Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Builds a Patent Thicket For Hybrid Cars
Lorien_the_first_one sends along a WSJ piece reporting on how Toyota is hoping to benefit from new Obama Administration regulations for automobiles here in the US. "Since it started developing the gas-electric Prius more than a decade ago, Toyota has kept its attorneys just as busy as its engineers, meticulously filing for patents on more than 2,000 systems and components for its best-selling hybrid. Its third-generation Prius, which hit showrooms in May, accounts for about half of those patents alone. Toyota's goal: to make it difficult for other auto makers to develop their own hybrids without seeking licensing from Toyota, as Ford Motor Co. already did to make its Escape hybrid and Nissan Motor Co. has for its Altima hybrid."
This is exactly what patents *should* be used for: secure rewards for innovators who take the risk of bringing out a future-leading product.
The US auto companies who had a product vision apparently inspired by Country & Western music unfortunately passed on the opportunity, and now they'll have to pay.
I believe this has been their plan from day one. While the Prius and their other hybrids have been good for the company both in terms of corporate image and moving vehicles, patent licensing is where the money is.
By cornering the market on hybrid system patents (many of which would also apply to hydrogen and other alternative-energy vehicles), they stand to make a lot more money than just selling their own cars. The Ford Escape hybrid is a perfect example, as Ford licensed Toyota's 1st generation hybrid drive system rather than developing their own (Toyota had already moved on to the newer hybrid system by that point in time).
Disclaimer: I own a Prius
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
If patents are supposedly to encourage new technological developments, without knowing the details, it sounds like this might actually be a responsible use. After all, it gives Toyota a financial incentive to come up with more efficient cars. And the competition is actually licensing it. Unlike in the farmaceutical industry, where companies patent publicly-funded findings from NIH research so that they can be the only ones profiting from it. Or software, where people patent stuff to be able to sue their competitors out of a product space.
Nope. Diesel-electric locomotives use the diesel engines to power electric generators that then power individual electric motors at each wheel. The diesel engines are not directly connected to the wheels. The closest car analogue is the Chevy Volt.
Hybrid-electric vehicles, meanwhile, are basically just regular ICE vehicles that share a common driveshaft with an electric motor. They can operate entirely on electric, entirely on the ICE, or combine the two.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
So it's a fact that Toyota's goal is to prevent any one else from making hybrids without licensing?
Or maybe their goal is to protect their hard earned IP that they spent ten years working on while the rest of the world laughed at them?
Good work , Toyota. you deserve those patents.
the prius ad's gush about how the '09 model accounts for a thousand patents alone. my '06 prius said the same stuff. these patents are a source of pride for them.
THL phish sticks
Those are series hybrids, which is how the Chevy Volt will work (when the gas engine is engaged). The Prius is a series hybrid as well (it's got a neat but relatively complicated dual electric motor pseudo-CVT system). Other cars, such as the Honda Insight (the old one, don't know about the new) was a parallel hybrid, where the electric motor provided additional torque, but couldn't run the car alone.
Yeah, it's similar. There are some differences (trains don't generally have to deal with stop-and-go traffic, etc) but the idea isn't too far off.
I remember reading in Forbes years ago that there was a car company (Ford?) who wanted to make a hybrid. They developed their own system and it performed much worse than the Prius (the first gen in the US). That, combined with the fact their system was so similar to Toyota's they were afraid of lawsuits, led them to license the Toyota Hybrid System (THS), which was later named the Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD), since the Fords of the world wouldn't want their cars being powered by a Toyota Hybrid System.
It's a bit of a mess, but at least there are some hybrid cars. As other companies do more of this stuff (like the Volt, the Fusion if it doesn't use the HSD, etc) it will get to the point no one will be able to produce a car without violating patents, so they'll just cross-license everything and things will be the same as they are now.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
No, the prius is a paralell hybrid with electrical and fuel storage. The gas engine can drive the wheels directly. The electric motor can also drive the wheels directly without the gas engine running.
Locomotives wheels are only driven by electric motors, and the electricity comes from the gas engine. There is no direct connection between diesel and wheels. There is also almost no electric storage between diesel and electric motors, so if the diesel engine stops, the electric motors stop.
The prius real advance is the ability to manage and smoothly use whatever power source is best suited at any time.
Yes, it was Ford, and it was functionally similar enough to HSD that upon close inspection, it might as well have been HSD. They licensed the HSD from Toyota while implementing their own design, the licensing done entirely for legal reasons, while they themselves licensed some of their diesel tech to Toyota in exchange. As the article points out, no money changed hands.
Implementation-wise, what you've got is an independent traction motor and a generator that's slaved to the ICE. The generator's engaged when the battery is at low SOC, which you perceive as the engine then starts struggling to both propel the vehicle and charge the battery at the same time. The generator only acts as a motor in the act of starting the ICE. The independent traction motor handles both propulsion and regenerative braking.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
This is a common misconception, but Ford does not license their hybrid technology from Toyota. Related post at Autoblog where they explain: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/
You have the series and parallel confused. A series car typically has the electric motor inline with the engine to provide boost. This is how the original Honda Insight and hybrid Civic work. A parallel hybrid like Toyota's Prius and the Ford Escape can run on any combination of electric and gasoline. It uses a planetary gear assembly with the gasoline engine driving the planets. The sun gear goes to a generator/alternator (that can also be a motor) and the outer ring goes to the wheels and another electric motor. The CVT is basically just how it shunts power between the two motors. Mechanically it's fairly simple. If the gasoline engine dies it can use the electric motors to power itself. If an electric motor dies the car won't move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
If you think Japanese companies were the only ones working on hybrids, take a look at this article from June 1994:
Formula Hybrid at Le Mans
The neat idea behind Chrysler's design is that the turbine must be de-coupled from the drive train. The electric engine is the thing that is moving the car. This way the turbine can run at the most efficient RPM.
The fact is that American car companies built cars that could actually make a profit on. Those vehicles were SUV's.
It's a bit of a mess, but at least there are some hybrid cars. As other companies do more of this stuff (like the Volt, the Fusion if it doesn't use the HSD, etc) it will get to the point no one will be able to produce a car without violating patents, so they'll just cross-license everything and things will be the same as they are now.
The purpose of patents is to prevent progress. It's no longer to permit an inventor to the exclusive use of his art, and perhaps it's never been. There will never be a mass market electric car because these competing companies would rather prevent the electric car than share the market that destroys the internal combustion engine with another carmaker.
Unless we do away with patents. Then it's a race to market with the cleverest implementation of the newest technology you can get, because that's what sells, and every popular feature becomes common (commons?) in a very short time, requiring car makers to make continuous improvement in order to stay in business.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
They had been working half-assed on hybrids since 1993 and were more than happy to give all that up to take cash from the US government to show million dollar hydrogen prototype cars and trucks. Can you say dumb? Unfortunately, the US government is allowing them to continue operating and sticking US citizens with the bill. IMO, any of those three which couldn't continue operating should have been parted out and the remains crushed like GM did with the EV1. What a waste of money and it is their own fault Toyota is going to stomp on them with patent licensing costs as they should. After all, Toyota was the one who had to endure about 8 years of bashing by the US press and US auto makers for doing hybrid systems. They even had to endure a law suite by Mobile/Texaco when Toyota and Panasonic built prismatic NiMH batteries the oil company said were outside of the NiMH patent licenses which Mobile/Texaco purchased from GM. The large NiMH batteries used in the Rav4 EV had to be discontinued but at a cost of millions of dollars, they were allowed to continue making and using the prismatic design used in the Prius battery packs. Toyota deserves to be rewarded for what they've done with and for hybrid system designs.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I'm all for patent reform, but this seems to me to be a classic case of the appropriate use of patents. The parent is just a moron. Toyota put a helluva lot of money and time into its hybrid technology, why shouldn't it reap the benefits of it, whether through the sale of its own hybrids or by licensing the technology?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Incorrect. GM *lost* money on many of it cars. I recall the number being around $1,000-$1,500 a vehicle. The SUV's were the only line where they actually made money per car.
Personally, I think GM should have just let the autoworkers pull a world-wide strike years ago. In the long run they would have been ahead even though the short term costs would have been very painful.
There is no conspiracy other than the will to survive. You can see why a company losing money on each car would *have* to fight against further regulation.
Given that Honda seems convinced that their tech doesn't conflict with any Toyota patents I'm curious as to how specific these patents are. If they're general enough for any automaker to run afoul of them just by making any sort of hybrid system then I'd imagine they could be invalidated through prior art. If they're much more specific to the Prius drivetrain then there are other questions, like how many patents deal directly with the drivetrain, vs control software, or other elements like battery tech? If it does get to that point then it can be debated if the public good of having more hybrids from different automakers outweighs the legitimate issue of rewarding Toyota for spending years and what was probably a fair sum of money in the development of their hybrid tech. I imagine that these patents cover a combination of the 2, and ford (and others) have decided that paying Toyota is cheaper than bringing a legitimate challange.
I'd guess that at least a few of these patents deal with the weird new "cvt" that only uses planetary gears instead of belts or chains, which is a pretty significant and original idea for a car. A simulation of the gear system can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/inachan/prius/planet_e.html
It is common for tecnology companies to file patents for defensive purposes. The purpose is not specifically to prevent others to compete but rather to prevent patent trolls to extort money from them in the future. Having as many things related to your product patented create a body of prior arts that can be used to fight suits by these trolls. What happens in an industry where there are a few major players (car, printers, etc) is that they end up cross licensing each others' patents anyway. This way the can focus on producing and selling their products without having to deal with lawsuits from patent trolls all the time.
Patents are both an inducement to innovation and a barrier to entry. Hybrid motors are a case in point. I have an investment in Capstone Turbine, a promising low-emission microturbine venture. They lack the marketing clout or production efficiencies to stave off a larger company that could freely copy their innovations. I would not invest in Capstone Turbine unless they held patents. It is easy to document how patents are used as a weapon to curtail competition. However, the burden of a patent reform proposal is to answer a simple question: why would a small investor like me risk capital on a small innovator like Capstone Turbine if they couldn't hold a patent?
Bear in mind that the mpg that you are seeing is based on the fact that an Imperial gallon is larger than an US gallon. It is 4.5l for an Imperial gallon to 3.8l for a US gallon. Naturally they get better MPG.
That said the fuel efficiency of diesel cars in Europe is quite astounding, the Audi A2 was the best but no longer in production. The VW Bluemotion Polo and Gold do around 61mpg (US gallon), which is better than a Prius.
Since when does Japan care about US Intellectual Property law? Sorry for sounding so harsh, but part of the reason the American semiconductor industry died is the Japanese companies didn't pay licensing on the patents for RAM. It's no wonder they could build it cheaper.
Even today, I have several friends who design stearing columns for most of the major automakers. Toyota buys the minimum run of columns, then takes the shipment and reverse engineers it to build them on their own. No licensing or anything, so my friend's company just barely breaks even (the minimum order is just enough to cover the engineering costs).
So now they're going to use the system that they ignore because they'll make money off of it? Fuck. That. Shit.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
I could not tell after reading and rereading your comment if you actually understood the difference between a series and parallel hybrid, so here we go: In a parallel hybrid both the electric motor and the whatever-else motor (gasoline, diesel, air, whatever) drive some wheels somewhere. You could have electric to the front wheels, and gasoline to the rear; that would be a parallel hybrid. In a series hybrid, only the electric motor(s) drive the wheels, and the fuel engine (or whatever) is connected only to a generator which can charge the batteries. The electrical energy from the generator can be added to the output from the batteries to provide power for acceleration, but what is relevant is that there is no mechanical connection between engine and road. If the electrical and fuel engines both go into a single transmission which drives the powertrain, it is a parallel hybrid. Every hybrid currently available from a major automaker is a parallel hybrid, though as others have mentioned there are upcoming series vehicles, like the Volt. In most cases, parallel hybrids can only limp home without gasoline, if they'll even do that. However, in most cases parallel hybrids can be driven in any battery condition (so long as they are undamaged) if you refuel them.
I don't know what "A series car typically has the electric motor inline with the engine to provide boost." means... In cars, boost is what you get from turbocharging... unless you're talking about Knight Rider. A series car by definition does not have the electric motor inline with the engine. AFAIK the only people who ACTUALLY have an electric motor literally in line with the engine is Subaru; I don't know how close they are to production but a year or two ago they demonstrated an Impreza with an automatic trans, and the torque converter replaced with an electric motor. Pretty hot. However, that is a parallel hybrid system...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's the whole point. For a technology that can help the whole planet, mandatory but also fair licensing is the way to go - in my opinion. I certainly believe that Toyota should be entitled to a profit from their innovation. I also believe that their innovation should be protected. But this kind of technology is in an area that is pretty much essential that the whole world adopt. How do you balance the ability for Toyota to tie up other companies and prevent competition with something that needs to be adopted across the board?
Volvo licenses their safety patents for free. They consider it for the greater good as well as good marketing. And there are a lot of Volvos on the road. I'm not saying that Toyota should just give away their hybrid patents, but there is precedence of a viable company doing that and making quite a bit of money along the way.
The upshot is that if you believe that global climate change is real, humans have a very small window now to avert disaster - if that windows hasn't closed completely already. I think civilization as we know it and a billion or more human lives, as well as untold numbers of animals kind of take priority over patent rights.
Let Toyota make a profit from the patents but don't allow them to limit competition or to choke off what could be a huge part of preventing disaster. These need to be mandated licensing with arbitrated fees.