I’m cautiously optimistic, because two decades is the lifespan of a patent. E Ink the company has been a terrible steward of the technology. May they lose their state-sponsored monopoly and fade into irrelevance in peace.
People don't realize that e-ink and related technologies simply _don't sell_, and rather make up crazy conspiracy theories about eInk for some reason sabotaging their own product.
Consumers don't accept the disadvantages of eInk, such as the low refresh rate, the apparent low contrast, and the extremely poor color reproduction. At the same time, the advantages are rather minuscule; in fact, people have a hard time distinguishing eInk from reflective LCD. They think reflective display == eInk, while in truth many devices popularly seen as "eInk" are actually reflective LCDs (e.g. the Pebble and Garmin smartwatches).
Most companies that have made non-LCD based products are simply out-sold by LCD products and go bankrupt. I could probably name half-a-dozen non-LCD reflective technologies which are dead today without even checking Wikipedia, like Gyricon, Mirasol, the stuff the OLPC used, Flepia, etc. All of them dead or niche.
You just can't point fingers at eInk since some of these technologies faded even before eInk even existed, and some of them are owned by companies which are at least ten times larger than eInk (Qualcomm, Fujitsu, etc.). These theories claiming that eInk is the large neighborhood bully just don't many any sense whatsoever. Qualcomm, for example, _is_ a well-known bully; unlikely to be scared of eInk's portfolio. But Qualcomm released exactly 1 product with Mirasol - which completely flopped in the market - and then gave up on it.
Even price displays are usually LCDs, with only a minority being eInk, but as you can see here, casual hackers have a hard time distinguishing between them.
The small displays they put on smartcards (showing a 2FA or the like) are also LCDs, and even with a practically minuscule battery they last for half a decade, and that's refreshing itself once per hour... I couldn't think of a better usecase for eInk, and yet it fails to beat a much cheaper plain old LCD, save for perhaps if you wear polarizing glasses...
> make up crazy conspiracy theories about eInk for some reason sabotaging their own product.
Why do people make up crazy stories about banks conspiring with the bond-rating agencies to sell bogus financial products to their clients, oltimately crashing the entire market and driving themselves into bancrupsy. I mean, no rational person would do such a thing!
I talked to someone building related tech in the industry and E-Ink the company has a stranglehold on suppliers and leverages that to force compliance despite the patent nearing expiration (blocking anyone else from getting access to those suppliers).
The patent has allowed them to become entrenched and all current suppliers to depend on them. This will be hard to correct even with patent expiration.
I don't remember the specific details (unfortunately) and it's second hand info, but I was disappointed to hear it from someone more involved than I.
E-Ink is apparently engaged in anti-competitive practices. Why should it matter that the market in question is small?
Lots of companies do this. Amazon demands exclusivity for certain book sales, and they have contracts with sellers that make it hard for other marketplaces to undercut them. Qualcomm is famous for abusive practices. The list goes on.
In general, IMO companies should be able to compete by offering a superior product and/or a superior price point and/or a superior experience. They should not be able to compete by getting in each others’ way.
You are of course correct. The far bigger core problem is that our government is generally captured and does not serve one of its core purposes, enforcing competition, i.e. preventing manipulation of markets. A way that a legitimate and constitutional government would do such a thing, would be, e.g., require competitive practices, e.g., e-ink screens must be sold to anyone so wants to buy them at fair price, to put in end products … if the company e-ink wishes to engage in interstate commerce, which is supposed to be regulated by Congress.
However, because Congress and the whole government is inherently illegitimate as is easily objectively measured by its constant, frequent, and persistent failure to abide by the constitution; things like industry capture of government and fraudulent regulatory bodies, is now the norm.
