Sun 25 Mar 2007
Canon vs. Nano. Or should that be Nano vs. Canon? This subject has created more comments on the SED TV Reviews blog than any other. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who’s the greedy one? Who’s the arrogant one? Who’s responsible for delaying/derailing/destroying SED television technology? These labels could easily be applied to both parties in this dispute.
A recent article discusses this subject and brings up the time honored tradition that the best technology doesn’t necessarily make it in the consumer world. Check out the full story at Nanovip.com
Technorati Tags: Canon, Nano, SED TV, SED television
March 26th, 2007 at 8:36 am
A quick read through NanoP’s mission statement pretty much answers this question. “Technology disruptive in every field” – Along with the comments about “when the company was new” – it was all about the short immediate gain. (sale of patents) – but now it’s about long term investment (making kickbacks each time a unit is produced that uses the patent.) It’s no surprise they are doing everything in their power to terminate the original (short term gain) agreement in favor of a commission based one. Making $5+ million on an idea and having other parties do all the leg work really isn’t a bad deal. I think they are just getting greedy and wanting more. Does anyone know where they got the patent from in the first place? Probably bought it off some poor chum for $100k and sued him when he tried to talk to anyone else about it. *sigh*