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.
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.
> Unfortunately, I think reclaiming breaking
> energy with an electric motor was thought of,
> and used much earlier then that.
Around 1870 in fact.
sPh
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"
I know I saw Telma retarders on buses, long before 1990. They work on the same principle.
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".
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...
[Their] patent is pretty complete, but only filed in 1990.
Unfortunately, I think reclaiming [braking] energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier [than] that.
I seem to recall an article that was published in the late 1980s in Popular Science profiling a prototype hybrid car that was called the Uniq. It had regenerative braking.
Rail locomotives have had "Dynamic braking" for decades, in which energy is reclaimed from the wheels, but it is subsequently burned off in a huge resistor, but it is at least half of the formula.
So that takes regenerative braking itself off the table as far as prior art. That leaves the combiner gearbox.
The Uniq used no combiner gearbox, and neither do Honda's hybrids. Toyota has done a better job at marketing their hybrid drive, but Hondas are actually getting better MPG without the combiner gearbox (though a pure electric mode is not possible).
The bottom line is: There is some prior art; it is probably not enough to help Toyota with their immediate problem, but not all hybrids are affected.
www.wavefront-av.com
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.
EPO and for that matter every country (or at least the vast majority) use a first to file system. So an inventor often gets punished because big company X can file before they can since they have the money to start what is a very costly procedure. In the US Patent System, it is a first to invent. If two entities have filed for the same patent an interference procedure is followed where the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) will hold a hearing and make a determination based on the facts presented by both who was the first to actually invent the application.
Under the US Patent System, it counts as prior art if it was published by "others" (this means any person or group of persons different from the applicant) before the invention of the device. This is called 102(a) and they can swear behind this using the whole first to invent idea. Initially, items are considered "invented" when tey are filed. It also counts if a publication is made or it is in "use" (in the terms of in the public already) by anyone (including applicants) more then 1 year prior to the earliest US filing date. This is a 102(b) and a so-called "statutory bar". There is no way to swear behind these kinds of references. The final one that is commonly used is if a published US application or Patent was filed before the filing date of the current invention by another (this also applies to WIPO filing dates). This is called a 102(e) and like 102(a) is based on invention date so it can also be sworn behind.
I think you need to clarify the prototype being officially made statement. I cannot speak certainly for EPO or other patent offices, but the general idea is that the item described in the Patent Application has actually been invented. As such, there had better be a prototype of some sort sitting around somewhere. Most all patent laws center around a publication or existance of an item that is known to the public in same.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
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.