• 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@sh.itjust.works
          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.