Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Prius Under Fire For Patent Infringement
tekiegreg writes "According to Auto Service World, Toyota (and possibly other hybrid companies) are guilty of violating a patent with their Prius hybrid Systems. The patent in particular looks like it covers most of how the drive-train and even the braking system of a Toyota Prius functions. The implications of which are big if there is no deal or settlement made (such as ceasing of hybrid vehicles in the United States)."
Remove the braking system. No more patent violation!
Czech language for absolute beginners
It's the oil companies in disguise!
Demented But Determined.
So if you want a visual of what they're actually talking about, look here because that damned patent site refers to images that are nowhere to be found. I think that linked diagram refers to the numbers that the patent information initially state about the design of it.
My work here is dung.
Theyre patent is pretty complete, but only filed in 1990.
Unfortunately, I think reclaiming breaking energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier then that.
Brent Jones
Man, people who deliberately use "submarine patents" to try and make money off a popular technology really bug me. As do "technology companies" whose sole business model is to own patents. They wait and see, and if the tech becomes successful, they pounce. If it flops they stay away and let the infringer take the loss.
I respect the rights of patent owners, and I'm not sure how you could legally sanction this berhaviour without harming patent holders' legitimate rights, but the practice is just plain sleazy.
Now it may be that they have had suit against Toyota ever since the hybrid came on the market, and this is just a recent expansion of that suit, in which case they are not being weasels...
Freedom: "I won't!"
The article just says that Solomon is taking their complaint to the ITC to block Toyota from importing more vehicles. ITC can't rule guilt or fine Toyota. If Toyota manufactured the vehicles here, it likely would circumvent anything the ITC could do. There has been no admission of guilt by Toyota so the only other place guilt can be determined is in a court of law. Until the case currently in US District Court is ruled on, there is no guilt. Only accusations.
No. In the case of the article it just would mean Toyota couldn't import hybrid vehicles of this design (presuming they don't license the patent and settle the District Court case). They would either have to make them state-side or find a different design. Beleive it or not, there is more then one way to design a hybrid vehicle. This ruling wouldn't have an immediate effect on other manufacturers of hybrid vehicles although it might set a precident for future litigation.
Google Under Fire For Patent Infringement - bad news.
Microsoft Under Fire For Patent Infringement - good news.
Sun Under Fire For Patent Infringement - depends on wind direction and world series basketball results.
Do we love or hate Toyota Prius?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
FYI: I'm not defending all patents.
That being said: where do you think R&D money comes from?
Once example: You do realize that developing new medicines costs a crapload of money right? You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right? Thankfully, the patents expire and the drugs become generics, bringing costs down.
R&D costs money, plain and simple. One day maybe we will adopt the Star Trek method (everyone works for the common good) but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. Hell I would do it if everyone else would!
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
This actually looks like a reasonable patent -- the inventor did come up with a reasonably novel approach to getting decent efficiency out of electric motors under varying load conditions, and published it via the patent system long ago.
The auto companies pay plenty in patent royalties every year, and if they'd negotiated terms before using this (which may well be tracable to their designs) then I doubt they'd have had to pay much. They may not have to pay all that much now, hard to say.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Yes, and yes. The thing in question here is Toyota's Power Split Device, which is a constantly-engaged planetary gear set that acts as a transmission and drives (or is partially driven by) the electric motor/generator. Which appears to be exactly what the patent describes.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Simple solution.. Only the original inventor gets to benefit from having invented something. If the inventor (either private or company) decides to sell it's assets, then any patents become void and the knowledge public domain.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Thank heavens we have those patents to encourage innovation. The invention would never have happened otherwise.
Believe with me, my saplings.
My patent law is a little rusty, but doesn't the patent owner have to claim infringement within a reasonable amount of time? How long has the Prius been out - 2 or 3 years? ANd they are just filing a claim now? The upshot is that if I own a patent, I can't just wait for years while it is infringed, and then come in and claim my triple damages based on the other guy's work. I have to challenge within a reasonable amount of time, or else the infringer has "squatter's rights".
Do you work for Ford?
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Cobasys, a Texaco subsidiary, holds a patent for NiMH batteries. One of the reasons for the hybrid itself is that it carefully skirts this patent by having the internal combustion engine as the prime mover. A battery-only or battery-mostly vehicle might be subject to prohibitive license fees. This is why pluggable hybrids have not been commercially produced either.
Oil company conspiracy? You decide...
... however, this "constantly engaged planetary gear" has exactly the same function as a conventional differential, which connects a drive shaft to two wheels, permitting the wheels to spin at different speeds (particularly useful for cornering). In fact, this is mentioned within the patent text. The only difference is that this planetary gear assembly is coaxial.
I'm a little puzzled by the timing of this suit, which has emerged a full five years after Prius models have been available, and I don't think it was particularly secret that they were developing hybrid vehicles before 2000. (I own a 2000 model myself.) Did Solomon forget they had this patent? Wouldn't the doctrine of laches apply here? http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm.
Even in 1990 (when the patent was issued) wouldn't a gear assembly like this have been obvious to any knowledgable practitioner of the art?
> That being said: where do you think R&D money comes from?
> Once example: You do realize that developing new medicines costs a crapload of money right?
> You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it
> cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right? Thankfully, the
> patents expire and the drugs become generics, bringing costs down.
Pharmaceutical companies do spend a fair amount on R & D. However, it is nowhere near as much as they spend on marketing. The reality is that they are using patents to control the market, not to recoup their R & D investment.
"You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right?"
The vast majority, more than 80%, of the patent generated revenues in the pharm industry does not go to R&D. It goes to marketing, administration and comparatively horridly inefficient production. Take a look at any pharmaceuticals financial reports some time.
You do realize that we'd get five times the current amount of R&D if we simply paid for it outright? Or the same amount of R&D for a fifth of the cost? And that's being generous and not counting the likelyhood that a large part of the R&D is comparatively inefficient due to decades of monopoly protection.
You do realize that state-granted monopoly rights is one of the most inefficient ways to generate financial incentives conceivable?
Lesson 1: READ THE CLAIMS.
:)
Note that every claim is either a "base claim", that is, that starts a new description, or is a
"subsidiary claim" that depends or extends another claim.
Lesson 2: READ THE BASE CLAIMS TWICE.
The base claims are the patent's "weak spots" - if you can just dodge every base claim, then
the patent doesn't apply to you.
Notice that in this patent every base claim says "electrical" on both power inputs. That's
a major flaw; this patent has no claims that cover the case of only one electrical power
input and one of a totally other kind of power.
Lesson 3: THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT IF NONE OF THE CLAIMS APPLY.
The Prius driveline doesn't use an electrical motor on BOTH inputs, only on one. Hence it does
not infringe.
Next?
There's a group of companies developing lithium batteries that have created a patent pool. If your company develops technology for lithium batteries, you pay a fee to get into this group and then you can use for free any lithium patent from any company in the group. Of course, they get to use your patents as well, but with so many people looking out for submarine patents and the fact that your competitors signed a technology sharing agreement, the chance of a lawsuit is minimal.
The physics of aerodynamics pretty much drives the exterior shape of the car if you want to get good highway mileage.
Really, the company holding this patent does actually use it. From what I gathered it has a lot to do with the braking system being used to charge the battery.
I'm guessing / hoping Toyota and this company will both be reasonable and find a fair way to settle this. Where this isn't a 'completely frivolous' case, where the patent holder is a company setup to make money off it's patents (which it doesn't use), I think they'll at least be reasonable.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yeah, two of the base technologies have been around for ages, but this particular combination of the two is a novel idea. The patent in question is a lot narrower than the Slashdot summary makes it seem. It basically almost exactly describes Toyota's HSD system, which you must admit, IS a novel and original method for creating a hybrid vehicle. The patent will not be enforceable against most other hybrid manufacturers, as they use different hybrid systems.
In this situation, unlike some of the past abusers of the patent system, the company asserting the patent has a damned solid case from what I've seen so far, and a right to at least reasonable royalties from Toyota.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
You are correct, provided you are willing to risk an explosion See the "Warning" section. Lithium batteries are not used in automotive applications due to their volitile nature. I believe some new technologies are upcoming to mitigate these risks.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Every time a patent story comes up, people always point out that the developer needs to have his invention protected. However, a patent does more than just prevent people from copying the inventor's invention. A patent prevents anyone else from independently developing the invention. This is why the invention needs to be non-obvious, which sadly seems to have effectively dropped from the patent approval process. Who protects the independent inventor who happens to be working on the same idea and developing a similar device independently? It is at least as important to protect this independent inventor as it is to protect the patent filer.
The whole patent system seems pretty ill-conceived to me. I don't particularly have a better solution, but strong enforcement of the prior art and non-obvious criterion would be a good start. The problem in my mind is that the whole patent system is based on the premise that inventions are developed from scratch. This just isn't the way most progress is done. Almost all inventions are combinations or refinements of existing technology. Sometimes those combinations/refinements are a large leap, sometimes they are rather obvious next steps.
In the case of hybrid cars, it's a combination of existing internal combustion engine and electric engine technology. The ground breaking part isn't the combination so much as it's the design to make a practical system. It's obvious that the technologies could be combined, it's not that much of a leap to see that it could possibly improve gas mileage based on existing understanding of effeciencies, but it's very unclear how to put the whole thing together such that you actually end up with better gas mileage.
I'm all for innovation, enhanced fuel efficiency, alternative fuels and all that. However, I have a fundamental problem with hybrids. Hybrids are an overly complex method for squeezing out a little extra mileage.
There are two reasons why they've been attractive. The first is that they're fashionable, especially with the celebrities driving around in them. But even then, the Prius has been more successful than any other hybrid not because it's superior, but simply because the styling is different from most cars. It looks futuristic, it looks like a hybrid. the car is essentially a fashion statement.
The second, less perceptable reason for your average consumer, is that hybrids don't feel like they're equipped with a small gasoline engine. The fuel efficiency all comes from the fact that the engine is small, not that there's some great leap in technology in the car. The distinction is that the electric motor provides additional power preventing the car from feeling too sluggish. In some cases the electric motor can motivate the car on it's own, but that only applies to the Prius and Ford hybrids, the Civic still needs the engine to get it going. It's only under a limited set of circumstances that the engine can fully take over anyway.
Then there's the premium a hybrid commands over a normal car, and the fact that the batteries themselves are extremely expensive, and are rated for, at most, 100,000 miles only under ideal circumstances. Then there's the fact that batteries can be highly polluting, both during manufacturing and disposal.
If you wan't real fuel efficiency buy a car with a 1 liter engine like are available in Europe. The car is going to be extremely sluggish, but it will get you from point A to point B. You can drive it like a normal car and still expect the kind of mileage hybrids struggle to match. If you want to go one up on that, get a small-displacement diesel which get even better mileage. Although, those cars tend to pollute considerably.
As an interim step I think hybrids are perfectly fine. My concern is that hybrids are going to turn into cash cows for automakers and they're going to get fixated on them neglecting development of far superior technologies.
What I predict is that the American automakers will go nuts over hybrids like they did over SUVs. By the time they've saturated the market with them and have to offer massive discounts to get them off their lots the foreign automakers will already be introducing new technologies. Man, I'd like to know what kind of idiots are running those companies.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/p atdesc.htm
Although, the length of utility and plant patent protection (patent term) was previously seventeen years from the date of patent grant, utility and plant patents filed after June 8, 1995 now have a patent term of up to twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application. Utility and plant patents which were applied for prior to June 8, 1995, and which were or will be in force after June 8, 1995, now have a patent term of seventeen years from the date of patent grant or twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application, whichever is longer. Utility patents are subject to the payment of periodic maintenance fees to keep the patent in force. Patent terms can be extended under some specific circumstances. See the U.S. Code Title 35 - Patents for a full description of patent laws.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Hybrids are overly complex, require expensive battery replacement. And are only marginally better then their regular counterparts in cost over their lifetime.
We are far better off investing in both straight electric and high efficiency diesel technology. Both are easier and cheaper to manufacture and allow for a wider range of fuel sources.
Someone above pointed out that Ford is paying royalties to Toyota for the hybrid technology, but they left out a critical point - Ford isn't actually using Toyota's hybrid technology - they created their own in-house that was so close to what Toyota beat them to market with, that they decided to be on the safe side they would license the technology from Toyota to avoid litigation.
It's hard to be an apologist for Toyota on this one when they have been using their own patents on the technology to collect royalties from another company already. Really, Ford and Toyota both should have been paying this other company from the beginning.
Toyota isn't this benevolent company. They make hybrids because it makes good business sense (if not profit, which arguably they do now). They are using their patents with other automakers in exactly the way this other company is attempting to.
There have certainly been some interesting innovations that make modern hybrids possible since then, primarily the interesting motor/generator/transmission gadgets, but the fundamentals that are critical to all hybrids go back way further.
The Prius is pretty much unheard-of in the UK and EU. There are a few hybrids about, but I've seen *one* Honda Insight in the past 12 months. No-one wants the expense and complexity of hybrids, when diesels are so good.
In a case such as this I would this that there should be some clause within Emainent Domain that would allow the government to null and void the patent. If ever there was a good case of something being used for the greater good, this is it.
I had an R/C car in the 80's that had regenerative breaking. In fact, just about ALL electronic speed controllers had regenerative breaking back then - since the little cars don't have break pads they either regenerate or short out the motor
The Figure 1A in the patent looks more like a Chrysler K car than a Prius. Also, the transmission in Figure 2 looks more like the transmission on a McCormick Farmall tractor with the option power take off. Maybe the inventor was influenced by previous art or one of those Iacocca TV commercials from the '80s.
Why "redundant"? I would mod it more along the lines of "funny" or "insightful" myself, and as another AC replying to parent notes, a second post being redundant, howabout that logic there... Look at the timestamp. It's the same MINUTE as the first post.
And it's so true. Every events like this, my own reaction always goes "see, now people must see the insanity and unreasonable arbitraryness of our patent system! . . . oh, who am I fooling."
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
I beg your pardon, but I have seen vehicles with regenerative braking my entire *life*... and I'm well into my fifties.
Or are 100% of all non-steam locomotives too "old tech" for the folks here?
Please note, btw, that ALL "diesel locomotives" are actually 'hybrids", using a diesel engine to generate electricity to run electric motors.
I'd say that prior art takes regenerative braking out of the so-called infringement.
mark "yes, I am into trains...."