlier.
I'll repeat it again.
"
Which specific patents are you referring to? If you can't answer that question without googling "eink patents", then like many others who've made this claim on HN you're not in the industry and don't actually know anything about electrophoretic chemistry and don't realize what the real obstacles are. See my comment history for details.
"
It is the equivalent of saying IBM is blocking progress in the software industry because of IBM patents.
I hope it is clear how ridiculous that claim is. That's why I asked the simple question to which I still haven't gotten an answer.
OK. And you've not responded to the simple question of which patent you were referring to. That makes it clear of your 'substantive'ness and again is consistent with what I've observed on HN about this type of comments.
At this point, I'm investigating the issue. I don't jump immediately to conclusions. And I'd wanted, as noted several times above, simply to understand what your own argument / evidence is.
There's also a comment in HN history by an insider using a throwaway who discusses the dynamics by which control is exercised. And it's not through specific patents, as my comment linked above notes. Quantity has a quality all its own, as Stalin reputedly said.
I'm sure you can find it with as much ease as I'd turned up your own earlier relevant comments.
I suspect we'll have an opportunity to address this question again in future.
Could you state clearly that you are not an industry insider. You simply made a claim that patents were being used to block progress, but had no specific evidence for it. Correct? Very simple and allows readers to form their own conclusion about your allegations.
There's a lot to unpack in that sentence. Care to elaborate?