• circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think it really applies to patent holders. The company doesn’t make the displays – they license their patent to the companies that make the displays. The licensing cost is what causes the displays to remain expensive, but I’m not sure this counts as a monopoly. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like patent holders can do pretty much what they like with the patent (and indeed, that kind of seems like the whole point of a patent).

    • Skiptrace@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds like Patents need to be changed then. Especially for variations of normal technology. Like, someone should not be able to patent a new variation of an OLED display. But, if you create a NEW product (E.x something that literally doesn’t exist yet that creates a new market) then you can patent that. And, patents should expire in 3 years, hard limitation.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, those products didn’t exist when they made eink displays. The whole point of a patent is to grant a temporary monopoly in exchange for the patent holder making details of the invention public. The patent holder gets a monopoly on producing and selling that thing so they can recoup their investment, and competitors can make derivatives after the patent period.

        If a product already exists, you can’t patent it because it falls under the “prior art” restriction.

        That said, I absolutely agree that patents should have a much shorter duration. I think the right number is somewhere in the 5-7 year range, but others certainly have different opinions. What I’d like is an actual, national discussion about it instead of just random ranting on social media.