Re:Printed Electronics (2016)
by Kliment on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @02:40AM
(#14298161)
Fucking terrible that what they considered the number one item to mention on that page is how many patents they hold, rather than what the thing is, does, or is good for.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
It's a form of signaling[0]. In this case, it means: "Like you what you see here? Well unfortunately we can't sell it to you since we don't have the manufacturing capacity. So you'll have to license our IP so you can build it yourself."
Case in point, Xerox licensed their IP and is already putting units in the field[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
[1] http://www.packagingdigest.com/brand-protection/smart-label-...
To be honest: they have been around for 20 years and haven't really done anything yet. I don't think they will. I think they want to sell their patents to a troll.
Re:Printed Electronics (2016)
by scientific_ass on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @03:26AM
(#14298307)
Someone once said "Patents have become a kind of currency now".
It's sad to see that people are scaling innovation using only patents.
Re:Printed Electronics (2016)
by em3rgent0rdr on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @05:42AM
(#14298714)
50+ ways to ensure this won't be adopted universally until patents expire. 50+ ways to hold back innovation.