boe the largest lcd panel maker free sample

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

STONE Technologies is a proud manufacturer of superior quality TFT LCD modules and LCD screens. The company also provides intelligent HMI solutions that perfectly fit in with its excellent hardware offerings.

There is also a downloadable design software called STONE Designer. This is a completely free GUI design software you can use to create responsive digital module-ready user interfaces.

STONE TFT LCD modules come with a microcontroller unit that has a 1GHz Cortex-A8 CPU. Such a module can easily be transformed into an HMI screen. Simple hexadecimal instructions can be used to control the module through the UART port. Furthermore, you can seamlessly develop STONE TFT LCD color user interface modules and add touch control, features to them.

You can also use a peripheral MCU to serially connect STONE’s HMI display via TTL. This way, your HMI display can supply event notifications and the peripheral MCU can then execute them. Moreover, this TTL-connected HMI display can further be linked to microcontrollers such as:

Becoming a reputable TFT LCD manufacturer is no piece of cake. It requires a company to pay attention to detail, have excellent manufacturing processes, the right TFT display technology, and have a consumer mindset.

Now, we list down 10 of the best famous LCD manufacturers globally. We’ll also explore why they became among the top 10 LCD display Manufacturers in the world.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., founded in April 1993, is an IoT company providing intelligent interface products and professional services for information interaction and human health. BOE’s three core businesses are Interface Devices, Smart IoT Systems, and Smart Medicine & Engineering Integration.

Interface Devises Business includes Display and Senor, Sensor, and Application Solutions. As a leading company in the global semiconductor display industry, BOE has made the Chinese display industry develop from scratch to maturity and prosperity. Now, more than one-quarter of the global display panels are made by BOE, with its UHD, flexible display, microdisplay, and other solutions broadly applied to well-known worldwide brands.

Smart IoT Systems Business includes Intelligent Manufacturing Services, IoT Solution, and Digital Art IoT Platform. BOE provides integrated IoT solutions in smart retail, smart finance, digital art, business office, smart home, smart transportation, smart education, smart energy, and other fields. In the field of digital art, BOE has launched its digital art IoT solution – BOE iGallery, realizing the perfect combination of technology and art. For smart retail, BOE provides IoT solutions in price management, shelf management, and customer behavior analysis to achieve seamless online and offline convergence.

Smart Medicine & Engineering Integration Business includes Mobile Healthcare IoT Platform and Smart Healthcare Services. BOE has launched mobile platforms for healthcare management, based on AI and big data algorithms, to provide personalized medical treatment and health management services for users. Healthcare services combine medical, information, AI, cell engineering, and other technologies, focusing on the digital hospital, digital human body and regenerative medicine, etc., and is committed to developing comprehensive and life-cycle health management solutions.

In 2019, BOE’s yearly new-patent applications amounted to 9657, of which over 90% are invention patents, amounting to over 70,000 usable patents in total. Data from IFI Claims also shows that BOE has ranked 13th among the Top 50 USPTO (The United States Patent and Trademark Office), Patent Assignees, in 2019. According to the 2019 International PCT Applications of WIPO, BOE ranked No.6 with 1,864 applications.

BOE has manufacturing bases located in Beijing, Hefei, Chengdu, Chongqing, Fuzhou, Mianyang, Wuhan, Kunming, Suzhou, Ordos, Gu’an, etc. BOE boasts a global marketing and R&D centers in 19 countries and regions like the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, Russia, Brazil, and Dubai, with its service networks covering the world’s major areas such as Europe, America, Asia, and Africa.

LG Display is a leading manufacturer of thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels, OLED, and flexible displays.LG Display began developing TFT-LCD in 1987 and currently offers Display panels in a variety of sizes and specifications using different cutting-edge technologies (IPS, OLED, and flexible technology).

Samsung Electronics is South Korea’s largest electronics industry and the largest subsidiary of the Samsung Group. In the late 1990s, Samsung Electronics’ independent technology development and independent product innovation capabilities were further enhanced. Its product development strategy not only emphasizes “leading the technology but also using the most advanced technology to develop new products to meet the high-end market demand at the introduction stage”.In addition to the matching principle, it also emphasizes the principle of “leading technology, developing new products with the most advanced technology, creating new demand and new high-end market”.

Founded in 2003, Innolink listed its shares in Taiwan in 2006. In March 2010, it merged with Chi Mei Optoelectronics and Tong Bao Optoelectronics, the largest merger in the panel industry. Qunchuang is the surviving company and Chi Mei Electronics is the company name. In December 2012, it was renamed As Qunchuang Optoelectronics.

With innovative and differentiated technologies, QINNOOptoelectronics provides advanced display integration solutions, including 4K2K ultra-high resolution, 3D naked eye, IGZO, LTPS, AMOLED, OLED, and touch solutions. Qinnooptoelectronics sets specifications and leads the market. A wide range of product line is across all kinds of TFT LCD panel modules, touch modules, for example, TV panel, desktop and laptop computer monitor with panels, small and medium scale “panels, medical, automotive, etc., the supply of cutting-edge information and consumer electronics customers around the world, for the world TFT – LCD (thin-film transistor liquid crystal display) leading manufacturers.

AU Optronics Co., LTD., formerly AU Optronics Corporation, was founded in August 1996. It changed its name to AU Optronics after its merger with UNIOPtronics in 2001. Through two mergers, AU has been able to have a full range of generations of production lines for panels of all sizes.Au Optronics is a TFT-LCD design, manufacturing, and r&d company. Since 2008, au Optronics has entered the green energy industry, providing customers with high-efficiency solar energy solutions.

Sharp has been called the “father of LCD panels”.Since its founding in 1912, Sharp developed the world’s first calculator and LIQUID crystal display, represented by the living pencil, which was invented as the company name. At the same time, Sharp is actively expanding into new areas to improve people’s living standards and social progress. Made a contribution.

Sharp is committed to creating a unique company, creating life in the 21st century through unparalleled “originality” and “sophistication”, and is a sales company, operating video, home appliances, mobile phones, and information products throughout the major cities of the country. Establish a business point, establish a perfect after-sale service network, satisfy consumer demand.

BYD IT products and businesses mainly include rechargeable batteries, plastic mechanism parts, metal parts, hardware electronic products, cell phone keys, microelectronics products, LCD modules, optoelectronics products, flexible circuit boards, chargers, connectors, uninterruptible power supplies, DC power supplies, solar products, cell phone decoration, cell phone ODM, cell phone testing, cell phone assembly business, notebook computer ODM, testing and manufacturing and assembly business, etc.

Toshiba is a famous multinational company with a history of 130 years. It covers a wide range of businesses, including social infrastructure construction, home appliances, digital products, and electronic components. It covers almost every aspect of production and life. Toshiba has the largest research and development institution in Japan. Through unremitting innovation and development, Toshiba has been at the forefront of science and technology in the world.

From the introduction of Japan’s original washing machines, refrigerators, and other household appliances, to the world’s first laptop, the first 16MB flash memory, the world’s smallest 0.85-inch HDDs; Create advanced HDDVD technology; Toshiba created many “world firsts” in the research and manufacture of new SED displays and contributed to changing people’s lives through constant technological innovation.

Tianma microelectronics co., LTD., founded in 1983, the company focus on smartphones, tablets, represented by high order laptop display market of consumer goods and automotive, medical, POS, HMI, etc., represented by professional display market, and actively layout smart home, intelligent wear, AR/VR, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and other emerging markets, to provide customers with the best product experience.IN terms of technology, the company has independently mastered leading technologies such as LTPS-TFT, AMOLED, flexible display, Oxide-TFT, 3D display, transparent display, and in-cell/on-cell integrated touch control. TFT-LCD key Materials and Technologies National Engineering Laboratory, national enterprise Technology Center, post-doctoral mobile workstation, and undertake national Development and Reform Commission, The Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and other major national thematic projects. The company’s long-term accumulation and continuous investment in advanced technology lay the foundation for innovation and development in the field of application.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., also known as Jingdongfang, is a China-based electronics and semiconductor company with its headquarters located in Beijing, China. Being an electronics company, BOE Technology exactly knows how much effort it takes to stay strong among great competition from its peers. And, it is tougher to be popular and stay relevant, when the big names from foreign countries are your competitors. BOE Technology is one of the biggest examples of how local products can also be the best, and how buying local products can help the country’s economy, too.

BOE Technology is among the leading electronics company in China and expertise in electronics health care, the internet of things, and photovoltaics, such that it produces products like interface devices, smart medicine, smart IoT systems as well as engineering integration-related products. BOE Technology is also famous as the largest supplier of LCD, OED, and flexible/foldable displays. The company also manufactures and sells fingerprint sensors, optoelectronic sensors, and solar panels.

The sudden rise in revenues helped BOE Technology list the B shares on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, in 1997. The company was then renamed BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. in 2001. It made its first acquisition in the same year, where it bought the LCD and OLED businesses of

BOE Technology put the foundation of the BOE Energy Technology Co., Ltd and entered the photovoltaic business in 2009. The company expanded overseas when it opened its branch and an R&D center in Tokyo, Japan (2011) and Santa Clara in Silicon Valley, California (2012). In 2015 and 2016, BOE Technology opened offices in Frankfurt Germany, and New Delhi, India, respectively. In the following years, the company expanded to Dubai, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, etc.

Yashica is a Software Engineer turned Content Writer, who loves to write on social causes and expertise in writing technical stuff. She loves to watch movies and explore new places. She believes that you need to live once before you die. So experimenting with her life and career choices, she is trying to live her life to the fullest.

The global display market reached a value of US$ 151.5 Billion in 2021. As per the analysis by IMARC Group, the top manufacturers in the display industry are focused on manufacturing advanced display variants in different sizes that are equipped with speakers, built-in cameras, and video calling features. They are also making heavy investments in the advancement of display technologies, such as liquid crystal display (LCD), cathode ray tube (CRT), light-emitting diode (LED), organic LED (OLED), gas plasma, quantum dot, and e-paper. Along with this, the development of smart displays integrated with innovative technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI) that assist in real-time monitoring and provide remote access, is offering lucrative opportunities to key players. Furthermore, the leading manufacturers are entering into partnerships and collaborations and focusing on research and development (R&D) activities to launch technologically advanced displays. Apart from this, the introduction of interactive and flexible displays that offer enhanced brightness, flexibility, and low power consumption is creating a positive market outlook. Looking forward, the market value is expected to reach US$ 197.3 Billion by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 4.10% during the forecast period (2022-2027).

AU Optronics Corp. is a leading provider of optoelectronic solutions that offer a wide range of display applications and smart solutions integrating software and hardware. The company was formed by the merger of Acer Display Technology, Inc. and Unipac Optoelectronics Corporation. It is committed to developing innovative display technologies for its premium and value-added display product applications. Over the years, it has earned worldwide recognition for its smart diversified solutions with its strong R&D capacity, manufacturing expertise, and comprehensive product portfolio. Currently, it has operations in numerous countries across the globe, including Taiwan, Mainland China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, the US, and Europe.

BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. is a leading semiconductor display company that offers ultra-high-definition, flexible, and micro-display solutions. It also provides smart products and professional services for information interaction and human health. The company operates through five segments, including semiconductor display, sensor and solution, MLED, smart system innovation, and smart medicine and engineering. It has several manufacturing bases in Beijing, Hefei, Chengdu, Chongqing, Fuzhou, Mianyang, Wuhan, Kunming, Suzhou, Ordos, and Gu"an. Its subsidiaries are located in 19 countries and regions, including the USA, Germany, UK, France, Switzerland, Japan, Korea, Singapore, India, Russia, Brazil, and UAE.

Corning Incorporated is one of the leading innovators in materials science worldwide that specializes in glass, ceramics, and concrete manufacturing. The company’s industry-leading products include damage-resistant cover glass for mobile devices; precision glass for advanced displays; optical fiber, wireless technologies, and connectivity solutions for state-of-the-art communications networks; trusted products to accelerate drug discovery and delivery; and clean-air technologies for cars and trucks. It operates through five segments, including display technologies, optical communications, environmental technologies, specialty materials, and life sciences.

DuPont de Nemours Inc. is a global innovation and technology leader, serving the semiconductor, display, circuit board, digital and flexographic printing, healthcare, aerospace, industrial, and transportation industries. The company is a leading supplier of innovative display materials and processes that enable enhancements to advanced flat-panel display (FPD), liquid crystal display (LCD), and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display technologies. It operates several manufacturing facilities and offices in around 40 countries across the globe, including the United States, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, India, Japan, Mexico, Australia, Canada, Korea, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Belgium, and Brazil.

E Ink Holdings Inc. is the originator, pioneer, and leader in ePaper technology. It delivers its advanced display products to the leading brands and manufacturers across the globe, allowing them to install extremely durable, low-power displays in previously impossible or unimaginable applications and environments. It also develops, manufactures, and markets thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCDs). At present, the company has operations in Taiwan, China, North America, Japan, and Korea.

HP Inc. is a global technology leader that provides imaging and printing systems, computing systems, mobile devices, solutions, and services for business and home. The company has a diversified product portfolio, which comprises laser and inkjet printers, scanners, copiers and faxes, personal computers, workstations, storage solutions, and other computing and printing systems. Moreover, HP sells its products across the globe through its extensive network of partners.

Innolux Corporation is a global leader in display technology engaged in producing and supplying TFT-LCD, liquid crystal panel modules, and touch modules. It provides advanced display integration solutions with innovative and differentiated technologies, such as 8K4K ultra-high-resolution, active-matrix AM miniLED, AM microLED, LTPS, and touch solutions. The company also covers a range of display application products, including TV panels, desktop monitors and notebook computer panels, small and medium-sized panels, medical panels, and automotive panels.

Leyard Optoelectronic Co., Ltd. is a global leader in audio-visual technology. It operates through four segments, including intelligent display, international business, nightscape lighting, cultural tourism, and VR entertainment. In addition, the company offers a variety of display products, such as small pitch LED, conventional LED, LCD products, creative LED, LED leasing, LED modular, and conference and commercial display products.

LG Display Co. Ltd. is a leading global display company that manufactures and sells innovative displays and related products through differentiated technologies such as OLED and IPS. It is an innovation leader in display technologies, including thin-film transistor liquid crystal (TFT-LCD), OLED, and flexible displays. Moreover, it manufactures display panels in various sizes and specifications for use in consumer electronics and also produces a variety of OLED light panels for the automotive and interior design sectors.

Qisda Corporation is an ODM/OEM leader engaged in manufacturing electronic products for consumer, commercial, medical, and industrial applications. It has a diverse product portfolio, consisting of LCD monitors, digital signage and professional displays, projectors, scanners, multifunctional printers, 3G/4G smartphones, medical gateways, medical imaging and telecare, automobile infotainment devices, e-reader, and tablets. Moreover, the company owns and operates manufacturing facilities in China, Mexico, and Taiwan.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is a global technology leader and one of the largest producers of electronic products. It manufactures a wide range of consumer and industrial electronic equipment and products, including semiconductors, personal computers, peripherals, monitors, TVs, and home appliances. Samsung"s OLED displays are leading the global small- and medium-sized display market through various innovative technologies such as clear image quality, slim design, and low power consumption. Moreover, the company also offers Internet access network systems, telecommunications equipment like mobile phones, and LED solutions.

Seiko Epson Corporation is a global technology leader and one of the largest manufacturers of computer printers, information, and imaging-related equipment. The company has a diversified product portfolio, comprising display solutions, semiconductors, printers, projectors, scanners, POS systems, robots, smart glasses, and watches. It has operations in Japan, Singapore, China, India, United States, Netherlands, Canada, Mexico, UK, France, Italy, and New Zealand.

Sharp Corporation is a Japanese multinational corporation primarily engaged in the manufacturing and sales of electric and electronic application equipment, electronic components, and telecommunications equipment. The company operates through three segments, including smart life, 8K ecosystem, and ICT. It has a diverse product portfolio, consisting of display modules, LCD TVs, semiconductor lasers, sensor modules, audio equipment, in-vehicle cameras, multi-function printers, information displays, and business projectors.

Sony Corporation is a Japanese multinational conglomerate corporation that manufactures electronic products, semiconductor solutions, and imaging and sensing solutions. It also offers a wide range of professional displays, including LCD, HDR, LED, and OLED display technologies, ideal for digital signage, screen mirroring, and various professional solutions. The company currently has operations across several countries and regions worldwide, including Japan, the United States, Europe, China, India, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

About IMARC Group:IMARC Group is a leading market research and consulting company that offers management strategy and market research worldwide. The company has done multiple projects on the global display market & also AMOLED Display, holographic, 3D Display, Head-up Display, Rugged Display, which has enabled clients to set up and expand their businesses successfully. Some of the company"s offerings include:

BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd.’s 45.8-billion-yuan ($6.95 billion) facility, built in Hefei, Anhui province, will have a monthly capacity of 120,000 LCD screens, most of which will be used in televisions that are 65 inches or larger. Screens from the factory are expected to hit the market early next year.

BOE’s move comes seven years after Japanese electronics-maker Sharp Corp. opened its 10th-generation LCD production line, the most advanced in the world at the time.

According to industry standards, the higher generation the production line, the larger displays it can produce. For example, a 10.5-generation production line can create 150-inch LCD screens. By comparison, 130 inches is the maximum screen size that can be made at a 10th-generation production line.

To reverse the trend, TV-makers — who have also seen their profits plummet — have changed their focus to what they call the “Big Plan” — a strategy that puts an emphasis on more-promising products with larger screens.

People in the industry have said this could be good news for upstream suppliers, especially BOE, which has identified large panels as its core competency.

“Currently, there is only one 10.5-generation line in the world, which means that large panels will be in high demand,” said Zhang Yu, BOE’s vice chairman.

“Currently, 55-inch and larger panels account for 42.7% of the TV market. That figure will continue to rise next year,” said Liu Junguang, deputy chairman of the Greater China division of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

For the Hefei facility, BOE has secured orders from foreign and domestic clients, including Samsung, LG Electronics Inc. and Hisense Electric Co. Ltd., according to the company.

The aim of Shenzhen-listed BOE for higher-generation production lines partly reflects the central government’s ongoing efforts to move up the value chain in the panel industry, which has long been dominated by Japanese and South Korean companies.

BOE is currently building another 46-billion-yuan 10.5-generation production line in the city of Wuhan in Central China. BOE plans for the line to start mass production in 2020.

Samsung Display, the world"s largest smartphone organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel supplier, is gearing up to further defend its intellectual property against infringement by Chinese competitors.

"We pioneered the OLED market after first mass-producing the product and have gained a myriad of patents and know-how," said Choi Kwon-young, executive vice president at the display maker, which is 84.78 percent owned by Samsung Electronics.

"We are taking in-depth measures from multiple angles for our intellectual property, the fruit of the efforts, to be fairly recognized and compensated," he said.

One of the company"s key technological assets is the diamond pixel. It arranges red, blue and green (RGB) screen dots in the shape of diamonds to enhance display resolution.

Samsung Display is the largest provider of smartphone OLED panels, with 73.5 percent market share in the third quarter, according to market tracker Omdia.

BOE took the second spot, at 9.8 percent, followed by LG Display, 8.5 percent. In the large-sized OLED panel for televisions, LG Display holds a dominant market share.

China"s display makers have scouted top engineers from Korean tech companies, including LG Electronics, luring them with big paychecks to potentially gain access to the exclusive technologies of the companies, according to multiple sources in the display industry.

In 2002, BOE bought Hydis, a local display maker that was a part of SK hynix, in a deal that may have helped it boost the competitiveness of its liquid crystal display (LCD) products.

"Korea"s display industry has a painful memory about BOE"s acquisition of Hydis," said another source. "When Hydis was acquired by BOE in 2002, it was a tipping point that triggered China taking over the LCD market and beating out Korea."

Monitor Display Panel BOE monitor display panels cover a full range of products from 18.5 inches to 43 inches, with high image quality, wide viewing angles, high refresh rate, low power consumption, a borderless design, and other features. Resolution of up to 8K can be achieved. The products are widely used in entertainment, office, professional design, and other fields.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

SEOUL (Reuters) - Chinese flat screen makers, once dismissed as second-class players in the global LCD market, are drawing envious looks from big names such as LG Display Co Ltd and Samsung.A man walks out of the headquarters of LG Display in Seoul, October 20, 2011. REUTERS/Jo Yong-Hak

While the Korean giants were busy developing next-generation organic light emitting diode (OLED) TVs, little-known Chinese companies have started selling a type of display that are sharper than the standard LCD and cheaper than OLED.

Until last year, the UHD market had been almost non-existent, with just 33,000 sets sold in the 200 million-unit LCD TV market. Since then, shipments have soared around 20-fold, thanks to China, data from research firm IHS shows.

But its slow introduction into the market and austere prices have thrown open a window of opportunity for UHD makers, in this case Chinese companies like BOE Technology Group Co Ltd and TCL Corp’s LCD unit CSOT.

“We assumed it’ll be too early for this type of display to take off, and thus didn’t think much of having diverse UHD product line-ups, especially in the low end. But I think we are not late just yet and we are working hard to lead the market here.”

In the second quarter ended June, Shenzhen-listed BOE Technology reported an 8.9 percent operating profit margin, while China Star Optoelectronics Technology (CSOT), a unit of China’s biggest TV maker TCL Corp, posted a 9.6 percent margin.

By comparison, Japanese flat-screen pioneer Sharp Corp reported a razor-thin 0.5 percent margin. LG Display, the world’s No.1 LCD maker, posted a 5.6 percent margin.

Samsung Display, a unit of Samsung Electronics, had a margin of 13 percent, the biggest in the industry. But excluding its fledging OLED business, its LCD margin is between 3 and 7 percent, according to a Bernstein forecast.

Just as Korea overtook flat-screen pioneer Japan in the early 2000s, the surprise offensive by Chinese flat screen makers may be a taste of what’s to come, analysts say.

Chinese UHD producers have steadily expanded their capacity. In terms of cost and technological know-how, UHD presents lower barriers to entry compared to OLED.

“The Chinese have done very well so far this year and their momentum is likely to continue at least for another year or so, as they have spotted the potential of this niche market well ahead of bigger rivals,” said Nam Dae-jong, an analyst at Hana Daetoo Investment & Securities.

“They’ve got also strong captive customers - Chinese TV manufacturers and a booming China market. It will take quite a while for Samsung and LG, which made a strategic mistake by ignoring the potential of UHD, to overtake them,” Nam said.

Jolted by the reality of a growing UHD market, Samsung Electronics unveiled a 110-inch UHD TV in January. Interestingly, the UHD displays were not made by Samsung Display, but were produced by Taiwan’s AU Optronics.

“Even with some expansion of the Chinese panel suppliers we do expect Samsung and LG Display to stay dominant and continue production in LCD,” said Sweta Dash, director at IHS.

While Samsung and LG Display are investing billions of dollars in OLED this year, the two giants are also broadening their product lineups to include more popular 50 to 60-inch UHD models.

BOE Technology is now planning to raise 46 billion yuan ($7.5 billion) in the biggest Chinese equity offering this year, to build panel production lines and increase its stake in its LCD venture BOE Display Technology.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

TAIPEI/BEIJING -- Apple has added China"s BOE Technology to its list of premium display suppliers for the latest iPhone, providing a major boost to Beijing"s tech ambitions -- and added pressure on existing suppliers like Samsung.

The Beijing-based display maker began shipping a small number of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays for the 6.1-inch iPhone 13 in late September and is scheduled to increase those shipments soon, pending a final verification process, multiple people familiar with the matter said.

2. The action of a State in making it compulsory for children in the public schools to salute the flag and pledge allegiance -- by extending the right arm, palm upward, and declaring, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" -- violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. P.

So held as applied to children who were expelled for refusal to comply, and whose absence thereby became "unlawful," subjecting them and their parents or guardians to punishment.

3. That those who refused compliance did so on religious grounds does not control the decision of this question, and it is unnecessary to inquire into the sincerity of their views. P.

APPEAL from a decree of a District Court of three judges enjoining the enforcement of a regulation of the West Virginia State Board of Education requiring children in the public schools to salute the American flag.

"for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government."

Board of Education was directed, with advice of the State Superintendent of Schools, to "prescribe the courses of study covering these subjects" for public schools. The Act made it the duty of private, parochial and denominational schools to prescribe courses of study "similar to those required for the public schools." [Footnote 1]

The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court"s Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become "a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools," that all teachers and pupils

"shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly. [Footnote 2] "

The resolution originally required the "commonly accepted salute to the Flag," which it defined. Objections to the salute as "being too much like Hitler"s" were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl

Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federation of Women"s Clubs. [Footnote 3] Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah"s Witnesses. [Footnote 4] What is now required is the "stiff-arm" salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated:

Failure to conform is "insubordination," dealt with by expulsion. Readmission is denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile, the expelled child is "unlawfully absent," [Footnote 5] and may be proceeded against as a delinquent. [Footnote 6] His parents or guardians are liable to prosecution, [Footnote 7] and, if convicted, are subject to fine not exceeding $50 and Jail term not exceeding thirty days. [Footnote 8]

Appellees, citizens of the United States and of West Virginia, brought suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of these laws and regulations against Jehovah"s Witnesses. The Witnesses are an unincorporated body teaching that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them."

Children of this faith have been expelled from school and are threatened with exclusion for no other cause. Officials threaten to send them to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined juveniles. Parents of such children have been prosecuted, and are threatened with prosecutions for causing delinquency.

The Board of Education moved to dismiss the complaint, setting forth these facts and alleging that the law and regulations are an unconstitutional denial of religious freedom, and of freedom of speech, and are invalid under the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The cause was submitted on the pleadings to a District Court of three judges. It restrained enforcement as to the plaintiffs and those of that class. The Board of Education brought the case here by direct appeal. [Footnote 9]

This case calls upon us to reconsider a precedent decision, as the Court, throughout its history, often has been required to do. [Footnote 10] Before turning to the Gobitis case, however, it is desirable to notice certain characteristics by which this controversy is distinguished.

The freedom asserted by these appellees does not bring them into collision with rights asserted by any other individual. It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin. But the refusal of these persons to participate in the ceremony does not interfere with or deny rights of others to do so. Nor is there any question in this case that their behavior is peaceable and orderly. The sole conflict is between authority and rights of the individual. The State asserts power to condition access to public education on making a prescribed sign and profession and at the same time to coerce

attendance by punishing both parent and child. The latter stand on a right of self-determination in matters that touch individual opinion and personal attitude.

"require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty, which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country."

the Court"s previous holding that, where a State, without compelling attendance, extends college facilities to pupils who voluntarily enroll, it may prescribe military training as part of the course without offense to the Constitution. It was held that those who take advantage of its opportunities may not, on ground of conscience, refuse compliance with such conditions. Hamilton v. Regents,

There is no doubt that, in connection with the pledges, the flag salute is a form of utterance. Symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas. The use of an emblem or flag to symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality is a short-cut from mind to mind. Causes and nations, political parties, lodges, and ecclesiastical groups seek to knit the loyalty of their followings to a flag or banner, a color or design. The State announces rank, function, and authority through crowns and maces, uniforms and black robes; the church speaks through the Cross, the Crucifix, the altar and shrine, and clerical raiment. Symbols of State often convey political ideas, just as religious symbols come to convey theological ones. Associated with many of these symbols are appropriate gestures of acceptance or respect: a salute, a bowed or bared head, a bended knee. A person gets from a

Over a decade ago, Chief Justice Hughes led this Court in holding that the display of a red flag as a symbol of opposition by peaceful and legal means to organized government was protected by the free speech guaranties of the Constitution. Stromberg v. California, Footnote 13]

It is also to be noted that the compulsory flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind. It is not clear whether the regulation contemplates that pupils forego any contrary convictions of their own and become unwilling converts to the prescribed ceremony, or whether it will be acceptable if they simulate assent by words without belief, and by a gesture barren of meaning. It is now a commonplace that censorship or suppression of expression of opinion is tolerated by our Constitution only when the expression presents a clear and present danger of action of a kind the State is empowered to prevent and punish. It would seem that involuntary affirmation could be commanded only on even more immediate and urgent grounds than silence. But here, the power of compulsion

is invoked without any allegation that remaining passive during a flag salute ritual creates a clear and present danger that would justify an effort even to muffle expression. To sustain the compulsory flag salute, we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual"s right to speak his own mind left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.

Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. [Footnote 14] If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence, validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief, or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one, presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question.

Nor does the issue, as we see it, turn on one"s possession of particular religious views or the sincerity with which they are held. While religion supplies appellees" motive for enduring the discomforts of making the issue in this case, many citizens who do not share these religious views

hold such a compulsory rite to infringe constitutional liberty of the individual. [Footnote 15] It is not necessary to inquire whether nonconformist beliefs will exempt from the duty to salute unless we first find power to make the salute a legal duty.

The Gobitis decision, however, assumed, as did the argument in that case and in this, that power exists in the State to impose the flag salute discipline upon school children in general. The Court only examined and rejected a claim based on religious beliefs of immunity from an unquestioned general rule. [Footnote 16] The question which underlies the

flag salute controversy is whether such a ceremony so touching matters of opinion and political attitude may be imposed upon the individual by official authority under powers committed to any political organization under our Constitution. We examine, rather than assume existence of, this power, and, against this broader definition of issues in this case, reexamine specific grounds assigned for the Gobitis decision.

"the problem which Lincoln cast in memorable dilemma: "Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?", and that the answer must be in favor of strength. Minersville School District v. Gobitis, supra, at

It may be doubted whether Mr. Lincoln would have thought that the strength of government to maintain itself would be impressively vindicated by our confirming power of the State to expel a handful of children from school. Such oversimplification, so handy in political debate, often lacks the precision necessary to postulates of judicial reasoning. If validly applied to this problem, the utterance cited would resolve every issue of power in favor of those in authority, and would require us to override every liberty thought to weaken or delay execution of their policies.

The subject now before us exemplifies this principle. Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction. If it is to impose any ideological discipline, however, each party or denomination must seek to control, or, failing that, to weaken, the influence of the educational system. Observance of the limitations of the Constitution will not weaken government in the field appropriate for its exercise.

2. It was also considered in the Gobitis case that functions of educational officers in States, counties and school districts were such that to interfere with their authority "would in effect make us the school board for the country." Id. at

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures -- Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

Such Boards are numerous, and their territorial jurisdiction often small. But small and local authority may feel less sense of responsibility to the Constitution, and agencies of publicity may be less vigilant in calling it to account.

The action of Congress in making flag observance voluntary [Footnote 17] and respecting the conscience of the objector in a matter so vital as raising the Army [Footnote 18] contrasts sharply with these local regulations in matters relatively trivial to the welfare of the nation. There are village tyrants, as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution.

3. The Gobitis opinion reasoned that this is a field "where courts possess no marked, and certainly no controlling, competence," that it is committed to the legislatures, as well as the courts, to guard cherished liberties, and that it is constitutionally appropriate to

"fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies, rather than to transfer such a contest to the judicial arena,"

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One"s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

In weighing arguments of the parties, it is important to distinguish between the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as an instrument for transmitting the principles of the First Amendment and those cases in which it is applied for its own sake. The test of legislation which collides with the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with the principles of the First, is much more definite than the test when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vagueness of the due process clause disappears when the specific prohibitions of the First become its standard. The right of a State to regulate, for example, a public utility may well include, so far as the due process test is concerned, power to impose all of the restrictions which a legislature may have a "rational basis" for adopting. But freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the State may lawfully protect. It is important to note that, while it is the Fourteenth Amendment which bears directly upon the State, it is the more specific limiting principles of the First Amendment that finally govern this case.

Nor does our duty to apply the Bill of Rights to assertions of official authority depend upon our possession of marked competence in the field where the invasion of rights occurs. True, the task of translating the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century, is one to disturb self-confidence. These principles grew in soil which also produced a philosophy that the individual was the center of society, that his liberty was attainable through mere absence of governmental restraints, and that government should be entrusted with few controls, and only the mildest supervision

over men"s affairs. We must transplant these rights to a soil in which the laissez-faire concept or principle of noninterference has withered, at least as to economic affairs, and social advancements are increasingly sought through closer integration of society and through expanded and strengthened governmental controls. These changed conditions often deprive precedents of reliability, and cast us more than we would choose upon our own judgment. But we act in these matters not by authority of our competence, but by force of our commissions. We cannot, because of modest estimates of our competence in such specialties as public education, withhold the judgment that history authenticates as the function of this Court when liberty is infringed.

4. Lastly, and this is the very heart of the Gobitis opinion, it reasons that "National unity is the basis of national security," that the authorities have "the right to select appropriate means for its attainment," and hence reaches the conclusion that such compulsory measures toward "national unity" are constitutional. Id. at

National unity, as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example, is not in question. The problem is whether, under our Constitution, compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity.

As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism

and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. [Footnote 19]

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power, and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

The decision of this Court in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, and the holdings of those few per curiam decisions which preceded and foreshadowed it, are overruled, and the judgment enjoining enforcement of the West Virginia Regulation is

"In all public, private, parochial and denominational schools located within this state there shall be given regular courses of instruction in history of the United States, in civics, and in the constitutions of the United States and of the State of West Virginia, for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government of the United States and of the state of West Virginia. The state board of education shall, with the advice of the state superintendent of schools, prescribe the courses of study covering these subjects for the public elementary and grammar schools, public high schools and state normal schools. It shall be the duty of the officials or boards having authority over the respective private, parochial and denominational schools to prescribe courses of study for the schools under their control and supervision similar to those required for the public schools."

"WHEREAS, The West Virginia State Board of Education holds in highest regard those rights and privileges guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the Constitution of West Virginia, specifically, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States as restated in the fourteenth amendment to the same document and in the guarantee of religious freedom in Article III of the Constitution of this State, and"

"WHEREAS, The West Virginia State Board of Education honors the broad principle that one"s convictions about the ultimate mystery of the universe and man"s relation to it is placed beyond the reach of law; that the propagation of belief is protected, whether in church or chapel, mosque or synagogue, tabernacle or meeting house; that the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of West Virginia assure generous immunity to the individual from imposition of penalty for offending, in the course of his own religious activities, the religious views of others, be they a minority or those who are dominant in the government, but"

"WHEREAS, The West Virginia State Board of Education recognizes that the manifold character of man"s relations may bring his conception of religious duty into conflict with the secular interests of his fellow man; that conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to the general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of the religious beliefs; that the mere possession of convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibility, and"

"WHEREAS, The West Virginia State Board of Education holds that national unity is the basis of national security; that the flag of our Nation is the symbol of our National Unity transcending all internal differences, however large, within the framework of the Constitution; that the Flag is the symbol of the Nation"s power; that emblem of freedom in its truest, best sense; that it signifies government resting on the consent of the governed, liberty regulated by law, protection of the weak against the strong, security against the exercise of arbitrary power, and absolute safety for free institutions against foreign aggression, and"

"WHEREAS, The West Virginia State Board of Education maintains that the public schools, established by the legislature of the State of West Virginia under the authority of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and supported by taxes imposed by legally constituted measures, are dealing with the formative period in the development in citizenship that the Flag is an allowable portion of the program of schools thus publicly supported."

"Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Board of Education does hereby recognize and order that the commonly accepted salute to the Flag of the United States -- the right hand is placed upon the breast, and the following pledge repeated in unison: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" -- now becomes a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools, supported in whole or in part by public funds, and that all teachers as defined by law in West Virginia and pupils in such schools shall be required to participate in the salute, honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly."

The National Headquarters of the United States Flag Association takes the position that the extension of the right arm in this salute to the flag is not the Nazi-Fascist salute,

"although quite similar to it. In the Pledge to the Flag, the right arm is extended and raised, palm UPWARD, whereas the Nazis extend the arm practically straight to the front (the finger tips being about even with the eyes), palm DOWNWARD, and the Fascists do the same, except they raise the arm slightly higher."

"I have pledged my unqualified allegiance and devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to His Kingdom, for which Jesus commands all Christians to pray."

"If a child be dismissed, suspended, or expelled from school because of refusal of such child to meet the legal and lawful requirements of the school and the established regulations of the county and/or state board of education, further admission of the child to school shall be refused until such requirements and regulations be complied with. Any such child shall be treated as being unlawfully absent from school during the time he refuses to comply with such requirements and regulations, and any person having legal or actual control of such child shall be liable to prosecution under the provisions of this article for the absence of such child from school."

See the nationwide survey of the study of American history conducted by the New York Times, the results of which are published in the issue of June 21, 1942, and are there summarized on p. 1, col. 1, as follows:

"82 percent of the institutions of higher learning in the United States do not require the study of United States history for the undergraduate degree. Eighteen percent of the colleges and universities require such history courses before a degree is awarded. It was found that many students complete their four years in college without taking any history courses dealing with this country."

"Seventy-two percent of the colleges and universities do not require United States history for admission, while 28 percent require it. As a result, the survey revealed, many students go through high school, college and then to the professional or graduate institution without having explored courses in the history of their country."

"Less than 10 percent of the total undergraduate body was enrolled in United States history classes during the Spring semester just ended. Only 8 percent of the freshman class took courses in United States history, although 30 percent was enrolled in European or world history courses."

Early Christians were frequently persecuted for their refusal to participate in ceremonies before the statue of the emperor or other symbol of imperial authority. The story of William Tell"s sentence to shoot an apple off his son"s head for refusal to salute a bailiff"s hat is an ancient one. 21 Encyclopedia Britannica (14th ed.) 911-912. The Quakers, William Penn included, suffered punishment, rather than uncover their heads in deference to any civil authority. Braithwaite, The Beginnings of Quakerism (1912) 200, 229-230, 232-233, 447, 451; Fox, Quakers Courageous (1941) 113.

For example: use of "Republic," if rendered to distinguish our government from a "democracy," or the words "one Nation," if intended to distinguish it from a "federation," open up old and bitter controversies in our political history; "liberty and justice for all," if it must be accepted as descriptive of the present order, rather than an ideal, might to some seem an overstatement.

"All of the eloquence by which the majority extol the ceremony of flag saluting as a free expression of patriotism turns sour when used to describe the brutal compulsion which requires a sensitive and conscientious child to stultify himself in public."

For further criticism of the opinion in the Gobitis case by persons who do not share the faith of the Witnesses, see: Powell, Conscience and the Constitution, in Democracy and National Unity (Uni