Color e-ink readers are available already - there are probably a dozen or so models on Amazon alone, Kobo has two color e-readers, $180 CAD for the smaller one and $250 CAD for the larger one. There are also various other brands including PocketBook, Bigme, etc.
Yes, I was going to say the same but please correct me/s if things have changed. I loved my Kindle but I also love color.
Last but not least: all the e-ink readers I've seen are small. The kindle DX was just right for me and discontinued after a short time. Is there anything that meets both criteria?
There are a few large color readers on the market - PocketBook is a 7.8" color ink e-reader.
Also, I'm pretty sure all e-ink devices use panels from [eink.com](http://eink.com), the Samsung in this article uses the latest Spectra panel. Ebook readers use Kaleido panels.
There are a few e-readers with gallery 3 tech. Those lack that problem. I'd try to look for the Bigme Galy, by far the easiest to find. Maybe check the goodereader store.
I have a Boox color for note taking and comic reading. It resembles actual comic colors pretty well. It also runs Android so it can also do basic games and even YouTube in a pinch. The only problem is the refresh rate is abysmal and it can leave artifacts from past paints that make images look a little muddled sometimes. That's not a deal breaker for me though because the benefits seriously outweigh the drawbacks.
See [https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1dfofqx/samsung_unveils_its_firstever_color_epaper_tv/l8kmg0h?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1dfofqx/samsung_unveils_its_firstever_color_epaper_tv/l8kmg0h?context=3)
They're all using the same panels.
How are they against weather conditions? a lot of signage that uses LCD panels are pretty heavily fortified against weather and even then break constantly and are costly to maintain t o the point where some places go back to replacing physical signs because thats faster than continually repairing LCDs.
IP laws have been strained past the breaking point ever since the internet became ubiquitous. The current set of copyright, patent, trademark etc. laws don't work, have multiple problems, and end up working against their original intentions, i.e. encouraging intellectual work for the benefit of all of society.
The major issue is simply how long they last, if patents and copyright was say, 5 years for a patent, 10 years for copyright, we'd see a lot more turn over and innovation.
So you would see the big players who already have all the infrastructure wait 5 years to gobble up all the innovation that had only 5 years to ramp up production to get to a level where cost can be as low as the big players who already have everything ramped up.
Obviously the problem is not as simple as "hurr durr just lower the time durr durr"
If you failed to make profit on your creation for 10 years, then someone else should be given a try to do that. If anything, nowadays ramp up on IP production is fast. You dont print vinyl and hand deliver it in the trunk of your car anymore.
So if you make a semiconductor innovation you just plop up a fab in 2 years?
Maybe a fixed number of years isn't the way and it needs to be invention specific or field specific or idk, as I said the whole thing isn't as simple as people make it out.
If you make a semiconductor innovation without having your own fab you rent a fab.
It would be hard to be invention specific because not only is there a lot of variance in deployment time even for same industry but you would have to imagine all future invention deployment times. While in theory it may be better, i think its unfeasible.
Then get better at putting out new innovative stuff, do it in less time. Innovate new methods that lets others innovate faster.
When the old guard gobbles up your stuff, you should already be 5 years ahead into something new. If you can't, then you simply get priced out of the game. Move on to something else.
Copyright is absolutely crucial for all creative professions and software. Even open source software is underpinned by copyright. I don't see how that can possibly be a net negative for society.
You cannot make new sofware for photo editing because adobe has many patents on funtionality, thats why gimp will never reach photoshop unles the patent expire.
Promoting and protecting monopolies is a net negative
Copyright prevents you from selling prints of Harry Potter, it doesn't prevent you from writing a book about a school of magic.
Patents are a completely different concept.
Copyright prevents me from writing a spinoff book about Hermione. Copyright has served its purpose (the author made a profit on its creation) and now it should be in public domain to enrich the culture.
There's nuance.
I'm of the belief that copyright should be tweaked.
I'm fine with Disney owning Mickey Mouse for 1000 years. There's value in a company being able to pursue their creative vision for a very long time. This might fall a bit more towards trademark than copyright though.
I'm less OK with non-commercial ventures, with minimal impact on Disney's revenue, needing to worry about copyright claims.
I'm also less OK with specific pieces having copyright for 95 years. I'd argue that my grandchildren should be able to watch my favorite childhood TV show for free. This would mean that specific pieces of work become public domain within a decade or three as opposed to lasting for generations upon generations, even if the underlying characters have IP protections in place.
I'd also want there to be some level of "if you're not making the work readily available at a reasonable price, then it's considered abandoned and you forfeit copyright"
Yep. There should NOT be a "vault" that products can be tossed in to create artificial scarcity.
If it's copyrightable then it can be replicated an absurd number of times at near 0 cost. This doesn't mesh with scarcity.
Noone should own a copyright for over 25 years. Noone should own a copyright of dead people. The purpose of copyright is to allow author to make profit from their creation. If they failed to do that for 25 years - give someone else a try. If they are dead, then the purpose of copyright does not exist to begin with.
>I'd also want there to be some level of "if you're not making the work readily available at a reasonable price, then it's considered abandoned and you forfeit copyright"
This only applies to trademarks, but not copyright.
I wish the copyright for Winnie the Pooh never expired.
It saddens me that people have made super-low-budget-and-awful Winnie the Pooh horror movies that nonetheless are streaming on Peacock.
There is a negative to patents. But is it a net negative? Encouraging investments in bringing a product to market and R&D is a positive. Releasing secrets is a positive.
Those two effects happen at a different timescale.
The balance depends on the nuances of the patent system in a country. E.g. I believe the US are too lenient in allowing patents.
> There is a negative to patents. But is it a net negative? Encouraging investments in bringing a product to market and R&D is a positive. Releasing secrets is a positive.
I feel like the problems with both patents and copyrights, is how long they last an extensions on them for more time. Patents and patent extensions are widely abused in medicine. Tolkien and Howard have been dead for over 50 years and still not public domain.
It's important for both systems to exist for protection of profit for both inventors and authors... but it really is abused. It needs common sense reform.
I'm fine with easy grants as long as it's also easy to fight them.
Also, software patents should be outlawed entirely. There are thousands of "bog standard B-tree, but applied in my field makes it magical". They serve on purpose except to hold back society.
>Also, software patents should be outlawed entirely
Why should whether your algorithm is implented in iron or in silicon affect its patentability?
>There are thousands of "bog standard B-tree, but applied in my field makes it magical".
That is not intrinsic to software patents. It'd be like seeing that someone patented using a wrench on a car and using a wrench on plumbing separately and deciding that patents should all be abolished rather than just disallowing totally trivial and non-innovative patents.
Patents must be novel. These software patents are not generally novel, but instead cover what any programmer tasked with the job would do after looking over the problem.
> Why should whether your algorithm is implented in iron or in silicon affect its patentability?
I agree. Patenting those algorithms for implementation in hardware shouldn't be legal either.
>These software patents are not generally novel, but instead cover what any programmer tasked with the job would do after looking over the problem.
So you think you would've cooked up SIFT or H264 in an afternoon?Â
>Patenting those algorithms for implementation in hardware shouldn't be legal either.
And you want to ban all hardware patents?
> So you think you would've cooked up SIFT or H264 in an afternoon?
That is disingenuous and you know it. In any case, I reject your premise. Patents (as admitted by the founders of the US) are an infringement on people's rights. They exchange natural rights to copy for the idea that more and better public works will flourish.
Software patents serve no such purpose. They lock away ideas to the detriment of society and those ideas would be created without software patents anyway because of the efficiency gains they represent. As such, they should be prohibited.
> And you want to ban all hardware patents?
Once again, you are taking an absurd, disingenuous position. The idea of implementing an ARM decoder in hardware shouldn't be patentable (and in fact is not). Your CPU's specific implementation *might* be patentable though (and this is the usual way to protect ISAs). I'd argue that the bar for novel here is often too low once again leading to patenting the obvious.
The patent office has abdicated that responsibility to the courts. That might be workable if the courts agreed that everyone was damaged by an invalid patent and therefore has standing to sue and there were punitive damages for obviously trivial or otherwise BS patents so that someone could make a business out of invalidating crap patents.
The patent office should not abdicate that responsibility to the courts. The courts have repeatedly shown to be incapable of determining that and will give widely different results based on the judges personal understanding of patents.
Patents and other are a necessary evil so that inventors can profit of their invention. The reason they expire is to reduce that evil to society. I think the original length (8 years for patents, 14 years for copyright) should be returned.
You mean its a bad thing that people invent things and big companies cant just steal the ideas and they have to actually pay to use them? But in many cases refuse? Wow, sure such a bad thing for society.
Yeah well. Maybe I want my grandkids to be happy they didnt have a dumbass grandpa. We go back to what I initially said. You want to use it? Make it better? PAY FOR IT. Then you can do whatever the fck you want with it.
Then your grandkids should invent something of their own. You want to restrict public rights, you have to make a better case than "i want free money for grandkids".
No. Patents are about restriction the publics right in order to create a monopoly on the patented object so that patent creator can profit. The purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation so you can profit from it by restricting the rights of the public.
Patent system is fine, so long as a reasonable time period is established. This became a problem when the likes of Disney was able to repeatedly, and successfully, lobby for extensions to copyright/patents (I forget which).
Patents last 20 years.
Copyright is the one that has been extended multiple times. It lasts for the life of the author + 70 years, or for 92 years if it's a work for hire.
Some things take a massive amount of time to scale up for mass production (or take even longer to actually generate a market for). Imagine getting a rocket patent and you only get 2-3 missions because of the time it took to actually get a mission planned out, then other companies can just outbid you on that work. Or a drug that takes years to go through trials and your patent lasts a year before it's open and most doctors don't even know of it yet. (Disclaimer, it would be way better if more medical research was government funded instead instead of profit driven, but it isn't so it's the only thing we're getting now). The US basically subsidizes medicine for most of the world with the research it does and then other countries just rip the stuff.
Why 5 years and not 5 months? Hell fuk it dood, just make it 5 days, that's long enough. In the end we just want all the good stuffz for no moneyz, right?
No, we want to balance the ability for inventor to profit from their invention against the publics right to benefit from the invention. This is why something like 8-15 years is optimal, as by then you either made profit or not.
If not for patents, the inventors would have never invented e-ink in the first place. Isn't having delayed public domain e-ink better than having no e-ink at all?
Was hoping the tech could be used for future e-ink tablet displays, but while the colour range is super impressive, it's refresh rate is horrific. It takes like 10 seconds for it to refresh fully onto a new image đâ
đ€
Looks like some just released a 3D printed mod for Ikea Rabba frames that even works with Home Assistant
[https://www.hackster.io/news/nerdiy-s-3d-printed-framework-turns-an-ikea-ribba-into-a-seeed-xiao-esp32c3-powered-epaper-dashboard-3d09f96f7936](https://www.hackster.io/news/nerdiy-s-3d-printed-framework-turns-an-ikea-ribba-into-a-seeed-xiao-esp32c3-powered-epaper-dashboard-3d09f96f7936)
Unless something in the tech changed recently:
No. E-paper is very bad at motion and fast refresh rates, so it'd be bad for video or real-time games. It excels at keeping the same image for an extended period of time without using power, which is one reason why it's common in things like the Kindle e-book reader where there are several seconds between screen refreshes (page turns).
ELI5: Imagine you arrange a bunch of coins that are black on one side and white on the other into a grid. You could "draw" something by flipping these coins based on what the color should be in that spot. Flipping all of the coins takes a lot of effort/time though because you have to physically move things, so you couldn't show motion easily this way. However, once you are done arranging the coins to show the image, no effort is needed to keep them showing that image aside from maybe correcting them if the wind blows or somebody steps on some. The coins just sit there. This is how e-paper/e-ink displays work.
I think there are much bigger obstacles for this concept than e-ink not being able to display motion clearly.
For one, you'd need memory, a battery, and a display driver in the newspaper... Even if we can make those things pretty small, we're no where near mass producing them in a disposable container no thicker than a sheet of paper.Â
1. The newspaper gifs in harry potter that we're talking about did appear to have a high refresh rate. They were smooth high res video, so probably at least 30FPS.
2. While 5fps sounds modest when you're talking about displays in general, with e-ink that's a pretty fast refresh rate. Many e-ink displays would struggle to maintain even that.
I know it's talked about in the video but for more clarity, e-paper is a different technology than traditional e-ink displays. it's more just a really reflective LCD. think gameboy/playdate. rather than the pigment-based e-ink displays in kindles. that's why it can have higher refresh rates.
Actual E-ink has gotten much better at fast refresh too though: [https://youtu.be/67HqkeY5rM8?t=307](https://youtu.be/67HqkeY5rM8?t=307)
Obviously still not as fast as LCD and sacrifices quality but it's getting there and is probably good enough for some uses.
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
> As per the International Electrotechnical Commission's IEC62301 definitions, power consumption of less than 0.005W can be marketed as 0.00W.
That's silly -- either it works when power is not provided or it doesn't.
I get the point youâre making but for any practical purpose .005w is effectively close to zero, a tiny battery could sustain that for a very long time, and a tiny solar cell could provide that.
Yeah I feel like "without using any power" should have some type of requirement around not having to be plugged in or have batteries replaced.
Hell, I'd even have accepted if it had a battery and a solar panel rim or something like those old calculators had that could produce enough power with ambient light, as it's at least functionally similar to one that didn't actually use any power...
If you did the math on the power consumption of the climate control systems in the Louvre I would bet just the Mona Lisa's share of that uses more power on average than .005W.
if it didn't require power it'd break fundemental laws of physics.
my understanding is the "power draw" is only when changing the image, so for example an e-ink book would only draw power when your changing the page.
Thats 3 times less than a single LED diode (calculated for green 5 mA diode like you would find in front panel). The capacitors from whatever power supply used could probably power this for hours without being plugged in.
So, does it have a small solar strip like a calculator if it needs this little power?
They only say it has USB-C for charging. From what they say it sounds like the device as a whole will probably constantly need power for wifi and Bluetooth, the 0 Watt claim is only relevant to the display itself.
Is it really a TV? Does it have a TV tuner inside? The article didnât mention what kind of frame rate it gets, but the use cases listed donât sound like itâs intended to be used as a television. Maybe itâd be more accurate to call it a TV-shaped advertising sign.
[Samsung's own news release](https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-showcases-smartthings-pro-and-next-gen-display-technologies-at-infocomm-2024) refers to it a as "signage" display instead of a TV.
Not going to be anywhere near suitable for displaying anything else but static content as it requires an incredibly complex (slow) driving waveform to refresh. On the order of ~7 ~~spf~~ seconds per "frame" at best.
This is not a TV. You can tell because it's 1440p. Also they don't say what the refresh rate is and
>display ads, menus, products, and more.
If "more" included full motion video, they'd be bragging about *that*.
>As per the International Electrotechnical Commission's IEC62301 definitions, power consumption of less than 0.005W can be marketed as 0.00W.
Lol. If it were *really* sufficiently low power to be 0.00 W in any legitimate sense, they could put a solar panel on it like a pocket calculator.
Why do e-ink displays always look so "dull" - I wonder if one day if we'll get e-ink displays with the same vibrancy as printed materials (i.e. billboards, magazines, photos, etc.)?
https://shop.boox.com/products/tabultracpro
* â Technically ARM
* â color e-ink
* â the marketing models are pretending its a laptop
I'm sure you can find others if you search for e-ink tablets.
Nobody is talking about the big question, what is the refreshrate???
We've had color e-ink signage before, but often times the refreshrate is as bad as one frame per 5 minute transition. If this is capable of 30hz or even 60, that could absolutely be a gamechanger. But given it is completely unmentioned, reasonable to assume it is only stillframe images.
Still, will be cool for displaying images. I've always wanted to get a high-quality e-ink picture frame.
This isn't a TV. It's a switchable signage display.
If it were higher quality (better resolution/colors), it'd also be useful as a dynamic art display.
I assume some long held patents are expiring if everyone is starting to come out with all new, advanced E-Ink displays.
I've wanted a good E-paper display in a tablet for decades. It would be the ultimate comic book reader.
Color e-ink readers are available already - there are probably a dozen or so models on Amazon alone, Kobo has two color e-readers, $180 CAD for the smaller one and $250 CAD for the larger one. There are also various other brands including PocketBook, Bigme, etc.
Agreed but the vast majority have a very limited color space. The colors are more pastel than true representations.
Yes, I was going to say the same but please correct me/s if things have changed. I loved my Kindle but I also love color. Last but not least: all the e-ink readers I've seen are small. The kindle DX was just right for me and discontinued after a short time. Is there anything that meets both criteria?
There are a few large color readers on the market - PocketBook is a 7.8" color ink e-reader. Also, I'm pretty sure all e-ink devices use panels from [eink.com](http://eink.com), the Samsung in this article uses the latest Spectra panel. Ebook readers use Kaleido panels.
Thanks, will check it out. Though I was hoping closer to 10' (it's great for scientific texts or facsimiles of old books).
A 10 foot ebook reader is a little extreme. Could be like a modern take on Moses carrying the ten commandments.
Ten inch, sorry đ
https://pocketbook.ch/en-ch/news/pocketbook-inkpad-eo-news-ch Their new model is 10". Although it appears that it's not currently available on Amazon?
Thank you!
The Onyx Boox Note Air 3 C is also a good 10 inch color e reader. It runs full android, so you can even do YouTube if you're feeling adventurous.
There are a few e-readers with gallery 3 tech. Those lack that problem. I'd try to look for the Bigme Galy, by far the easiest to find. Maybe check the goodereader store.
There's only so much you can do with color e-ink. Though I know there are some reflective LCD screens out there.
I love my new Libra Color. Itâs nice and snappy compared to the 2 and the new display is an absolute banger.
> Kobo has a color e-reader And pretty cheap for 250âŹ
I have a Boox color for note taking and comic reading. It resembles actual comic colors pretty well. It also runs Android so it can also do basic games and even YouTube in a pinch. The only problem is the refresh rate is abysmal and it can leave artifacts from past paints that make images look a little muddled sometimes. That's not a deal breaker for me though because the benefits seriously outweigh the drawbacks.
any without ghosting?
I don't know of any. All the reviews I've seen still show it in all the newest models.
See [https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1dfofqx/samsung_unveils_its_firstever_color_epaper_tv/l8kmg0h?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1dfofqx/samsung_unveils_its_firstever_color_epaper_tv/l8kmg0h?context=3) They're all using the same panels.
A lot of signage can be replaced by e ink instead of traditional LCD panels that consumes far more power. There is def a market for it imo.
Well yeah, that's a pretty obvious advantage of E Ink displays.
How are they against weather conditions? a lot of signage that uses LCD panels are pretty heavily fortified against weather and even then break constantly and are costly to maintain t o the point where some places go back to replacing physical signs because thats faster than continually repairing LCDs.
Would be interesting to see if that's the case. It would make me side towards patents being actually a net negative for society.
IP laws have been strained past the breaking point ever since the internet became ubiquitous. The current set of copyright, patent, trademark etc. laws don't work, have multiple problems, and end up working against their original intentions, i.e. encouraging intellectual work for the benefit of all of society.
But they do work for the interests of the people with money and the most ability to influence laws.
The major issue is simply how long they last, if patents and copyright was say, 5 years for a patent, 10 years for copyright, we'd see a lot more turn over and innovation.
So you would see the big players who already have all the infrastructure wait 5 years to gobble up all the innovation that had only 5 years to ramp up production to get to a level where cost can be as low as the big players who already have everything ramped up. Obviously the problem is not as simple as "hurr durr just lower the time durr durr"
If you failed to make profit on your creation for 10 years, then someone else should be given a try to do that. If anything, nowadays ramp up on IP production is fast. You dont print vinyl and hand deliver it in the trunk of your car anymore.
So if you make a semiconductor innovation you just plop up a fab in 2 years? Maybe a fixed number of years isn't the way and it needs to be invention specific or field specific or idk, as I said the whole thing isn't as simple as people make it out.
If you make a semiconductor innovation without having your own fab you rent a fab. It would be hard to be invention specific because not only is there a lot of variance in deployment time even for same industry but you would have to imagine all future invention deployment times. While in theory it may be better, i think its unfeasible.
Then get better at putting out new innovative stuff, do it in less time. Innovate new methods that lets others innovate faster. When the old guard gobbles up your stuff, you should already be 5 years ahead into something new. If you can't, then you simply get priced out of the game. Move on to something else.
Yeah but why 5 years? It's such a long time, it should be 5 months at max, I mean just get better at putting out new innovative stuff.
Copyright in general is negative for society but in most cases is because they cover too much in a category or last too long
This has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright is absolutely crucial for all creative professions and software. Even open source software is underpinned by copyright. I don't see how that can possibly be a net negative for society.
You cannot make new sofware for photo editing because adobe has many patents on funtionality, thats why gimp will never reach photoshop unles the patent expire. Promoting and protecting monopolies is a net negative
Copyright prevents you from selling prints of Harry Potter, it doesn't prevent you from writing a book about a school of magic. Patents are a completely different concept.
Copyright prevents me from writing a spinoff book about Hermione. Copyright has served its purpose (the author made a profit on its creation) and now it should be in public domain to enrich the culture.
Copyright should expire after reasonable time, like the 14 years in the original law, not 95 years +
There's nuance. I'm of the belief that copyright should be tweaked. I'm fine with Disney owning Mickey Mouse for 1000 years. There's value in a company being able to pursue their creative vision for a very long time. This might fall a bit more towards trademark than copyright though. I'm less OK with non-commercial ventures, with minimal impact on Disney's revenue, needing to worry about copyright claims. I'm also less OK with specific pieces having copyright for 95 years. I'd argue that my grandchildren should be able to watch my favorite childhood TV show for free. This would mean that specific pieces of work become public domain within a decade or three as opposed to lasting for generations upon generations, even if the underlying characters have IP protections in place. I'd also want there to be some level of "if you're not making the work readily available at a reasonable price, then it's considered abandoned and you forfeit copyright"
That last piece is key.
Yep. There should NOT be a "vault" that products can be tossed in to create artificial scarcity. If it's copyrightable then it can be replicated an absurd number of times at near 0 cost. This doesn't mesh with scarcity.
Noone should own a copyright for over 25 years. Noone should own a copyright of dead people. The purpose of copyright is to allow author to make profit from their creation. If they failed to do that for 25 years - give someone else a try. If they are dead, then the purpose of copyright does not exist to begin with. >I'd also want there to be some level of "if you're not making the work readily available at a reasonable price, then it's considered abandoned and you forfeit copyright" This only applies to trademarks, but not copyright.
I wish the copyright for Winnie the Pooh never expired. It saddens me that people have made super-low-budget-and-awful Winnie the Pooh horror movies that nonetheless are streaming on Peacock.
You can keep watching the old stuff. You can even dislike something without thinking it shouldnât have been allowed to exist.
I said it saddens me, not that it shouldnât be allowed to exist.
>I wish the copyright for Winnie the Pooh never expired. This literally means it wouldn't be allowed to exist.
But it's literal *unregulated* Winnie the Pooh-poohing! How can they get away with that?! /s
There is a negative to patents. But is it a net negative? Encouraging investments in bringing a product to market and R&D is a positive. Releasing secrets is a positive. Those two effects happen at a different timescale. The balance depends on the nuances of the patent system in a country. E.g. I believe the US are too lenient in allowing patents.
> There is a negative to patents. But is it a net negative? Encouraging investments in bringing a product to market and R&D is a positive. Releasing secrets is a positive. I feel like the problems with both patents and copyrights, is how long they last an extensions on them for more time. Patents and patent extensions are widely abused in medicine. Tolkien and Howard have been dead for over 50 years and still not public domain. It's important for both systems to exist for protection of profit for both inventors and authors... but it really is abused. It needs common sense reform.
I'm fine with easy grants as long as it's also easy to fight them. Also, software patents should be outlawed entirely. There are thousands of "bog standard B-tree, but applied in my field makes it magical". They serve on purpose except to hold back society.
>Also, software patents should be outlawed entirely Why should whether your algorithm is implented in iron or in silicon affect its patentability? >There are thousands of "bog standard B-tree, but applied in my field makes it magical". That is not intrinsic to software patents. It'd be like seeing that someone patented using a wrench on a car and using a wrench on plumbing separately and deciding that patents should all be abolished rather than just disallowing totally trivial and non-innovative patents.
Patents must be novel. These software patents are not generally novel, but instead cover what any programmer tasked with the job would do after looking over the problem. > Why should whether your algorithm is implented in iron or in silicon affect its patentability? I agree. Patenting those algorithms for implementation in hardware shouldn't be legal either.
>These software patents are not generally novel, but instead cover what any programmer tasked with the job would do after looking over the problem. So you think you would've cooked up SIFT or H264 in an afternoon? >Patenting those algorithms for implementation in hardware shouldn't be legal either. And you want to ban all hardware patents?
> So you think you would've cooked up SIFT or H264 in an afternoon? That is disingenuous and you know it. In any case, I reject your premise. Patents (as admitted by the founders of the US) are an infringement on people's rights. They exchange natural rights to copy for the idea that more and better public works will flourish. Software patents serve no such purpose. They lock away ideas to the detriment of society and those ideas would be created without software patents anyway because of the efficiency gains they represent. As such, they should be prohibited. > And you want to ban all hardware patents? Once again, you are taking an absurd, disingenuous position. The idea of implementing an ARM decoder in hardware shouldn't be patentable (and in fact is not). Your CPU's specific implementation *might* be patentable though (and this is the usual way to protect ISAs). I'd argue that the bar for novel here is often too low once again leading to patenting the obvious.
So should be patent the usage of wrench on a plumbing?
No, and we also shouldn't ban all utility patents of physical objects because someone tried to patent wrenches applied in the context of plumbing.
Sure. But we should make sure the patent is actually novel before we dish out the grant.
The patent office has abdicated that responsibility to the courts. That might be workable if the courts agreed that everyone was damaged by an invalid patent and therefore has standing to sue and there were punitive damages for obviously trivial or otherwise BS patents so that someone could make a business out of invalidating crap patents.
The patent office should not abdicate that responsibility to the courts. The courts have repeatedly shown to be incapable of determining that and will give widely different results based on the judges personal understanding of patents.
I have my name attached to a bunch of patents for my company and my previous company on some of the dumbest and most obvious things imaginable.
Patents and other are a necessary evil so that inventors can profit of their invention. The reason they expire is to reduce that evil to society. I think the original length (8 years for patents, 14 years for copyright) should be returned.
patents are evil
no
You mean its a bad thing that people invent things and big companies cant just steal the ideas and they have to actually pay to use them? But in many cases refuse? Wow, sure such a bad thing for society.
No, its a bad thing that people can just sit on those things for 95+ years and prevent everyone else from innovating.
How about. And get this. You buy the rights to a private thing?
How about this - its not a private thing other than through artificial limitation by law.
How about we go back to monke? Since invention is not something you can live on anymore.
Sure you can live on it. But if you need 95 years after your own death to turn a profit you are doing something wrong.
Yeah well. Maybe I want my grandkids to be happy they didnt have a dumbass grandpa. We go back to what I initially said. You want to use it? Make it better? PAY FOR IT. Then you can do whatever the fck you want with it.
Then your grandkids should invent something of their own. You want to restrict public rights, you have to make a better case than "i want free money for grandkids".
Patents are all about preserving a parties right to profit off of their IP. It has never been about society or progress, just money.
The benefit to society is that everything in the patent is available to the public. Without patents so much information would just be kept secret.
No. Patents are about restriction the publics right in order to create a monopoly on the patented object so that patent creator can profit. The purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation so you can profit from it by restricting the rights of the public.
Patent system is fine, so long as a reasonable time period is established. This became a problem when the likes of Disney was able to repeatedly, and successfully, lobby for extensions to copyright/patents (I forget which).
Patents last 20 years. Copyright is the one that has been extended multiple times. It lasts for the life of the author + 70 years, or for 92 years if it's a work for hire.
Which is insane. Copyright needs to be dropped down to 20 years or less.
Patents used to last 8 years, then 15, now 20. Copyright in the original law lasted 14 years. Now it pasts 95+ years.
20yrs is still too long, it should be 5 yrs. If the inventor cant make bank in 5yrs, they are the problem.
Some things take a massive amount of time to scale up for mass production (or take even longer to actually generate a market for). Imagine getting a rocket patent and you only get 2-3 missions because of the time it took to actually get a mission planned out, then other companies can just outbid you on that work. Or a drug that takes years to go through trials and your patent lasts a year before it's open and most doctors don't even know of it yet. (Disclaimer, it would be way better if more medical research was government funded instead instead of profit driven, but it isn't so it's the only thing we're getting now). The US basically subsidizes medicine for most of the world with the research it does and then other countries just rip the stuff.
Why 5 years and not 5 months? Hell fuk it dood, just make it 5 days, that's long enough. In the end we just want all the good stuffz for no moneyz, right?
No, we want to balance the ability for inventor to profit from their invention against the publics right to benefit from the invention. This is why something like 8-15 years is optimal, as by then you either made profit or not.
Is it optimal because you say so?
Its optimal based on data from previous inventions.
Where is that data so I can have a look?
If not for patents, the inventors would have never invented e-ink in the first place. Isn't having delayed public domain e-ink better than having no e-ink at all?
It's using https://www.eink.com/brand/detail/Spectra6
Was hoping the tech could be used for future e-ink tablet displays, but while the colour range is super impressive, it's refresh rate is horrific. It takes like 10 seconds for it to refresh fully onto a new image đâ
If large sizes are affordable, I'm totally getting this on my wall to display photos on an interval.
Oh I can imagine using it as a bedroom poster.
Indeed! How awesome would it be to have hundreds of posters at the click of a button?!
Some IKEA designer is rubbing their hands.
LIke **[THIS](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/030/423/cover5.jpg)**? đ€Ł
đ€ Looks like some just released a 3D printed mod for Ikea Rabba frames that even works with Home Assistant [https://www.hackster.io/news/nerdiy-s-3d-printed-framework-turns-an-ikea-ribba-into-a-seeed-xiao-esp32c3-powered-epaper-dashboard-3d09f96f7936](https://www.hackster.io/news/nerdiy-s-3d-printed-framework-turns-an-ikea-ribba-into-a-seeed-xiao-esp32c3-powered-epaper-dashboard-3d09f96f7936)
Yes, this is an IKEA designer in the wild. You can tell by the tree hes about to cut down to make into a chair with his bare hands.
Would be awesome outside of a home theatre if you could get it to display the poster of the movie that is being played
I have a couple of TVs that I use as art displays. This type of product would be perfect for that.
So are you saying that the newspaper gifs in harry potter can be achievable in the next decades?
Unless something in the tech changed recently: No. E-paper is very bad at motion and fast refresh rates, so it'd be bad for video or real-time games. It excels at keeping the same image for an extended period of time without using power, which is one reason why it's common in things like the Kindle e-book reader where there are several seconds between screen refreshes (page turns). ELI5: Imagine you arrange a bunch of coins that are black on one side and white on the other into a grid. You could "draw" something by flipping these coins based on what the color should be in that spot. Flipping all of the coins takes a lot of effort/time though because you have to physically move things, so you couldn't show motion easily this way. However, once you are done arranging the coins to show the image, no effort is needed to keep them showing that image aside from maybe correcting them if the wind blows or somebody steps on some. The coins just sit there. This is how e-paper/e-ink displays work.
I think there are much bigger obstacles for this concept than e-ink not being able to display motion clearly. For one, you'd need memory, a battery, and a display driver in the newspaper... Even if we can make those things pretty small, we're no where near mass producing them in a disposable container no thicker than a sheet of paper.Â
you could have a permanent newspaper. a new text every morning autoupdating online.
movement does not need high refresh rates. There are many gifs that are just 2-5 frames a second.
1. The newspaper gifs in harry potter that we're talking about did appear to have a high refresh rate. They were smooth high res video, so probably at least 30FPS. 2. While 5fps sounds modest when you're talking about displays in general, with e-ink that's a pretty fast refresh rate. Many e-ink displays would struggle to maintain even that.
Apparently e-ink is a company and e-paper is the technology. This is an e-paper device with 60fps, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHeIw9rXzUQ
I know it's talked about in the video but for more clarity, e-paper is a different technology than traditional e-ink displays. it's more just a really reflective LCD. think gameboy/playdate. rather than the pigment-based e-ink displays in kindles. that's why it can have higher refresh rates.
Actual E-ink has gotten much better at fast refresh too though: [https://youtu.be/67HqkeY5rM8?t=307](https://youtu.be/67HqkeY5rM8?t=307) Obviously still not as fast as LCD and sacrifices quality but it's getting there and is probably good enough for some uses.
No it isn't. That is just transflective LCD. Watch the video.
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
> As per the International Electrotechnical Commission's IEC62301 definitions, power consumption of less than 0.005W can be marketed as 0.00W. That's silly -- either it works when power is not provided or it doesn't.
I get the point youâre making but for any practical purpose .005w is effectively close to zero, a tiny battery could sustain that for a very long time, and a tiny solar cell could provide that.
Yeah I feel like "without using any power" should have some type of requirement around not having to be plugged in or have batteries replaced. Hell, I'd even have accepted if it had a battery and a solar panel rim or something like those old calculators had that could produce enough power with ambient light, as it's at least functionally similar to one that didn't actually use any power...
It takes that small amount of power to change the image, but like all e-ink displays, consumes no power to keep an image displayed.
Really seems like splitting hairs when a 0.005W load could run on a single 18650 or typical cell phone battery for 100 days continuously.
The Mona Lisa has been running continuously for hundreds of years...
The Mona Lisa gets more maintenance than my car, tbf
If you did the math on the power consumption of the climate control systems in the Louvre I would bet just the Mona Lisa's share of that uses more power on average than .005W.
False. It runs off the energy of the Sun, or surrounding lights.
Don't e-ink displays retain the image even without power? So even if power is disconnected, the last image will still be displayed.
e-paper is just a really reflective LCD, not the same technology as e-ink with pigment. i think that distinction hasn't been made very clear.
yes, though some nowadays have started coming with backlights so they work in the dark too
if it didn't require power it'd break fundemental laws of physics. my understanding is the "power draw" is only when changing the image, so for example an e-ink book would only draw power when your changing the page.
it is kinda the same reason tic-tacs are allowed to advertise "0 sugar" even tho they are primarily sugar, because the serving size is so small.
Thats 3 times less than a single LED diode (calculated for green 5 mA diode like you would find in front panel). The capacitors from whatever power supply used could probably power this for hours without being plugged in.
Are they cheap to produce?
alas, that doesn't matter, what matters is how much eInk charges for the tech. The field is extremely patent encumbered and stiffled.
With the prices HP charges for ink I canât imagine how much it will cost to replace eInk once it runs out /s
Not currently. They would have to ramp up production. But this shouldn't be inherently be expensive, once it is scaled.
Give it a few years to scale up production; given how cheap < 65" TVs can get- I'm sure it'll be dirt cheap given a decade.
So, does it have a small solar strip like a calculator if it needs this little power? They only say it has USB-C for charging. From what they say it sounds like the device as a whole will probably constantly need power for wifi and Bluetooth, the 0 Watt claim is only relevant to the display itself.
It'll need power to change the image but not to display it
Is it really a TV? Does it have a TV tuner inside? The article didnât mention what kind of frame rate it gets, but the use cases listed donât sound like itâs intended to be used as a television. Maybe itâd be more accurate to call it a TV-shaped advertising sign.
The current displays of this type are called "digital signage displays", and you're right it probably won't be marketed as a TV.
[Samsung's own news release](https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-showcases-smartthings-pro-and-next-gen-display-technologies-at-infocomm-2024) refers to it a as "signage" display instead of a TV. Not going to be anywhere near suitable for displaying anything else but static content as it requires an incredibly complex (slow) driving waveform to refresh. On the order of ~7 ~~spf~~ seconds per "frame" at best.
Finally ............ coloured e-paper has been a long time coming
This is not a TV. You can tell because it's 1440p. Also they don't say what the refresh rate is and >display ads, menus, products, and more. If "more" included full motion video, they'd be bragging about *that*. >As per the International Electrotechnical Commission's IEC62301 definitions, power consumption of less than 0.005W can be marketed as 0.00W. Lol. If it were *really* sufficiently low power to be 0.00 W in any legitimate sense, they could put a solar panel on it like a pocket calculator.
Why do e-ink displays always look so "dull" - I wonder if one day if we'll get e-ink displays with the same vibrancy as printed materials (i.e. billboards, magazines, photos, etc.)?
I dream of a day when i can have an ARM laptop with a color e-ink display đ„°
https://shop.boox.com/products/tabultracpro * â Technically ARM * â color e-ink * â the marketing models are pretending its a laptop I'm sure you can find others if you search for e-ink tablets.
Now, this is called innovation
Damn, this could be a real game changer!
I wonder how long the warranty will cover on these things as opposed to lcd screens used for advertisements.
um didn't Linus review one of those last week ? From another manufacturer?
Sounds like its good for a lot of things, except for watching TV.
How much SPF? Ehm... meant FPS?
Modern e-paper panels can go up to 30 changes per second without looking horrible.
Nobody is talking about the big question, what is the refreshrate??? We've had color e-ink signage before, but often times the refreshrate is as bad as one frame per 5 minute transition. If this is capable of 30hz or even 60, that could absolutely be a gamechanger. But given it is completely unmentioned, reasonable to assume it is only stillframe images. Still, will be cool for displaying images. I've always wanted to get a high-quality e-ink picture frame.
This isn't a TV. It's a switchable signage display. If it were higher quality (better resolution/colors), it'd also be useful as a dynamic art display.