E INK AGREES TO BUY SIPIX SHARES

[Kris777]

Interesting news:
http://www.eink.com/press_releases/e...ix_080312.html

E Ink has reached an agreement to buy 82.7% of SiPix's (STI) shares and is seeking to buy up to 100%, which is valued at approximately NT$1.5 billion. After customary regulatory approvals, the final closing is likely to
be during Q4, 2012.

[tomsem]

Does anyone happen to know who makes the 'HD' eink screen used by iRiver HD? Is it one of these companies?

[Hellmark]

it uses a version of eInk's Pearl display, subcontracted through LG.

[Dulin's Books]

not subcontracted. its made by LG under license from Eink. They get the eink film from Eink in Massachusetts and build their own display adding the back plane etc.

[Kumabjorn]

I apologise for opening a separate thread.
I am curious as to if this in reality doesn't give eInk a de facto monopoly situation?
Is there anyone else to compete with them after this?

[JSWolf]

LG made the eink screens that faded in the sunlight. Sony & Amazon used some of those LG fading screens.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I apologise for opening a separate thread.
I am curious as to if this in reality doesn't give eInk a de facto monopoly situation?
Is there anyone else to compete with them after this?

You can sort of have a defacto monopoly on something as long as the patent runs. That is why they are granted, to allow the developer to capitalise on their comtribution to society.

I don't see any problem of any sort.
Eink is a real development.
Unlike disreputable companies who try to claim ownership of rectangles with rounded corners.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

LG made the eink screens that faded in the sunlight. Sony & Amazon used some of those LG fading screens.

They made them under licence from eInk; LG aren't rivals to eInk.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Phogg

You can sort of have a defacto monopoly on something as long as the patent runs. That is why they are granted, to allow the developer to capitalise on their comtribution to society.

I don't see any problem of any sort.
Eink is a real development.
Unlike disreputable companies who try to claim ownership of rectangles with rounded corners.

So eInk is still under patent.
What is it SiPix has then that eInk wants to get it hands on?

[HarryT]

I imagine that they feel that the SiPix technology is a natural compliment to their own, and that a company with access to both technologies can do good things with it.

[Ken Maltby]

A quick look would suggest that "SiPix" is "e-Ink" with a plastic front panel, instead of
glass. Plastic is lighter and can be harder to break.

Luck;
Ken

[HarryT]

No, SiPix isn't eInk. It's a similar, but different, technology. One of the Bookeen readers had a SiPix screen, and the general consensus seemed to be that it had a rather poorer contrast than eInk.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Phogg

You can sort of have a defacto monopoly on something as long as the patent runs. That is why they are granted, to allow the developer to capitalise on their comtribution to society.

Right. And if eInk charged a truly ridiculous price, other companies would ask to license the invention. And if the licensing terms demanded are excessive, the would-be competitor can sue. It's true that this could drag out a long time, but just the fact that it could happen means that eInk will probably keep prices low enough so they don't get into this situation.

It's a lot different from publishing, where you sometimes see books licensed to a second publisher abroad, but not in the country of original publication.

P.S. It could be that I am blowing smoke, concerning the licensing situation, in this post. If I misunderstand, I am willing to learn, especially if the told gently and the actually legal situation is given with appropriate links.

[Dulin's Books]

Eink/Primeview made some that had the fading problem to. It was a problem of quality control and an inadequate UV filter layer from a supplier.

As far as what EInk get, Well they get Sipix's microcup tech and roll to roll process. Its very good for producing color variations that do not have a filter overlay. its more important for signage- shelf labels and industrial monitoring- where they are putting some focus rather than ereaders. the microcup design allows them to easily create signage that has a a discreet area of a single color , like a red area that can be turned on for "SALE" or "DANGER"

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Right. And if eInk charged a truly ridiculous price, other companies would ask to license the invention. And if the licensing terms demanded are excessive, the would-be competitor can sue. I
[...]
P.S. It could be that I am blowing smoke, concerning the licensing situation, in this post. If I misunderstand, I am willing to learn, especially if the told gently and the actually legal situation is given with appropriate links.

Well I can;t provide any links, but in general a company is under no obligation to license their patents. If they want to keep sole control of them, they can.
What you might be thinking of is the situation where a company has negotiated to make some of its patents required parts of a standard, and part of that agreement is that they must license them on a fair and non discriminatory basis to anyone who pays. That is part of the contract they made with the licensing body.