Well, designing and manufacturing are 2 different things.
You're right as in we will still have to rely on some Workshop having a million dollar fabrication setup with at least half a dozen experts working, to do the manufacturing part.
Furthermore, said setup will have to be optimised not for scale (as in workshop mode and not assembly line mode), focusing on getting one-shot success rather than mass-manufacturing and getting yield %ages.
So, we won't really benefit from things like Intel opening up their fabs, since they still expect a bulk order.
We still always have FPGAs.
Just need one with an open source VHDL compiler.
Ooh, that would be hard.
Now you would have to make sure that the tattoo guy has enough time and drive to put the effort into understanding your custom chip design and know which probe to connect to which neuron.
I feel like if (the de-techification of general public doesn't take place in the future) && (I were to be born in the future); then
I would probably giving free chip-design customisation services to friends and family, using some open source chip design as a base.
But then again, there's already a very few number of ppl like me...
I have a feeling that Surgeons will be made to sign contracts instructing them to refuse BYOC (bring/build your own chip) implants.
Otherwise, just make your own chip. You decide the materials, you decide the process. You decide each and every part (alright, maybe just as much as you can fathom) of the circuit.
You decide how powerful the feedback is and what functions it provides. So you are not paying for the risk of features other than the ones you want.
It'd be safe to say that there's a much higher probability of this kind of a patent being implemented than something that takes real problem solving and engineering to implement.
This one is clearly made with to increase revenue and will most probably be pursued by them as much as possible.
I can even see them getting royalties for this stuff, from other Smart TV companies.
Things that may hinder this:
PR
Laws
Really just make forced arbitration illegal and these things will reduce significantly.
Except that OP is implying that the analogy being used doesn't match the argument being put up.
Rereading OC, I realise that it is not really an analogy, since the same "X" is being used in both the cases.
So perhaps we should be looking for something else.
We have only 1080px in vertical, part of which is also used for Taskbars, titlebars and toolbars in most cases.
Then there is this trend of sites not using most of the horizontal space for main body text.
So, what reason do we have to not use the wasted side-space and instead congest the already low vertical space?
I would understand if it were a mobile-only site or if you were explicitly talking about the vertical version of it, but even for 4:3, I won't consider a sidebar to be a bad idea, unless perhaps, it was German.
It's kinda fun to think of programming as magic.
And "libraries" as grimoires/tomes .
It's surprising how far you can go with the analogy.