Note to poster: It's in bad practice to change the article name. In this case it was totally unnecessary as the one point of reading this article for me was to find out who bought out E Ink, which incidentally was the thing you excluded when you decided not to use the original articles title.
i don't and think most people don't either. so using that as the first word does a worse job at conveying the point. you'd have to click it anyway to find out who PVI is.
BUT, i do agree, i should have made it "e ink acquired by __", but I think it is okay to change the article name if the new name better conveys the importance(the important thing here is e ink).
Just out of curiosity, why is E Ink the important thing here? I'm located outside of the US and I don't know who either company is, so they both hold equal importance to me.
Actually if I was from Taiwan, PVI would be the important thing to me.
I was from the UK so Sker helped with the point I, apparently ineloquently, tried to make. I've only ever heard of E Ink in passing mention when discussions are made to the uses of ePaper in articles, if I wasn't into tech news as much as I am then I wouldn't have known that E Ink was a corporation at all.
Personally I knew who PVI was, but only because my dad's friend contracted in Singapore and then Taiwan. The thing that attracted me to the article was actually the dollar amount.
