Patent Claim Could Block Import of Toyota's Hybrid Cars

JynxMe writes "Paice is a tiny Florida company that has patented a way to apply force to a car's wheels from an electric motor or internal combustion engine. Paice thinks that Toyota is infringing on its technology, and is going after the automaker in court. The legal spat became much more serious for Toyota this week, when the US International Trade Commission decided to investigate the matter. In the worst-case scenario for Toyota, the commission could ban the hybrid Camry, third-generation Prius, Lexus HS250h sedan and Lexus RX450h SUV."

Comments

That's bright!

[phocutus]

Now that's a productive way to encourage Electric hybrids! WTF is wrong with these morons.

Re:That's bright!

[nomadic]

Now that's a productive way to encourage Electric hybrids!

Uhhh...So you think this company, Paice, was formed in order to encourage Electric hybrids? I would assume they were formed to make money.

WTF is wrong with these morons.

If they honestly think they have a claim, then it would be absurd not to go after it. What would you have them do instead?

Re:That's bright!

[JLF65]

What would you have them do instead?

How about work for a living instead of patenting vague ideas and waiting for a company to make something that sort of resembles it?

Re:That's bright!

[jim_v2000]

A one sentence summary is vague. Their patent filing is not.

Re:That's bright!

[Dunbal]

If they honestly think they have a claim, then it would be absurd not to go after it.

      Read as: It doesn't cost all that much to file a patent, let's threaten to sue and see if Toyota will settle. Even if we only make a couple hundred thousand, Toyota will be happy to have the FTC off their back, and we'll have paid our costs for incorporation, and filing this (bogus) patent.

Re:That's bright!

[Dunbal]

How about work for a living instead of patenting vague ideas and waiting for a company to make something that sort of resembles it?

      Believe you me, I want to see more of these patent trolls. Keep them coming until the system breaks.

      Just like medical predators and ambulance chasing lawyers, I congratulate them for driving health care costs to the point where litigation avoidance - not patient care or comfort, is the deciding factor in medical decisions. No one can afford to get sick without insurance in the US, and frankly not everyone can even afford the insurance. Thus, the health care system is broken, and thus - it HAS to get fixed NOW.

      Hopefully the same thing will happen with patents.

      Now don't get me started on copyrights... nah, you can download the torrent...

Re:That's bright!

[PalmKiller]

This is where the president outta step in and stop the stifling of the hybrid market by null and voiding any such patents, it would be much better than cash for clunkers...and not cost us a dime. The car companies in the US and Japan could then stop suing each other and get down to designing the best hybrids, unhindered by crap like this from other car manufacturers and individuals.

Re:That's bright!

[serbanp]

Well, the issue here is that the fucked-up US PTO granted the patent in question, not that a few morons filed it. B.t.w., the filing date is May 2006, well after the second generation Prius cars hit the US market.

How can someone be granted a patent for something that is already mass-produced by someone else can be explain by either unlimited greed or stupidity or both.

Re:That's bright!

[nomadic]

Just like medical predators and ambulance chasing lawyers, I congratulate them for driving health care costs to the point where litigation avoidance

And you know this because the health insurance companies told you. And they would never lie, right?

Re:That's bright!

[Kartoffel]

Making money is only a means to an end. Why don't the people who make up Paice engage in something more productive?

On the other hand, maybe Toyota really is doing something unique and non-obvious with hybrid propulsion and Paice can prove prior art. It could be, but in this day and age of patent trolls, i am skeptical.

Re:That's bright!

[sofar]

Just like medical predators and ambulance chasing lawyers, I congratulate them for driving health care costs to the point where litigation avoidance - not patient care or comfort, is the deciding factor in medical decisions. No one can afford to get sick without insurance in the US, and frankly not everyone can even afford the insurance. Thus, the health care system is broken, and thus - it HAS to get fixed NOW.

What makes you assume that it will get fixed? As far as I can see, there is a significant portion of people in the government that would love to continue seeing it "broken". As a matter of fact, plenty of people will attest that US health care is not broken at all.

Personally, I don't think that "US health care" even exists.... but that's just me.

Re:That's bright!

[santiagodraco]

Lol, vague ideas. You are so "insightful". I think we should reform the patent system. You are not allowed to file for a patent until you've produced a fully functional model of your idea and have it fully in production and on sale. Of course anyone else who has a similar idea "in production" also has claim and your patent will be voided for prior art.

You so understand the workings of innovation JLF65. Thank you for your insights.

Re:That's bright!

[siddesu]

The president is represented in this dispute by the US International Trade Commission, which goal is to protect US companies from (unfair, they say) foreign competition.

Stopping import is very unlikely IMHO, but we'll see - with the huge investment of your tax money into electric sports cars I wouldn't be much surprised by anything.

Re:That's bright!

[Moridineas]

Where's the info that the patent covers technology used in 2nd generation Priuses?

Re:That's bright!

[shentino]

You do realize that the more lucrative the insurance and litigation market becomes, the more pressure the lobbyists will put on *our* congress critters to keep things the way they are, right?

It's like trying to choke an anaconda with a huge deer...those jaws are bigger than you'd expect and all you get for your trouble is a curvetoothed snake happily trapping and swallowing away your day's hunt and leaving you with nothing.

Re:That's bright!

[Burdell]

At which point companies will stop developing hybrids. Companies are developing new hybrid technologies to make money; if Toyota were to spend millions (or billions) of dollars developing a better hybrid, but then Honda could spend $30,000 at the Toyota dealer and copy it, Toyota wouldn't waste their money developing it.

Re:That's bright!

[icebike]

I suspect they were formed to troll patents.

After all the Prius, embodying virtually ALL of these claims was ON SALE in Japan in 1997, after MANY years in development.

These guys first filed in 1998, and kept re-filing till they were spot on.

How likely is it they were following the published research in this field (or had a mole in Toyota) and cobbled something together and rushed to the patent office? Since Toyota was SELLING it BEFORE they filed you can pretty well assume this is the case given the lead time required to bring a vehicle to market.

The prior patents were not enough to keep Prius out of the US, and this one won't be either.

Start by reading the patent claims and the dates involved. Follow it back to the patents they claim this was based on.

Their earlier patent 6,554,088 did not mention AC-to-DC conversion. Only AFTER Toyota move to AC-DC conversion did this company start inserting that term into their applications. Further, this patent even references the Toyota transmission and the Prius by name.

The current patent is therefore based on a patent which already recognized the Prius.

So, Troll, or non-applicable, take your choice.

Re:That's bright!

[aztracker1]

You've never seen an EOB statement eh?

Re:That's bright!

[spatley]

Only a means to an end? Are you proposing that we could just get these guys at Paice laid and they will go away?

Re:That's bright!

[serbanp]

The patent is relatively vague. Claims 1 through 21 would apply only to something that has electric 4WD, which is not the case with the Prius.

However, claim 22 does away with the requirement of powering electrically both front and rear axles; excluding this detail, this claim covers the generic concept of hybrid cars, e.g. all Prius generations.

Re:That's bright!

[Locutus]

when I was researching the Prius and it's hybrid system in the late 90s and the year 2000, it was well known by the hybrid techies that a very old patent( expired ) used the design of the power split device( planetary gears ) used by Toyota. I don't think it brought in a 2nd motor and used it as both a motor and generator as Toyota did but the basic concepts were all there in the public domain.

not to mention that the patent listed was filed in 2006. Toyota had their hybrid system running in cars in Japan as early as 1997. Those jurists much have been morons to have awarded that case against Toyota.

LoB

Re:That's bright!

[mOdQuArK!]

At which point companies will stop developing hybrids.

Bullshit.

Companies will develop new technologies no matter what, since if they don't, their competitors will take their market away (or get the jump on them for a new market). Pretending that patents are required for innovation is just the rationalization that patent holders & patent trolls use to justify using patents to stifle competition.

Re:That's bright!

[pembo13]

The one sentence summary itself should be innovative, if we really must have patents. The summary should blow my mind and make me think the inventor is a genius.

Re:That's bright!

[Dunbal]

What makes you assume that it will get fixed?

      Because I'm a fully qualified, board certified specialist who COULD practice medicine in the US, but refuses to because it's too much hassle. And what's worse is, I'm not the only one. There are many, many physicians who have opted out of medicine and into something less stressful (and potentially disastrous in financial terms). A country that encourages trained specialists to actually work in something less risky because of litigation or even worse, having insurance companies practice medicine by telling doctors what to do and what not to do, is a bit screwed up.

      But then again I forget, this is the US we are talking about. A country that owes the world close to 12 trillion dollars (not counting social security and health care), is printing money like mad, has double digit unemployment (17% if you look at U-6), whose own government admits unavoidable financial armaggeddon, and yet has a stock market that rallies 40% with apparently no end in sight... Yeah, I guess anything could happen.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas enacted malpractice reform in 2003. This included limits on non-economic damages, also known as compensation for âoepain and suffering.â According to the Texas Medical Board, more than 10,000 doctors have either returned to the state or decided to move to Texas as a result of the reforms.

Re:That's bright!

[Kalriath]

Excellent! Penalise small inventors who don't have the money to go to market!

Dumbest idea ever. Reforms are needed, but your idea is "the non-wealthy need not apply".

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"Now that's a productive way to encourage Electric hybrids! WTF is wrong with these morons."

Hey, can't blame them for trying to make a dollar...

Re:That's bright!

[treeves]

It's not just you, but it's almost just you. Most Americans, including me, are satisfied with their health care as it is.

Re:That's bright!

[treeves]

And you are suggesting that the only way to have sex is to pay for it?

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"It's not just you, but it's almost just you. Most Americans, including me, are satisfied with their health care as it is."

I'm quite happy with my healthcare and insurance too.

I'm certainly not happy with the prospect of having it lessened, dictated to me, nor having it and other parts of my life increasingly taxed, in order to pay for others.

You may have a right to seek medical care, but, I don't think you have a RIGHT to have me pay for it.

Re:That's bright!

[Grishnakh]

ust like medical predators and ambulance chasing lawyers, I congratulate them for driving health care costs to the point where litigation avoidance - not patient care or comfort, is the deciding factor in medical decisions. No one can afford to get sick without insurance in the US, and frankly not everyone can even afford the insurance. Thus, the health care system is broken, and thus - it HAS to get fixed NOW.

Wrong.

Yes, you're partially correct about why health care is so expensive: it's mainly I think due to malpractice insurance costs, which are driven up by litigation and settlements.

However, it is NOT going to be "fixed" by anything going on in Washington right now. They're completely ignoring the underlying problems that make healthcare expensive, and want to "fix" it by simply jacking up taxes to give everyone full care under the current model, without fixing the things that actually make it expensive. So, basically, the US taxpayer is going to subsidize all the malpractice litigation and settlements, and the malpractice lawyers are going to keep getting rich, the malpractice insurance companies will keep getting rich, and doctors and patients will be placated as the government pays the bills using money stolen from the taxpayers, which will cause taxes to be raised so much that the economy will go into a recession much worse than what we're currently experiencing as rich people and companies both move everything out of the country that they can.

The answer to this mess, of course, it to really fix healthcare by fixing the malpractice problems, and mainly instituting Tort Reform, in the form of a "loser pays" system where frivolous lawsuits are discouraged by forcing the loser to pay the other side's fees. However, that's never going to happen here (not without a revolution anyway) because neither the Dems nor the Reps want to do anything to hurt their lawyer buddies, or their insurance buddies for that matter.

Re:That's bright!

[Sperbels]

It's not just you, but it's almost just you. Most Americans, including me, are satisfied with their health care as it is.

If you're happy with it, you probably haven't been trying to use it that much.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

You may also please return your education, your highways, and in fact just go live in the wild like a fucking animal instead of being a whiny libertard.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"And you are suggesting that the only way to have sex is to pay for it?"

As a guy, you find out that in some way, manner or fashion...you always pay for sex!!

You never get laid for free...with dates, you lay out $$ for dates, when you get married, you pay for it forever (unless you get divorced, they you pay half of what you own in order to get out of it).

The only ones that are up front about the price, are hookers....

Re:That's bright!

[treeves]

For myself, I haven't used it that much, thankfully.
But for my son, who was born with a congenital heart defect, and later died from the results of that, a lot of health care was needed. And if anyone should be unhappy, it should be me. He needed a heart transplant, but died while waiting for one, and had a nosocomial (hospital-given) infection that may have had something to do with that. But absent the health care system, his life would have likely been much shorter than the sixteen months it was.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just you, but it's almost just you. Most Americans, including me, are satisfied with their health care as it is.

Citation needed.

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

I emigrated from the US last month. I don't think they will ever recover, and I didn't want to be there when the economy collapsed (and no, a couple banks failing isn't a collapse). It's simple. Abolish the standing army. Legalize and tax drugs. Have government welfare be only for those unable to work (but with a guaranteed employment plan for those that can work but can't find jobs). Minimize spending until the debt is gone. Resurface roads, rather than rebuild (with the way federal highway dollars are given out, states do not do proper maintenance because it's cheaper for the state to let it rot and rebuild it at a much higher cost), not that just that will have a large effect, but it's an example of complete waste because of a screwed up policy. We spend more on healthcare to cover 25% of the people than countries with socialized medicine pay to cover 100%. We either need to go to 100% following one of their models (thus increasing services and reducing cost at the same time) or abandon all government interference in health care and cut that massive chunk out of the budget. Realize that taxing at the federal level to redistribute at the state and local level is a better means of hiding cost, rather than evening services around the nation. Stop it. It isn't improving service, and it hides the cost and value of services. Let the states and local governments take care of it, and let the feds step in only in limited circumstances.

In short, repeal all laws and start again, with an eye on what's best for the people. Do that, and within 20 years time, the debt will be paid off and the taxes could be cut 50% compared to their current levels (even with socialized medicine). And I'm so sure that will happen and fix everything that I left and may never come back.

Re:That's bright!

[treeves]

Is that the only option in this debate for those who disagree with government control of health care? Is that the level of argument? I'm not impressed.
I'm sure I'll be modded down, like my original comment was, and I probably should not have said "most". I should have said half, since the latest polls show about an even split. But few Americans are going to be happy about the total cost when the bill finally comes.

Re:That's bright!

[digitalunity]

You're right. I have actually read a good portion of the patent and it's very specific about the fact that a ton of prior art already exists!

In fact, the patent basically says "well we added an AC induction motor to drive the wheels, AND it has a gasoline engine and regenerative braking". From looking at the dates on the patent, I can tell you there is nothing novel about it. It is a basic building blocks continuation of existing technology.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

The current patent is therefore based on a patent which already recognized the Prius.

So, Troll, or non-applicable, take your choice.

That is great news. Looks like Toyota's lawyers will have no trouble getting a court to see this. Guess there is no story here.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"You may also please return your education, your highways..."

That is also mostly local taxes going to local infrastructure...something taxes were meant to be used for, and that pretty much everyone uses. It isn't some people working supplementing those that don't or can't afford something that should be personal responsibility.

Got kids you can't afford medical care for? That shows you couldn't afford kids!!

Re:That's bright!

[Naaythann]

It wouldn't be the first time that something from the Toyota hybrid range patent has been questioned, I know a nasty little story about a patent lawyer, University and Toyota screwing an old man out of work he had done on a electric drive system that was very similar to the original hybrid vehicles from Toyota. Needless to say, Toyota made lots of money and the old man is hardly living a life he should be able to with the amount of personal investment he did in his invention.

Re:That's bright!

[lgw]

A system where the loser pays the winner the lesser of the two sides legal fees (i.e., it never costs you more than twice your own costs to sue) is a much more workable system. It's trivial for a large business to game the system by always incurring $3 million in legal fees when defending against each claim, thereby chilling even the most reasonable suits.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

I made 6 figures and had okay insurance before I got sick 8 months ago. I'm sick with one of those things I probably will get better from, but it's fucking expensive and I have insurance (though they are happy to refuse to pay for most of the necessary surgeries). I will lose my very modest house and bankrupt, even with the very strong Short Term Disability plan and very little debt compared to my previous income.

So, no, the fucking American healthcare system is abysmal and insurance companies are evil. Of course, you are also ignoring the fact that a fuckton of people don't even have any insurance whatsoever. Our healthcare is not fine, unless you are content to watch your neighbors die while you luck out and remain "okay." If you had no other options, well, that might be okay, but as it is, you have the power to change that.

Re:That's bright!

[sexconker]

This is the US we are talking about.

A country that provided the world with such things as electricity, the automobile, the outcome of WWII, the internets, manned space exploration, etc.

The global financial system is pure bullshit.
It's all numbers in a database, and those numbers do NOT correspond to anything tangible. They're produced out of thin air. It is not a problem unique to the US, nor does any nation's "debt" or "surplus" have any actual meaning.

Financial ruin IS avoidable - go back to the gold standard and stop bailing out the morons (from giant companies to the individual). And of course, don't tax the people out the ass for stupid shit. Politicians and huge companies don't want any of that though.

Keep shitting on the US, though, because the rest of the world is totally so much better off and owes the US nothing.

Re:That's bright!

[Registered Coward v2]

We spend more on healthcare to cover 25% of the people than countries with socialized medicine pay to cover 100%. We either need to go to 100% following one of their models (thus increasing services and reducing cost at the same time) or abandon all government interference in health care and cut that massive chunk out of the budget.

We could start by limiting the US healthcare consumer's subsidization of foreign healthcare costs - require any drug company doing business in the US to sell drugs at a best price level - i.e. what the drug is sold for in the EU or Canada.

Of course, that would drastically alter the pharma industry's business model; or raise prices outside of the US while dropping them in the US.

Re:That's bright!

[sofar]

Out of curiosity, where did you emigrate to? How does this country live up to the US? Was this a major factor?

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should look at this on the level of nations (no they're not dead yet). Every frivolous patent the US grants to a US company is macroeconomically a tax they levy on any non-US companies wanting to sell to the US market - they're tax paying patent trolls! That's why the US is now granting patents on anything and everything. It's not sustainable, pervasive imaginary property is a death spiral, basically, but it will be a while before it collapses totally.

Re:That's bright!

[Grishnakh]

Sounds pretty reasonable. How do they do it in various European countries anyway? You never hear about them having all these frivolous litigation problems.

Re:That's bright!

[Dunbal]

Keep shitting on the US

You didn't even read the report did you? Notice the .GOV tag? But of course not, you're an "enlightened" US citizen. You have a lot of NFL or NBA television to watch, and don't have time for those things.

Summary: I'm not shitting the US. But even your government KNOWS the US is up shit's creek without a paddle. Enjoy your plunging dollar.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only ones that are up front about the price, are hookers....

Not only that, but this adage applies: If it flies, floats or fucks, it's cheaper to rent.

Re:That's bright!

[Technician]

I don't think they have a claim. Read the patent. Other than sharing either electric or gas or both, the patent is not even close. The Prius engine runs to maintain battery charge and engine temperature. The patent claims electric unless the power demand is above 30 of the gas engine capacity so it only runs in a high effeciency power band. There are some things that resemble each other, The patent is so far off it would like Microsoft unable to use a graphical user interface because Apple patented the point and click interface.

It's another hybrid where gas, electric or both can be used, but other than that, I don't think the claim has merit. In the prius the electric is a pair of Motor/Generators. In the patent, there is a motor, a generator, and a starter motor. I think because of the scope of the patent being so different from the Prius power split configuration, they have no case.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! I pass onto you a message from the Hidden Imam, a fatwa, that all faithful, the brave Green Jihadis, extinguish these greedy despicable patent trolls by decapitation. And videotape it and post it on youtube. Green be with you.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

We could start by limiting the US healthcare consumer's subsidization of foreign healthcare costs - require any drug company doing business in the US to sell drugs at a best price level - i.e. what the drug is sold for in the EU or Canada.

Of course, that would drastically alter the pharma industry's business model; or raise prices outside of the US while dropping them in the US.

Is that really the case? Whilst I don't know for a fact, common sense tells me that the US should have the lowest drug pricing in the western world. Why? Because elsewhere, whoever purchases drugs, doesn't pay for them because the socialized healthcare system does and thus there's much less incentive for drug companies to compete on price since patients don't care, if they're prescribed the most expensive option. I live in a European country with socialized medicine and suffer from a condition for which I must buy what I've been prescribed every three months and the receipt says 2 000+ EUR (almost $ 3 000) but I pay only 3 EUR (about $ 4).

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this have blown your mind if you heard about it on September 14, 1998, the earliest priority date? (for the sake of argument, mind you, as I'm not sure how much of the disclosure came from this earliest filing -- several CIPs in the chain)

The Honda Insight was released the following year. It took several years after that before the Toyota Prius started to blow people's minds.

So, no, not that impressive in 2009, but damned if it wasn't back in 1998. Not to say it wasn't obvious over *something*, but I'm certain it's not for the reasons you're thinking of.

Re:That's bright!

[Mr. Freeman]

Did you read the patent or are you just assuming that because it's about a patent that it's also frivolous. There are a lot of bad patents out there, but assuming that they're all garbage isn't conducive to fixing the situation of bad patents. It just creates more noise in every discussion about patents.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

"A country that owes the world close to 12 trillion dollars"...

It would help your argument immensely if you perhaps used the right numbers. The TOTAL US debt is $12 trillion, but only a quarter of that is owed to "the world", the rest being owed within the country.

Similarly, U-6? That counts everyone working part time, so of course it's going to look bad. It looks bad even during an economic boom.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Europe provided the U.S. with democracy and republics; civil liberties such as the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, jury trial, and jury of peers; and capitalism. Those things that most Americans think are uniquely American.

Re:That's bright!

[Rewind]

It isn't some people working supplementing those that don't or can't afford something that should be personal responsibility. Got kids you can't afford medical care for? That shows you couldn't afford kids!!

Um, are you aware of all the unpredictable things that can happen to a child that can rack up enormous medical costs? Should we then greatly increase the minimum wage? I don't think those making $7.25 per hour are going to ever really be able to afford children in your view. They also probably won't even really be able to afford to take care of themselves should anything happen to them.

Once all these people die off are you going to come clean my office, pickup my trash, work at McDonald's, and do minimal pay day labor in the fields? After all someone has to do that stuff. If you don't want to I suggest you not look so lowly on those that do it for us. Society has a lot of positions that aren't the best, but still need to be filled. People doing those jobs don't deserve to be spit on by the rest of us.

The have-nots greatly outnumber the haves. When the divide between the two grows too large bad things generally happen.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents paid for my private education *and* someone else's public education, you insensitive clod!

Re:That's bright!

[Golddess]

You're happy paying insurance companies whose first priority is to make as much profit as possible, and as a result avoid paying out to it's customers as much as they possibly can? Insurance companies that will only insure the people who statistically will not use even a fraction of what they put in? Personally, I'd rather pay extra in taxes to help some stranger receive the medical care that they need, a stranger I've never met and will never meet, than pay some insurance company that puts healthcare _secondary_ to their primary purpose of making money.

If you've found an insurance company that isn't like that then I retract my statement (and would love to know who you use). But I highly doubt there is a private insurance company out there who's first priority _isn't_ to make money, with paying its customers second (or third, or fourth, or fifth, or...).

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess there is no story here.

*sigh*

Sadly, par for the course on /. these days...

Re:That's bright!

[Kartoffel]

Well, you could build a DIY hybrid car in your own garage. That's more of the Slashdot way, isn't it?

Oh wait, weren't talking about cars.

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

Whilst I don't know for a fact, common sense tells me that the US should have the lowest drug pricing in the western world. Why? Because elsewhere, whoever purchases drugs, doesn't pay for them because the socialized healthcare system does and thus there's much less incentive for drug companies to compete on price since patients don't care, if they're prescribed the most expensive option.

In a socialized medicine country, they say "we'll buy it for $10." The drug costs $5 to make. The drug companies have the choice of selling it for $10 or not selling it at all. In the US, they have a monopoly. They price the drug at $500 and run ads on TV explaining how if you don't have it you are stupid. Insurance pays for all but the copay. And in some cases, where the drug company said "then we won't sell it" the response was "then we won't honor your patent here, and if we have to start making it ourselves, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up on the black market headed back into the US." In almost all cases, the drug company sold it for the lower price, except where they give the drugs away for free and claim the deduction off the highest world-wide sale price (i.e. giving them away in one African country while the general price there was $20, but claming $2000 deduction on it because that's what they sell it in the US for).

I live in a European country with socialized medicine and suffer from a condition for which I must buy what I've been prescribed every three months and the receipt says 2 000+ EUR (almost $ 3 000) but I pay only 3 EUR (about $ 4).

I live in a country with socialized medicine. All my prescriptions state the purchase price, and none of them have any number other than that. I'm curious where you are that they give you a receipt that doesn't match what you pay. What's the drug? Perhaps someone else who gets it in the US could say what it costs there.

Re:That's bright!

[sofar]

I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are. How fair is it for those doctors to have to treat bums off the street who haven't contributed anything to society.

Let's talk after you lose your job (and insurance) and get into an accident. Like for instance a drunk driver T-boning you. Let's also talk after you lose your house, retirement and savings. I for sure, hope that will never happen to anyone. Yet it does.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

America = Money GREED.

Toyota then go to China, a much bigger market. The USA falls further behinder, the slope accelerates to become a 3rd world rust bucket of memories of the 'good ol days'...
A lynch mob could save America's future... just an idea.

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

Oh and if you have already emigrated then there is no "we" anymore from your perspective.

You obviously don't know how it works. I'm still a citizen of the USA and will be for the rest of my life (including a requirement to file with the IRS and pay taxes in the US every year for the rest of my life, even if I have no financial activities inside the US). So I'm still an American. The people here think so, and so does Uncle Sam.

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

I'm in New Zealand. The wife wanted Spain, but the only easy way in there is for her to divorce me and marry a Spaniard. I objected.

The requirements were that it needed to be a place better off than the US (in subjective factors which are pointless to enumerate because everyone will have a different opinion on them), and a place that we could muddle by speaking English until we learned the language. Turns out that NZ has lower taxes, socialized medicine, better schools, less pollution, less crime, longer life expectancy, and other such little things that add to the allure.

Re:That's bright!

[liquiddark]

Wow. Way to miss the entire phenomenon of social safety nets. Why don't you just murder anyone who doesn't have a job and get it over with?

Re:That's bright!

[dbIII]

That is so obvious that it sounds like a 50 year old railway locomotive is proir art.
I also recall seeing a van set up as a hybrid with regenerative braking in 1987, and since that was one ready to be used in an underground mine there must have been a few years of development behind it.

Re:That's bright!

[b4dc0d3r]

Malpractice suits cost money
Malpractice insurance costs money
Misdiagnosis means malpractice suit is likely
Doctor's office gets paid to do tests, not to review old tests

So it's a lot better for everyone* if the doc orders every newfangled test imaginable. In fact, lots of typical screening tests are now un-recommended, because we are spending far too much money testing people without symptoms, and then treating the problem.

A hospital will charge you $10 or more to wipe off the sticky residue left by taping various things to your body. It's just $1 acetone (nail polish remover), but the individual packaging for hygiene concerns brings the price up, as well as coverage for any lawsuits that might arise, and the fees for administration, and the facility's profit.

There is no end to the stupidity, but it's a fact that lawsuit avoidance is a big part of the cost increases. Health care salaries have not gone up, patient insurance profits haven't gone up enough to explain it, but lawsuits are all over the place.

*except the patient

Re:That's bright!

[biryokumaru]

Sounds to me like their patent summary consists of slapping a computer onto an idea that's been around for over a century.

Re:That's bright!

[Manchot]

I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are.

If you think that the extra costs we spend in the U.S. on health care go to doctors or for better treatment, you're sadly mistaken. Approximately 30% of the costs go directly to the insurance industry. Another 14% are spent by hospitals on staff whose sole job is to file insurance claims. That's right, almost half our costs are administrative in nature.

The best cost to remove is the litigation and effects of the litigation that are destroying the system.

I find it sad that right-wing politicians have convinced you of an idea that has no basis in fact. The direct costs of tort are negligible: 0.46%, according to the recent estimates. [1] While you might assert that the indirect costs of defensive medicine are higher, you have no way to prove that this is the case. Indeed, there is a lack of statistical correlation between the states with lower health costs and the states with tort caps. And while correlation does not imply causation, lack of correlation does imply lack of causation.

By the way, Canada has more tort per capita than the U.S. They also have lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies, higher cancer survival rates, and lower costs. Please, tell me how my evidence is wrong and how litigation really is destroying the system. I'll be especially persuaded by the anecdotal testimony of some doctor bitching and moaning about his malpractice insurance costs.

(FYI, don't get surgery in Texas. If the surgeon accidentally cuts your balls off because he switched your chart with someone else's, the most you'll be able to get is $250k. And just think, since the cap was passed in 2003, the state has seen its costs rise more than anyone else's. Tort "reform," indeed.)

[1] G.F. Anderson et al., "Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World," Health Affairs 24, no. 4 (2005): 903-914.

Re:That's bright!

[agnosticnixie]

The problem was you, not her if the misogyny that's seeping through is any indication.

Re:That's bright!

[grapeape]

I can sympathize with that, about 5 years ago my wife was diagnosed with an incurable but non-debilitating illness, it can and is treated medicinally. I happened to be unemployed at the time after being laid off and cobra had run out...I had been actively looking for work but had to take medicare to get by until I found a job. After I found one, I tried to go from medicare to the same companies paid healthcare and was told my wifes illness was a pre-existing condition (even though it was discovered while covered by the medicare side of the same company) and I havent been able to get her coverage since. In the meantime my bills keep outpacing my ability to pay them and keep a roof over my familes head. IMHO thats broken.

Re:That's bright!

[grapeape]

Wish they would take a look at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and do the same for patent reform.

Re:That's bright!

[easyTree]

I don't have first-hand knowledge of your ghoulish 'health'-care system but was disturbed by Michael Moore's (*) 'Sicko'

To those who've seen it, does it seem representative of the US 'health'-care system?

(*) Cue ghoulish howls of 'liberal!'

Re:That's bright!

[eihab]

If you want health care then save money or buy insurance that lets you get the care. If you don't want it then don't. I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get.

YES! Abso-f***ing-lutely right!!!

And while we're at it, let's get rid of police and fire departments as well. I have enough money to hire a private security company with guns and I also own fire extinguishers!

I also don't get why some people think they have a right to safety, it's your fault if you have valuables or live near a bad neighborhood! Why should I have to pay to protect your sorry a$$?

Sarcasm aside, I find it actually quiet sad that we're still having this health-care debate and that there are people like you spewing this crap.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a country with socialized medicine. All my prescriptions state the purchase price, and none of them have any number other than that. I'm curious where you are that they give you a receipt that doesn't match what you pay. What's the drug? Perhaps someone else who gets it in the US could say what it costs there.

I live in Finland. Your comment made me check my receipt collection and I now noticed that it actually varies depending on the pharmacy I've visited but I have e.g. Lamictal for 2 833 EUR and below that (translation by me) "social insurance subsidy" 100 % - 3 EUR. I collect all receipts since in case total treatment and medication costs during a year exceed ~600 EUR (I don't remember the exact amount), everything is compensated.

Re:That's bright!

[Bigjeff5]

Huh, that's interesting.

All this time I thought we fought a big war for all that stuff back when Europe was still primarily feudal.

The US was a republic by the 1780's, and France still had a ruling King in 1830. There was nothing equivalent of US Constitution until the Charter of 1814.

The English Parliament made the UK a sort of hybrid democratic system, which although they have had representation since 1066, even today the Queen chooses the Prime Minister, the Queen approves all bills, can dissolve Parliament at any time, and the House of Lords is not publicly elected.

In short, it is nothing at all like the US system established in the 1770's and 80's.

Since the US colonies were largely formed by English who felt oppressed by their government, and since the only experience most of those original colonists had outside of England was in the Netherlands which was French controlled at the time, I'd say the only influend Europe had on the government of the US was in helping them decide exactly how they did not want it to be.

Go ahead and name me a representative democracy the US colonists would have had experience with prior to the 1770's in order to influence their choice of government once they won their freedom from England.

Frankly, most of it was simply an improvement on Grecian republics, and you can hardly count ancient Greece as part of modern Europe. That's knowledge of history, it would not have mattered where those republics had been located because they were long gone at the time.

You might even be able to make the case that the newly formed United States of America, with their constitution and Bill of Rights and lack of a monarchy influenced the expansion of democracy in Europe, not the other way around. That is probably going a bit far, since I think Europe was moving that way anyway. It may have simply been more fuel for the fire.

Re:That's bright!

[router]

So patent applications are now attempts to state everything, include a thousand references, be as broad as possible, and litigate everyone? Sounds like we got us a working system. That thing was, technically, a turd. The examiners are just rubber stamping them at this point, if this got through. It says absolutely nothing novel. It does not add to the store of human knowledge. Its just a bunch of shit thrown against the wall, hoping something sticks.

Since they won their last patent battle with Toyota, they seem to have turned up the attack. Might as well turn to the well again.

This is totally ridiculous. We will not survive as an advanced country if this is the standard for innovation.

andy

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it, this patent was issued July 1, 2008. There must be plenty of prior art available.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason my reply to you ended up in the wrong place in this thread, you can find it here here.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we just got rid of the entitlements and the other various social programs and limited the Federal Government to it's constitutional duties (national defense, law enforcement, the courts, etc), we would have a significant surplus that could be used to pay down the national debt - that spending accounts for 1/3 of the tax receipts, so the remaining 2/3 of the income (about 1.6 trillion) could go towards interest and paying off the debt.

Re:That's bright!

[Cerium]

What health care? I've not had any form of insurance in... oh, say ten years or so -- far too expensive to justify the costs for the service you get. Can I afford it? Yes. Will I ever get it? Not likely.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Got kids you can't afford medical care for? That shows you couldn't afford kids!!

Let's see the health care cost projections data you used to justify copulation. You are a bum among many of the worlds sheep, profoundly ignorant of your own inconsistency and hypocrisy yet too stupid to notice.

Thankfully, I'm spineless and your stupidity keeps me successful, rich, and entertained.

Re:That's bright!

[Bigjeff5]

I'm not sure less than 10% counts as a "fuckton". The majority of people who don't have insurance have refused the plans offered at work for various reasons, and that is their right. The people for whom healthcare is simply not available in at any reasonable price number around 15 million. The people who don't have it at all number about 47 million, and that's including 10 million people who are not legal citizens of the US.

Now, there are definitely problems with actually using health insurance, and that is what needs to be adressed. Things like capping the amount of money a doctor or hospital can be sued for malpractice would do a lot, perhaps stating that people only have the right to emergency care for an immediate life saving - i.e. they'll fix that wicked bad broken leg if you get in a car accident and don't have insurance, you are dieing of cancer they should give you some pain pills and say "sorry bro" and consider it natural causes when you die. That would require making sure insurance is available to 100% of the people, and public subsidizing of only those people who can prove they absolutely cannot afford insurance. It would also require insurance to cover every procedure a doctor deems necessary - once they assess your risk they cannot re-assess it when it comes time to pay the bill, they need to pay up until you are back to 100% health.

It's a little heartless, but this bullshit of determining what group of people is "most valuable" and therefore who gets the most funding is absolutely disgusting. Under the current US plan, if you are under 18 or over 34 you deserve less care than the people in that age group. It's healthcare by accountants, and it is as bad or worse than what insurance companies are doing. It is what prompted "doctor counseling" of elderly people nearing death, which gave rise to the idea of "death panels" that got everyone so worked up.

Re:That's bright!

[smarkham01]

Yes, most of it could be seen as an improvement on "Grecian republics", not much, but some. On the other hand, if you'd let your mind wander through some real history, you'll find that the model was, indeed, England's Constitutional Monarchy. Changes to the upper chamber were reqiured and, of course, the executive branch had to be made equal to, or at least not more powerful than, the other two branches.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Canada and work in a pharmacy. Our receipts have big bold numbers at the top for what you have to pay. Near the bottom with the rest of the information that figure is broken down into: Cost, Dispensing Fee, Total Amount, Amount picked up by Plan#1, Amount picked up by Plan#2, and Final Copay (the amount in bold at the very top)

We can actually bill to 3 plans, but only 2 show on the receipt.

Re:That's bright!

[JimboFBX]

so sue them.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

We could start by limiting the US healthcare consumer's subsidization of foreign healthcare costs ...

That's the thing you don't subsidize drugs in other countries.

Take Australia as an example with the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme). To be listed under this scheme companies must provide information about the efficacy and cost of the pharmaceutical that is trying to be listed. The scheme subsidizes the best results of efficacy and cost.

An example say drug A has a 76% efficacy rate against disease X. There's a new drug (B) is released - in the US it gets a new wiz-bang ad blitz saying how wonderful it is - you pay for that. Here to get it listed on the PBS instead of drug A they need to reveal information about it's efficacy again. Let's say it's now 77% effective and costs 3x as much. The PBS won't cover the drug (not at 3x the cost anyway).

Before you say that it's socialism or communism at work - it's not. On the face of it is a massive capitalist (even monopolistic) approach. Drug companies have to tender to get onto the PBS and reveal commercial in confidence information about the efficacy of their drugs. Nobody forces them to sell drugs via the PBS, it's just that if they don't they will never sell them (unless they cost less than the PBS medicines). If it wasn't worth it or they sold the drugs at a loss there's no way they'd sell them via the PBS.

Let's face it a lot of other places get better deals because public health is a social issue not a market to let sort itself it. The US gets ripped of rather than the rest of the world getting prices that are too low. We also have local drug companies that deal solely in generic medicines - as long as the active ingredients are the same in a generic vs brand name prescription medicine give me the generic every time (the pharmacy will almost always offer a generic if it's available and cheaper than what the doctor proscribed).

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Their first claim describes a system with three electric motors. The Prius has two. How does that infringe?

Also, they mention the Prius and published articles describing how the Prius works as prior art in their patent application. These articles were published before their earliest application. If they were describing something that was used in the Prius, it would have been invalidated by the prior art that they listed!

Therefore, they are describing something that is different than the Prius, and the Patent Troll court in Texas strikes again!

If I ever have to sue anyone for patent infringement, I will surely go there - it appears as if you can't lose!!!

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm aside, I find it actually quiet sad that we're still having this health-care debate and that there are people like you spewing this crap.

Some of us had this crazy idea that:
A) We don't have the technology to make everyone immortal, so paying for 100% coverage of everything (which is what is being asked for, implicitly) seems a bit much, and...
B) We don't have the money to treat everyone even in the near term. Not even if we print it.

The US is about $60 trillion in the hole right now. You think the dollar is strong? You think it can't fail? 100s of other fiat currencies have failed.. but not the dollar, it's backed by the full faith and credit of the US.. hahahahahaha.

Re:That's bright!

[tftp]

The majority of people who don't have insurance have refused the plans offered at work for various reasons, and that is their right.

I did that, and I'm getting extra few hundred dollars in each paycheck. I'm basically self-insured, with no desire to feed the fat medical bureaucracy. Insurance companies are all too willing to take your money, but when you really need the services then they do their best to not pay. I prefer to skip the whole rigamarole, and when you pay cash you can get the best treatment, immediately. I can afford most medical services, and what I can't afford I most likely won't survive anyway (or will not want to, in case of some serious disabilities.) Life is finite, but everyone seems to believe in just the opposite, wasting a fortune to extend their lives by a week or two.

Re:That's bright!

[Bigjeff5]

Torts themselves add very little to the costs of healthcare. However, because the costs from a single malpractice suit can bankrupt a doctor even if they win, and the damages from a successful malpractice suit can bankrupt a small hospital, every doctor MUST have malpractice insurance in the millions of dollars, and hospitals must have insurance in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Insurance rates are so high in some areas for certain specialties that doctors cannot afford to practice.

According to a congressional study on medical malpractice insurance rates in 2003, the premiums for interns were between $15,000 -$20,000. That's a hell of a lot for someone fresh out of med-school. For general surgeons it ranged from $40,000 up to $90,000. One of the worst is OBGYN, which ranged from $80,000 to $120,000. Only neurosurgeons have a higher average premium.

Think about that, $120,000 per year just for the privilege of delivering babies. That's not including the schooling debt a doctor has, or any equipment they have to purchase. Assuming $2,000 per baby, an OBGYN has to deliver 60 per year just to cover the insurance costs. The average OBGYN delivers 100 babies a year, so obviously this number is going to have to be much much higher in order to make any money. And guess what? It is. Factor in the debt a doctor, especially a specialized doctor like OBGYN, and you have an additional overhead of between $75,000 and $150000 before you can even start practicing.

And those are pure costs that don't take into account administration overhead (which is huge) and less tangible costs directly relating to dealing with insurance. If you have your own practice you can count on $40k at a minimum to hire a lawyer to make sure what you have covers what you need. Then of course there are the extra costs of the accountant to deal with keeping your finances straight because they are now becoming a major headache to keep straight.

If you start looking at the total extra costs a doctor's office has in order to deal with insurance it becomes a significant portion of the cost of doing business that is in no way related to actually doing the business. It is simply an extra cost. Add in the administrative costs incurred by having to dick around with a patient's insurance company and you can start to see why delivering a baby costs anywhere from $15,000 - $25,000.

Re:That's bright!

[easyTree]

...and soon, socialized healthcare :P

Re:That's bright!

[Homburg]

In the end someone has to pay for the health care. If it is the government then you are going to pay more taxes rather than paying a high insurance premium.

Not necessarily. US government health spending per capita is higher than government healthcare spending per capita in some countries with universal government-funded healthcare, like the UK. So British people don't pay anything for insurance, and they pay less tax to fund healthcare.

The US health system is so massively inefficient that it's possible that a government health system would mean you would pay less in tax than you do now, and not have to pay for health insurance.

Re:That's bright!

[easyTree]

I don't think those making $7.25 per hour are going to ever really be able to afford children in your view.

Surely that's the whole point?

No, I don't agree with it.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever lived in a bad neighborhood? you have as much to fear from the cops as anyone else, I have no beef with firemen though.

Re:That's bright!

[salarelv]

Lets patent living and ask everybody to cash out! Yehaaa!

Re:That's bright!

[easyTree]

Forgot to say.. why don't you clean your own damn office you lazy fat fuck*, rather than expect the state to provide an ever-present underclass to do it for you?

I suppose this is a troll. Mod away!

(*) Not necessarily targeting you specifically/only...

Re:That's bright!

[easyTree]

I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are. How fair is it for those doctors to have to treat bums off the street who haven't contributed anything to society.

That there really hits the nail on the head. That's exactly what's wrong with your 'health'-care system and why those who are happy with it don't realize that it's broken. It's just a little thing known as compassion. The recognition of how it feels to suffer from an illness not of your own causing and the ability of some to free others from this.

In civilized countries, people understand this :D

Once again, I guess it goes without saying.. "hit me with your troll mods"

Re:That's bright!

[easyTree]

It's like trying to choke an anaconda with a huge deer...those jaws are bigger than you'd expect and all you get for your trouble is a curvetoothed snake happily trapping and swallowing away your day's hunt and leaving you with nothing.

Dude? Where are you from that you would choose an anaconda/deer analogy over a car analogy?

Re:That's bright!

[cas2000]

I live in a European country with socialized medicine and suffer from a condition for which I must buy what I've been prescribed every three months and the receipt says 2 000+ EUR (almost $ 3 000) but I pay only 3 EUR (about $ 4).

I live in a country with socialized medicine. All my prescriptions state the purchase price, and none of them have any number other than that. I'm curious where you are that they give you a receipt that doesn't match what you pay. What's the drug? Perhaps someone else who gets it in the US could say what it costs there.

I also live in a country with a decent health care system (Australia), including the excellent Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (which pharma companies have been trying to destroy for years...fortunately govts here know it would be political suicide to do that - even that verminous lick-spittle Howard didn't have the guts to do it, although he tried weakening it a few times). The PBS doesn't cover all drugs, but it does cover most...and there's a constant review process for getting new drugs onto the scheme (they have to prove that they are really new or are better, more effective, less side-effects, cheaper, etc than similar drugs).

anyway, for the last few years, the box of pills shows both the price we pay for the drug (a maximum of $32.90 for any prescription for the employed, or about $5 for pensioners, unemployed, students, etc - although many common/generic drugs cost less than that) AND the actual price that it costs the government. for example, one of my prescriptions costs me $32.90. it costs the govt about $700.

the price labelling is done like that so that people know the actual cost of the medicine...presumably to discourage waste. it's a reasonable idea - don't know if that works but it certainly doesn't hurt for people to know just how good the PBS is for them, otherwise they might get suckered by big pharma propaganda against the scheme.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as a data point, Australian PBS medicines(ie: what some people in the US would regard as socialised medicine) come with both the PBS price and the actual price printed on the sticker.

AC

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctors work their asses off to get where they are. How fair is it for those doctors to have to treat bums off the street who haven't contributed anything to society

Because those who don't will be lined up on the wall as the leeches they are when it's time.

Re:That's bright!

[tsa]

Thank you from all people who are not so lucky as to be perfectly healthy. I was born with a heart condition. Although I have a Ph.D. I am forced to work 4 days a week in a relatively easy job that doesn't pay very well (I'm a researcher at a university). I need regular checkups, medication, and sometimes a medical procedure. A friend of mine who is also from the Netherlands but has been living in the US for the past 6 years told me that if I was born in the US I would most probably have DIED long ago, thanks to the virtually non-existant heath care system over there. So please before you spew any more of your extreme capitalist crap try to think of other people who aren't as lucky as you are. But I guess by the total contempt you show for people who aren't as rich as you or haven't made it as far in the world as you did that will be near impossible for a self-centered arrogant person like you.

Re:That's bright!

[Heir Of The Mess]

I live in a European country with socialized medicine and suffer from a condition for which I must buy what I've been prescribed every three months and the receipt says 2 000+ EUR (almost $ 3 000) but I pay only 3 EUR (about $ 4).

I live in a country with socialized medicine. All my prescriptions state the purchase price, and none of them have any number other than that. I'm curious where you are that they give you a receipt that doesn't match what you pay. What's the drug? Perhaps someone else who gets it in the US could say what it costs there.

Sounds like there's a lot of bull somewhere in the grandparent then.

Re:That's bright!

[thesp]

The one sentence summary of what they have had acknowledged as their invention is not the title of the patent. It is normally "Claim 1". And, of course, any other independent claims. The claim reads: "A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
at least two pairs of wheels, each pair of wheels operable to receive power to propel said hybrid vehicle;
a first alternating current (AC) electric motor, operable to provide power to a first pair of said at least two pairs of wheels to propel said hybrid vehicle;
a second alternating current (AC) electric motor, operable to provide power to a second pair of said at least two pairs of wheels to propel said hybrid vehicle
a third AC electric motor;
an engine coupled to said third electric motor, operable to provide power to said at least two wheels to propel the hybrid vehicle, and/or to said third electric motor to drive the third electric motor to generate electric power;
a first alternating current-direct current (AC-DC) converter having an AC side coupled to said first electric motor, operable to accept AC or DC current and convert the current to DC or AC current respectively;
a second AC-DC converter having an AC side coupled to said second electric motor, operable to accept AC or DC current and convert the current to DC or AC current respectively;
a third AC-DC converter coupled to said third electric motor, at least operable to accept AC current and convert the current to DC;
an electrical storage device coupled to a DC side of said AC-DC converters, wherein the electrical storage device is operable to store DC energy received from said AC-DC converters and provide DC energy to at least said first and second AC-DC converters for providing power to at least said first and second electric motors; and
a controller, operable to start and stop the engine to minimize fuel consumption."

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there co-operative insurance companies in America? Because most of the ones at my country seem to be, and I'm somewhat interested why this isn't the case in America. If nothing else, it seems cheap enough solution from the government side - to fund cheap loans to get a co-op off the ground, and thus increasing competition.

Re:That's bright!

[category_five]

Just like medical predators and ambulance chasing lawyers, I congratulate them for driving health care costs to the point where litigation avoidance - not patient care or comfort, is the deciding factor in medical decisions

"medical predators and ambulance chasing lawyers" amount to "less than one-half of a percentage point of medical spending" It's hardly the driving force in the cost of health insurance.

No one can afford to get sick without insurance in the US, and frankly not everyone can even afford the insurance.

That's true but tort reform has little to do with the cost of health care.

Thus, the health care system is broken, and thus - it HAS to get fixed NOW.

Yes, health care needs to be fixed; however tort reform is the exact opposite of fixing the system. Tort reform is a dream come true for managed care providers. They can deny care or approve cheaper, inappropriate treatments with less consequence. For example Joe has cancer. Joe's insurance can either pay for two million dollar chemotherapy or deny treatment. With say a $50,000 cap on malpractice suits the choice for the managed care provider becomes a clear. The clear choice being the denial of treatment. Protestations based on the altruism of corporations are laughable, managed care providers are currently denying care under the above premise. Making it easier for them to do so is the exact opposite of reform.

Re:That's bright!

[jonbryce]

The patent system is supposed to encourage such things, however it seems to be getting used to ban them.

Re:That's bright!

[JasterBobaMereel]

This is the problem with Patents ..... does anyone really think that Toyota copied this companies idea, does anyone think that this company would become internationally known for their hybrid cars if Toyota had not produced hybrid cars instead.... No...

So why does the patent system protect them, and allow them to block another companies products from sale ....?

Re:That's bright!

[rts008]

This is totally ridiculous. We will not survive as an advanced country if this is the standard for innovation.

Well, there is this possible gem 'From The fine Article':

The ITC, in an unrelated case, is currently considering the standard that must be met before patent owners who don't make products can file complaints.

We can only hope something productive will come from the ITC considering this problem of patent trolls.
*not holding my breath, but crossing my fingers*

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement I quoted, and the remainder of your comment. This whole Imaginary Property mess is getting ludicrous, to say the least.

The US Patent system was originally designed to foster innovation and advancement...not cripple it.

It has become way too easy over the past handful of decades to game the system into tyranny by the Big Corporations against the people and small businesses.
The people and small businesses have traditionally made up the backbone of the whole lure and value of the USA...this has changed in subtle ways, and is no longer the case.

Re:That's bright!

[category_five]

the premiums for interns were between $15,000 -$20,000. That's a hell of a lot for someone fresh out of med-school

The congressional report lists the premium for internists, not interns.

internist
-noun
a physician specializing in the diagnosis and nonsurgical treatment of diseases, esp. of adults.

Also the the graph you reference shows the rates from Connecticut, the state with the second highest malpractice premiums according to the Medical Liability Monitor.

Re:That's bright!

[Anne Thwacks]

A country that provided the world with such things as electricity, the automobile, the outcome of WWII,

AFAICT Michael Faraday was British, Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz were German, and the outcome of WWII was largely determined by Russia.

I think you watch too many Hollywood movies.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you usually get sacked after being disabled by that drunk driver?
Then you loose your house - you make it sound like a series of independent events.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

But here's where there's a problem with healthcare...

It only takes a small number of people outside the system - (i.e. no healthcare at all) - to bring down the rest by infecting them with something that could have, (and should have), been dealt with before - but wasn't because they wern't part of the system.

Another problem with healthcare-for-profit is that it becomes in the industries interests not to treat certain people - again, at the entire countries expene.

Not only that, but the system in America pushes up prices for the rest of us worldwide...

In short - the system in America atm sucks, and a socialised worldwide medical system would, of course, be the utopian goal, (though, obviously not fully attainable at this time, and maybe ever).

Re:That's bright!

[CarbonShell]

But you are not the 'right' kind of American... a very highly dynamic term used in such arguments.

BTW: how is NZ?

Re:That's bright!

[RMH101]

yup. And consider that in a society where you pay through the nose for your treatment, it's going to encourage this kind of attitude to those that can't pay through no fault of their own.
In the UK our National Health Service isn't perfect, but it's bloody good - no-ones' stopping you taking out private health insurance if you want to supplement it, but the base level of care is available to all. One of the most surreal arguments I've seen recently has been the hysterical reaction to Obama's proposals, shouting about death panels for Grandma etc. It'd be hilarious if it wasnt' so scary.

Re:That's bright!

[agnosticnixie]

Corporate interests and collusion with professional colleges made sure they had difficulty accessing healthcare providers, a few still exist, but they have so many rules as to be essentially useless if you actually need healthcare.

Re:That's bright!

[Wild Wizard]

Can't believe parent is only scored 1 but anyway ...

Toyota Patent Filed: October 2, 2002

Paice Patent Filed: May 8, 2006

Toyota wins.

Re:That's bright!

[agnosticnixie]

Like most documentaries, it shows the author's perspective on things with a variation of skewing - in this case, Michael Moore being well known as a mostly centrist liberal (hint to conservative howlers, he also has issues with some of the left that are very well known on the left) with a tendency for being something of a pundit.

It's not that far, but it misses some key underlying issues because they wouldn't sell enough, I can't remember which since I watched it a while back and, well, I have yet to find a documentary I found memorable :p

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Let's talk

Don't get me wrong, he won't talk. In the streets under the bridges there is no such thing as internet plugs.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

paice did file some sort of patent in 94.

From their website:

Hybrid electric vehicle ,343,970 September 6, 1994

Re:That's bright!

[init100]

Would this have blown your mind if you heard about it on September 14, 1998, the earliest priority date?

Heard about what? Hybrid cars? The first time I heard/read about a hybrid car was in the early 90's, when Volvo uncovered their Environmental Concept Car (ECC), which was powered by a gas turbine engine combined with an electric motor and batteries.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking only at the actual filing date is incorrect - especially in the US with its practice of divisionals, continuations, continuations in part, etc.
Having a look at the Paice Patent will tell you that the earliest application that this patent may possibly claim the benefit of was filed Sep. 14, 1998.

From the Paice Patent:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This is a divisional application of application Ser. No. 10/382,577 filed Mar. 7, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,104,347 which was a divisional application of Ser. No. 09/822,866 filed Apr. 2, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,554,088, which was a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 09/264,817 filed Mar. 9, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,209,672, issued Apr. 3, 2001, which in turn claimed priority from provisional application Ser. No. 60/100,095, filed Sep. 14, 1998, and was also a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 09/392,743, filed Sep. 9, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,338,391 issued Jan. 15, 2002, in turn claiming priority from provisional application Ser. No. 60/122,296, filed Mar. 1, 1999.

Re:That's bright!

[Kashgarinn]

"I'm quite happy with my healthcare and insurance too."

- No, you're healthy and don't have a medical problem which needs to be looked at, it's not the same thing as being happy with your current healthcare and insurance.

If you actually had medical problems, your tone would change as it has with everyone who actually has to use the current US healthcare.

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

BTW: how is NZ?

Rainy. It rains almost every day. And is sunny almost every day. If they would just schedule the rain for the same time every day, that would really help me make my schedule...

Re:That's bright!

[w3irdizum]

You really need to remember one thing in all this chaff about health and taxes...Its the duty of any patriot to protect and improve the health of there nation and the people are the nation not the land. If you really believe that you shouldn't help fellow citizens less fortunate than you, then you have lost your humanity ...please please tell me that America isn't this far gone?

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

if you decide to live if a crime infested scum pit then that's your own damn fault.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are. How fair is it for those doctors to have to treat bums off the street who haven't contributed anything to society.

The first paragraph of the constitution of my country (germany) is: "The dignity of man is inviolable." I think that's a good one, and I think it applies here. I'm shocked to see that apparently people like you seem to be in favor of letting poor people die in pain because "they have no value for humanity".

Re:That's bright!

[mspohr]

First I heard about hybrid cars was Mother Earth News which published plans for converting a small car to hybrid power in the 70s. (Yes, I am an old hippie.)

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1979-07-01/Electric-Car-Conversion.aspx

Re:That's bright!

[Carewolf]

I live in a country with socialized medicine. All my prescriptions state the purchase price, and none of them have any number other than that. I'm curious where you are that they give you a receipt that doesn't match what you pay. What's the drug? Perhaps someone else who gets it in the US could say what it costs there.

In Denmark receipts state the normal price. It also state the current state-coverage. This is needed because government coverage starts at 0% and moves up 85% depending on your medical expenses. Btw, the receipt also state how much of the remainder will be covered by your private insurance. Very informative, and quite scary when you are on an expensive drug.

Re:That's bright!

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

Sadly, whether it's in the states or elsewhere, the ability to sue assumes the ability to pay exorbitant lawyer fees. Most do not have the resources, something large companies rely on.

Re:That's bright!

[Jedi Alec]

As a guy, you find out that in some way, manner or fashion...you always pay for sex!!

You never get laid for free...with dates, you lay out $$ for dates, when you get married, you pay for it forever (unless you get divorced, they you pay half of what you own in order to get out of it).

The only ones that are up front about the price, are hookers....

Wow...that's some scary stuff right there. So which backwards part of the world are you from? Over here most of the girls will pretty much insist on paying their half of the date. They like it when you grab your wallet as though you intend to pay all of it, and you definitely want to make sure you have enough cash on hand to cover the entire bill, but actually paying all the time?

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but it protects them while going against the interest of society as a whole. Wasn't the whole idea of the patent system originally to spur innovation for the good of society? Yet here we see the law used against the society that these laws should protect in order to stifle innovation.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the patent.

A hybrid brake system provides regenerative braking, with mechanical braking available in the event the battery bank is fully charged, in emergencies, or at rest; a control mechanism is provided to control the brake system to provide linear brake feel under varying circumstances.

Hmmm, there is a mistake in the 1st summary paragraph of the patent. It says "....with mechanical braking available in the event the battery is fully charged." I'd say you don't need mechanical braking when the battery is FULLY CHARGED since you have plenty of power for the electric brakes. It should be when "FULLY DRAINED" whereby the mechanical brakes are needed and a combination of the two when the battery power is somewhere inbetween.

Re:That's bright!

[L4t3r4lu5]

Maybe he'll get made redundant ("Corporate right-sizing, current economic climate, budget adjustments, here's a cardboard box.") and get hit by a car on the way out, just as his company-sponsored medi-care expires.

Some people are assholes because they've not been exposed to the situation they describe. Sometimes, it does take a sledgehammer to the face to wake some people up.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"If you really believe that you shouldn't help fellow citizens less fortunate than you, then you have lost your humanity ...please please tell me that America isn't this far gone?"

I don't think it is the Constitutionally mandated job of the Federal Govt. to tell me how I do it for myself, nor to stick its hand in my pocket and force the decisions on how I treat others in this respect.

I give plenty, I help friends....I don't mind giving voluntarily to charity.

But it is my choice...it should not be mandated by others.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Become a New Zealand citizen.

You can renounce at any embassy outside the States as long as you are not stateless, have no current liens or court judgements, and are not on parole or probation. You will need to pay a tax penalty for the next 10 years if you have a certain net worth. If you refuse to pay the penalty, you will be banned from entry into the States and the IRS will place liens on any property you still have in the States. It may be worth it if you never plan on coming back as a resident.

Re:That's bright!

[ktappe]

Oh and if you have already emigrated then there is no "we" anymore from your perspective. You obviously don't know how it works. I'm still a citizen of the USA and will be for the rest of my life (including a requirement to file with the IRS and pay taxes in the US every year for the rest of my life, even if I have no financial activities inside the US). So I'm still an American. The people here think so, and so does Uncle Sam.

Then you didn't emigrate. You're simply an American abroad.

Re:That's bright!

[ktappe]

5 years ago my wife was diagnosed with an incurable but non-debilitating illness...I tried to go from medicare to the same companies paid healthcare and was told my wifes illness was a pre-existing condition

Sorry to hear. Your type of story is why we need reform now. But in the meantime, usually if you work for a large enough employer, their might will be able to get your wife covered. They want you to work for them enough that they force whatever insurance company they choose to cover preexisting conditions. Apparently you found a job where they either don't provide coverage (you're buying yourself) or they're too small to use such leverage. I suppose your only option is to continue your job search, specifically aimed at a large employer (while also heavily advocating your elected officials to support health care reform.)

Re:That's bright!

[Dunbal]

Translation: you're not good enough, and the malpractice insurance runs too much for your past transgressions.

      Yeah you had better post anonymously, or I would have you for libel.

Re:That's bright!

[ishobo]

Then you didn't emigrate. You're simply an American abroad.

Emigrate means moving from one's country to another. One does not have to become a citizen to emigrate. Of course, even if a person did become a citizen of New Zealand, they could still keep their exisiting citizenship.

Slashdot never lets me down. I can come here and read complete bullshit from people like you. I recommend a good dictionary.

Re:That's bright!

[radtea]

Therefore, they are describing something that is different than the Prius, and the Patent Troll court in Texas strikes again!

Yeah, the grant date on the patent is July 2008, and the application date is May 8, 2006, so unless there has been a very significant modification to the Prius drive-train since it must not be covered by the patent. And since the first CLAIM of the patent it egregiously broad (the summary and associated docs mean nothing, the claims mean everything) and describes nothing novel or interesting that isn't already present in a Prius, it is very hard to believe that this will hold up for very long.

But of course, in the United States, the process is the punishment. The legal system is so expensive and capricious that anyone coming into contact with it is going to get screwed one way or the other, mostly by their own lawyers.

Re:That's bright!

[ishobo]

AC was talking about concepts and models, and all the ones listed did indeed originate in European states (England, France, Holland, and Greece). The idea of individual liberties, including the ones AC mentioned, predate the States be several hundred years.

You might even be able to make the case that the newly formed United States of America, with their constitution and Bill of Rights and lack of a monarchy influenced the expansion of democracy in Europe, not the other way around.

Then you do not much about the Enlightenment.

Re:That's bright!

[ishobo]

Ah yes, libertarian utopia. Put the foil hat back on.

Re:That's bright!

[ortholattice]

While I'm not saying these costs aren't a problem, just throwing out cost numbers in order to complain doesn't show the full picture.

Let's start with: The average OBGYN delivers 100 babies a year.

One of the worst is OBGYN, which ranged from $80,000 to $120,000.

$800 to $1200 per baby.

That's not including the schooling debt a doctor has,

I keep hearing this complaint about "schooling debt", but if they're making hundreds of thousands per year, they should be able to pay it off pretty quickly. Perhaps they just pay back the minimum per year because they have favorable interest rates, or maybe just so they can keep compaining about it.

or any equipment they have to purchase.

Generally a one-time cost, not per year. Anyway, no numbers given here.

Factor in the debt a doctor, especially a specialized doctor like OBGYN, and you have an additional overhead of between $75,000 and $150000 before you can even start practicing.

Again, this makes no sense. How many years at $150K per year does it take to pay off schooling debt?

And those are pure costs that don't take into account administration overhead (which is huge) and less tangible costs directly relating to dealing with insurance.

Most doctors I know have a single employee (sometimes two, or another one part-time) to handle this stuff and more. Unless their practice is huge, like a dermatologist seeing 10 patients/hr, in which case perhaps 3 employees (which still barely eats into their $1000/hr revenue).

If you have your own practice you can count on $40k at a minimum to hire a lawyer to make sure what you have covers what you need.

I'm sorry, this sounds like a number pulled out of the air. Or some very expensive lawyer. Exactly what work are they doing for this $40K? Is this one-time, or per year?

Then of course there are the extra costs of the accountant to deal with keeping your finances straight because they are now becoming a major headache to keep straight.

No different than for other businesses.

If you start looking at the total extra costs a doctor's office has in order to deal with insurance it becomes a significant portion of the cost of doing business that is in no way related to actually doing the business. It is simply an extra cost.

Add in the administrative costs incurred by having to dick around with a patient's insurance company

Most doctors I know have one employee to handle this and much of the other overhead you mention. That's their job.

and you can start to see why delivering a baby costs anywhere from $15,000 - $25,000.

At 100 babies per year, adds up to $1.5 million to $2.5 million. If we add all the costs you give (and amortize the fixed costs rather than implying that they are "per year"), it doesn't add up to this.

My point is that you've thrown out a confusing array of numbers to make it seem like doctors are being wiped out with expenses or something. Most doctors I know are living very, very well, thank you. I've never seen one volunteer to show us their P&L or their 1040 to prove how little they are making due to all of these expenses. And as for your main point, that the insurance is wiping out the OBGYN's income, that's less than 10% of the price charged per baby.

Re:That's bright!

[BLKMGK]

Do you REALLY believe that a large company, say Ford, has never stolen an idea from an inventor and tried to steamroll them? Intermittent wipers anyone?

I agree in this time of patent trolls that more and more shenanigans are occurring but that doesn't mean that some large company wouldn't take an idea and run with it - you make it sound like they are above this and that's crazy. It HAS happened in the past, it WILL happen in the future, and if you're the inventor you could easily go broke trying to defend yourself - something they count on. Particularly in a case where stopping the import would severely impact things and make headlines it wouldn't surprise me to see a company playing "chicken". If companies couldn't be protected by threats such as halting imports then we'd see WAY more of this going on - guaranteed! Might doesn't make right, that ought to be obvious.

Admittedly that doesn't sound like the case here but they've already lost once so there MIGHT be merit to it. Simply dismissing the idea that someone could out-innovate a large company though or that a large company is above stealing an idea from someone much smaller is foolish!

Why must this small company have to be some sort of hybrid leader in your eyes to have merit to their claim BTW? Why couldn't a small agile research firm create ideas or products to sell to much larger less innovative\agile companies? Honestly I'm on the fence with the idea that a company that patents something must build something with it since some ideas are simply too big or too hard to market for small research type companies that don't produce things. Selling ideas to others is a valid business model I think. I will admit that patenting iterative ideas or vague hand waving ideas is bad but that's the patent office's fault not the companies for trying...

Re:That's bright!

[radtea]

By the way, Canada has more tort per capita than the U.S.

I assume you mean medical malpractice suits, as it would be bizzare and disingenous to impute any other meaning to "tort" in the context of this discussion. On that basis, your claim is false:

http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth21_e.php

Canada, with 10% of the population of the US, had just over 1000 malpractice claims in 2004. The US had 40% more per capita at 1400. I very much doubt that difference has been erased in the past five years.

Nor are award sizes in Canada significantly greater than in the US. The only big difference is that our (Canadian) medical malpractice insurance rates are somewhat lower, although still touching US highs in some areas.

I agree that tort reform is not the primary issue with the US "health care" "system", but it is not true that Canada has significantly higher medical malpractice costs: our insurance costs are lower, our rate of litigation is lower, and our payouts are comparable.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious; where did you go? There are lots of better places to be than a country that is actively collapsing or has already collapsed, but when I've run through this hypothetical for myself, I've always found something with any given country that makes me think, "meh...I'll just stay here and see where this ride ends."

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

Then you didn't emigrate. You're simply an American abroad.

"To leave one country or region to settle in another" seems to be the most common definition, and none of the other definitions branch out greatly from there. I have left my country to settle in another. I'm confused as to where there could be any confusion. An American abroad (who did not emigrate) is someone that is temporarily in another location, but not with indefinite plans to remain away. Examples of non-emigration are people reassigned temporarily for work (whether military or otherwise) or those that want to visit for a long term to absorb a language or culture before moving back.

That it takes an additional act (actively renouncing my citizenship) to stop being an American in the eyes of the US government (and IRS) has no bearing on whether I left one country to settle in another. Anyway, I couldn't do that until I'm a citizen somewhere else, and I can't do that until I've lived here 5 years. But again, whether I do or don't do any of that has no bearing on whether I left one country to settle in another.

Re:That's bright!

[Rob the Bold]

A one sentence summary is vague. Their patent filing is not.

A one sentence summary is brief, their patent filing is not. Both could be vague, but brevity does not necessarily imply vagueness.

As to the patent filing, I think the (modified) adjective I'd choose is "really broad":

"It's a car with 2 or more pairs of wheels, and it might have an electric motor for each pair, and it might be an AC motor or a DC motor, or maybe one AC motor and one DC motor, and then another motor that's not a motor at all but a generator, cause, you know, motor turned by engine is a generator, and the engine could also maybe turn the wheels, and we've got a whole bunch of AC/DC converters, maybe more if we need to do voltage conversion, and a battery, and did we mention this could be used on just one of the pairs of wheels, or the engine on one pair and the motor on the other pair, and maybe a transmission for the engine, and we could preheat the engine -- or not, and we could give it a turbocharger, or we could just give it a turbo and not preheat it, or we could run the engine all the time, or just some of the time, or maybe at a constant speed most of the time. and maybe we'd even preheat the constant-speed engine, ooh and turbo-charge it too, and we could switch between the various motors and the engine, and everybody else is just thinking using the motor-generator-battery-motor in series, but we're so smart that we're doing it in parallel -- and regenerative breaking, don't forget that"

I am reminded of when I "invented" rack-and-pinion steering in 6th grade, after seeing it in a model.

Re:That's bright!

[Phydaux]

Just think, if you were living in Britain, your wife would only have to pay about £5 per drug. And if she lived in Scotland or Wales, wouldn't have to pay anything.

My wife has a couple of illnesses that are controlled with medicine, and we get all the drugs she needs free. Even considering she was made redundant recently, because we know that even if I get made redundant too, we won't have to worry about her health.

A lot of people moan about the NHS here in Britain, but I think it's great, mostly because I'd be worried of what happened to you happening to me.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"I don't think those making $7.25 per hour are going to ever really be able to afford children in your view. "

I think that was the point...

If you can't afford to do something, if you aren't self sufficient enough to take care of yourself and kids, don't have kids!!

Again...sure, you have the right to have kids. You don't have the right to have me pay for them.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

"well we added an AC induction motor to drive the wheels"

Ok, I haven't done any research into the Prius, but they're using AC? Why?? Batteries supply DC, and controlling speed in a DC motor is somple; the more voltage, the faster it goes. A simple rheostat is all that's needed to vary a CD motor's speed. An AC Motor's speed is dependant on the current's frequency.

It seems an illogical choice to me, but I'm sure the engineers (who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do) have good reasons. What are they?

Re:That's bright!

[KenRH]

I think requiring a full production model on sale is to steep a requirement.
But a working prototype should definitively be required.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

government welfare be only for those unable to work (but with a guaranteed employment plan for those that can work but can't find jobs).

Where have you been for the last thirteen years? Since 1996 unless you're disabled you're REQUIRED to work to get any welfare (unless you're a multibillion dollar corporation)., and that welfare is time-limited.

In short, repeal all laws and start again, with an eye on what's best for the people.

Yeah, with campaigns paid for by the corporatti THAT'S gonna happen, sure.

Re:That's bright!

[petermgreen]

I don't know about this particular case but I can tell you some general stuff about motors that may help you understand why using an AC induction motor may not be a stupid choice.

A conventional DC motor or "universal motor"* uses brushes. Brushes suck because they wear out relatively quickly, they arc producing a load of electrical noise and as they wear this arcing gets worse.

A brushless DC motor (as seen in your CD drive) puts a permanant magnet on the shaft and the coils outside removing the need for any brushes or slip rings. Some form of sensor (e.g. optical or hall effect) and some control electronics replaces the brushes. Other than the fact it uses feedback rather than a fixed frequency generation this is actually quite similar to a three phase syncronous motor or a stepper motor. This works well for smaller motors but afaict for larger motors a permanent magnet design is cost prohibitive.

The nice thing about induction motors is that the cores magnatism is generated through sitting in a rotating magnetic field. That means you don't need (noise and wear prone) brushes or slip rings and you don't need expensive permanent magnets either. This can make up for the cost of the extra power electronics needed to drive them in a controlled manner.

P.S. rheostats may be simple but they are a very wasteful way to control the speed of a motor. PWM is usually a much better choice.

*A universal motor is essentially a DC motor adapted to run on AC, they are commonly used in electric drills and similar where a high rotation speed is desirable.

Re:That's bright!

[sjames]

It is interesting that the proponents of a pure capitalism routinely claim that it's the most effecticve system to maximize innovation and wealth for all by driving costs down, yet it's the countries with socialized medicine where people can actually afford it.

Re:That's bright!

[sjames]

Then how did Obama get elected on a platform of healthcare reform?

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

A country that provided the world with such things as electricity, the automobile, the outcome of WWII,

AFAICT Michael Faraday was British, Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz were German, and the outcome of WWII was largely determined by Russia.

I think you watch too many Hollywood movies.

Yeah, cause we did not bomb the crap out of Germany, did not fight them on two fronts (Africa and Western Europe), did not stop vital resources from coming in by sea, bombing the crap out of rail lines, or anything like that. Britain did not have Germany send troops all over western and northern Europe by letting slip false intelligence about various invasion plans (just look at how over fortified Norway was for example). Yep, we just sat back and twiddled our thumbs whilst the troops stationed in France, Italy, and Africa, as well as the large number of troops used in the Bulge, all fought the Russians who won the war single handedly with no help whatsoever from anyone else.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

Faraday didn't provide the world with such things as electricity, he merely laid the theoretical framework. From wikipedia:

Faraday studied the magnetic field around a conductor carrying a DC electric current, and established the basis for the electromagnetic field concept in physics. He discovered electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism, and laws of electrolysis. He established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an underlying relationship between the two phenomena.[1][2] His inventions of electromagnetic rotary devices formed the foundation of electric motor technology, and it was largely due to his efforts that electricity became viable for use in technology.

Thomas Edison actually provided the electricity in the form of the electrical generator, and furthermore gave us a reason to care, via the light bulb.

And if the US hadn't entered WWII the French would be speaking German today.

Re:That's bright!

[TheLink]

But what's so innovative about intermittent wipers? Yes they're useful. No they're not that innovative.

Most of the patents out there are as innovative and helpful to progress as "Patenting 101 methods of separating egg contents from shell in order to make an omelette...".

The current patent system appears to reward patent trolls.

BTW the patent system also does little to reward "super innovators". They will be more than 20 years ahead of their time. Imagine inventing the mouse, GUI, teleconferencing, working hypertext, groupware in the 1960s... And most people only start using stuff like that more than 20 years later (after the patent expires). It takes decades for the "seeds" to grow. Go look up Douglas Engelbart and his team.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. I can come up with lots of ideas. The trouble is implementing them or getting other people to implement them.

Perhaps they should reward inventors using a method based more on "hindsight". After all, it's easier to get stuff right in hindsight than for a patent examiner to sift through lots of crap, and in fields that he might not be an expert in. If technology and science continue to progress, there will be more and more ultra-specialized fields. How is some random patent examiner going to know whether something is really novel/innovative in that field?

Re:That's bright!

[sjames]

How about another less black and white case. Someone who has a job and savings who could afford medical care IF the costs weren't so inflated due to society's failure to control the costs of litigation. Alternatively, they're actually smart enough to treat themselves and their family except that they are forbidden by law to purchase the necessary drugs because they're not formally trained doctors? Meanwhile if they get by the best they can formulating their own medications, they will have their children taken away and go to jail for child abuse because they "chose" not to go to a doctor they couldn't afford and had to make do with only the drugs they could formulate themselves in their kitchen.

As for the "bums", if you take a good look at them, a startling percentage show the signs that they were treated with Thorazine for years (the Thorazine shuffle). That is, they have a mental illness.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

I'm certainly not happy with the prospect of having it lessened,

I thought you liked your insurance company? They're the ones placing restrictions, not the government.

dictated to me,

Again, it's your insurance company doing the dictating.

nor having it and other parts of my life increasingly taxed, in order to pay for others.

You're already taxed to pay for others -- only the tax doesn't go to the government, it goes to your insurance company. See, when someone's employer doesn't offer insurance (which is complately unaffordable to any non-rich private person) they don't go to to the doctor for a relatively cheap fix; they wait until they're at death's door and show up at the emergency room, where they can't be turned away. The hospital passes the cost of their hospitalization to your insurance company in the form of higher fees, and that's passed on to you and your employer in the form of higher premiums.

If everyone had insurance, insurance would be cheaper for everyone.

Your insurance company isn't accountable to you in any way. You can't choose your insurance company (again, unless you're rich), your employer does. If the government was the insurance company at least you could vote somebody out of office if you're not happy. Under the present system if your insurance sucks, tough shit, you have to find a different place to work.

I'd gladly have my taxes go up by a hundred dollars a month if I didn't have to pay that $200 insurance premium.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"You're happy paying insurance companies whose first priority is to make as much profit as possible, and as a result avoid paying out to it's customers as much as they possibly can? Insurance companies that will only insure the people who statistically will not use even a fraction of what they put in? Personally, I'd rather pay extra in taxes to help some stranger receive the medical care that they need, a stranger I've never met and will never meet, than pay some insurance company that puts healthcare _secondary_ to their primary purpose of making money.

If you've found an insurance company that isn't like that then I retract my statement (and would love to know who you use). But I highly doubt there is a private insurance company out there who's first priority _isn't_ to make money, with paying its customers second (or third, or fourth, or fifth, or...)."

I'm currently back on a W2 gig, and the insurance is great on this one...I've been in a wreck recently, took care of that no cost to me so far...for normal meds, office visits, etc, $20 a pop.

When doing 1099 stuff, I have a HSA I stuff the max money into (pre-tax) annually...and I go with high deductible insurance, which is basically the system I believe in more.

I pay for my routine care and meds out of the HSA funds, and keep insurance ONLY for emergency situations (things requiring hostpitalization, etc).

I would put forth we should get the insurance business OUT of routine care, and each of us have the pre-tax method to save and pay for the routine stuff, just between you and the Dr, much like it was before the HMO's and bean counters took over everything. A Dr. hung out his shingle, and you went with him. My uncle was a Dr. in this time...and he often charged according to a person's means. Someone poor didn't have to pay as much as a person that could afford it.

But, hey, everything is for profit...I don't begrudge anyone making a living, and I don't mind paying someone trained for years in human health good money to help keep my body working as long as possible.

I'd rather interact directly with them...more than insurance..and MUCH more than the govt. which is way in D.C...and too far away to know my individual needs.

One last thing...it would cut insurance costs if we opened it up to competition across states (isn't THAT interstate commerces?!?!) like Geico does for cars and bikes.

Re:That's bright!

[ianare]

Look into that tax thing, some countries have agreements with the US so you need only pay taxes in one country and not both (you still need to file with the IRS though).

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you confuse largely with entirely.

Re:That's bright!

[Wintermute__]

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

If you prefer not to contribute to the public good (for example, public education, which is not just a public good, it is more like a necessity if we hope to survive as a civilization), then please feel free to absent yourself from the benefits provided by that civilization.

Re:That's bright!

[sexconker]

Yes you were shitting on the US, when you should have been shitting on all politicians.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the entire world is being fucked by this here "recession".

No, I don't watch sports. Or American Idol.
Or much TV at all.

Keep stereotyping americans though, eventually you'll get one right.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

Making money is only a means to an end.

To me, making money is a means to an end: I like having a roof, food, electricity, a little beer once ina while, and transportation.

Not to a capitalist. To them, it's a religion. How many billions of dollars do you relly need?

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the report does not say quite what you, or Martin Weiss says it does, i.e. the U.S. is doomed financially. What it says it, if current laws do not change the deficit situation will continue to worsen, and extrapolating that out far enough leads to dire consequences. Of course, laws change all the time. The daily Federal Register, which documents those changes, is typically hundreds of pages. Daily. Also, the notion that Congress and the president are doing nothing about this is a blatant lie. You can verify this very simply by going back to the CBO for their analysis of the Senate health plan Full details here.

The idea that the federal government is just sitting back doing nothing about the flow of credit/money from banks is also a lie. Pressure has been coming from many areas to re-institute responsible lending. It should not be news to anyone that an overabundance of credit has been extended over the past few years, so it should also not be surprising that those markets are contracting now. A decrease in outstanding credit/liabilities means, in part, that businesses and individuals are paying off debt, and incurring new debt at a less crazy pace. That's a sign of impending financial armageddon?

I don't get what is so much fun about spreading gloom and doom. Lots of you folks sure seem to like it, though.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

Wow, things sure have changed since the last time I took a motor apart. Thanks for the info.

I have a food mixer that used to belong to my grandmother, it's as old as I am. It has an AC motor, with brushes. Well, one brush; the other one burned out and I replaced it with a spring from a ballpoint pen. The mixer works, but that spring that I replaced the brush with sure wears out fast. How long have brushless motors been around? I need to do a little reading, it seems.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"If you prefer not to contribute to the public good (for example, public education, which is not just a public good, it is more like a necessity if we hope to survive as a civilization), then please feel free to absent yourself from the benefits provided by that civilization."

As I've said in previous posts, I don't mind paying for public infrastructure which is for the public good.

I do mind, paying for you to have kids you can't afford, that become a drag on society since you can't raise them, feed them and pay for their needs.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"The problem was you, not her if the misogyny that's seeping through is any indication."

Not really...it is a fact as far as I can tell, from years of observation, not just of me, but, from most any guy I know.

Of course, we don't usually tell women this (not really afraid of that many of them on /.), I mean, that's not gonna help you to get laid.

Re:That's bright!

[agnosticnixie]

1. Be afraid
2. Your type is well known, documented and has enough material on to publish a monograph no need to pretend secrecy - in fact I know where the conversation type you started would go with anyone who hasn't dealth with your kind, down to the generic argument type and the fallacies you will make use of.
3. The conclusion you put together from your observations paint you as a narcissist.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've twisted the definition of the word "provided" completely out of shape. In all three of those cases the initial event might have happened elsewhere but people in the US provided them to the world.

Faraday never provided electricity in any significant quantity to anyone. He was a scientist not an engineer or inventor. Edison and Tesla on the other hand did.

Daimler and Benz built cars by hand long before Ford but they copied their mass production factories from Ford. Ford was the first to provide cars to the masses.

And while Russian did way more than their fair share of dying in WWII all that courage would have been for nothing if it hadn't been for US support. The US provided them their victory.

None of that has anything to do with the movies.

Re:That's bright!

[jim_v2000]

I know you're probably an automotive engineer and all that, but there's a reason that we let the PO and the courts decide whether or not it's a valid patent.

Re:That's bright!

[n7ytd]

I emigrated from the US last month. I don't think they will ever recover, and I didn't want to be there when the economy collapsed (and no, a couple banks failing isn't a collapse). It's simple.

...[Many easily talked about and hard-to-achieve social goals snipped]...

Wow! You're right! That is simple!

Re:That's bright!

[n7ytd]

Spain?!?! I'm an American, and I lived in Spain for two years. Gorgeous country, friendly people. High unemployment, broken health care system. Regressive tax system.

New Zealand does have an appeal; maybe it's the mystique of it, but I could see living there.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your larger point might still hold, but the 2006 date is a red herring. The patent was filed in 2006, but as shown in the section labeled "cross reference to related applications," it has a priority date of 1999, meaning that the subject matter was disclosed earlier in 1999, and they drafted new claims (or a new characterization of their legal rights in virtue of the disclosure) in 2006. See e.g., http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0200_201_14.htm. Assuming the earlier disclosure is adequate to support the claims, e.g., it explains how to practice the invention they later claimed in 2006, you need prior art from before 1999.

This ability to adjust your claim language years after your initial filing is very powerful for patent holders. The power is limited by what your initial disclosure will support, but the PTO doesn't always do a good job of making sure that the requirements are met. Industry is in a real bind, because they don't know what sort of claims might arise from a patent application.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the section labeled "cross reference to related applications." You need prior art from before 1999. The filing date is irrelevant when a patent is a continuation of an earlier application. It is the filing date of the parent app that matters.

Re:That's bright!

[jim_v2000]

>It is a basic building blocks continuation of existing technology.

Which is patentable.

Re:That's bright!

[jim_v2000]

In their patent they say that DC motors don't provide enough torque at higher speeds.

Re:That's bright!

[jim_v2000]

>But what's so innovative about intermittent wipers?

Apparently a lot, because no one else thought of them. And they were innovative enough for the design to be stolen from the inventor. You only think it's not innovative because you don't understand the technology of the time and how difficult it was to come up with a timed mechanism.

Re:That's bright!

[jwhitener]

You're happy paying more for your health insurance than anywhere else in the world would charge, while receiving lower quality outcomes?

Regardless of that, reform and a competing public option will drive costs down. You can keep the insurance you have, but it will be cheaper.

Just remember, you are already paying a tax to support a public plan. It is called "emergency rooms", and it drives the cost of every insurance plan up.

Re:That's bright!

[ncc74656]

I don't know if you've noticed, but the entire world is being fucked by this here "recession".

Some countries seem to be handling it better than others, though. I just saw something earlier today about tens of thousands of new jobs each in Australia and Canada. Compare that to this...another 570k jobs down the drain. The order-of-magnitude difference is no doubt a function of our much larger population, but the difference in sign should be troubling to anybody. I wonder what the Aussies and Canucks are doing differently. I suspect they passed on the idea of having the government try to spend its way out of recession.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"3. The conclusion you put together from your observations paint you as a narcissist."

Nah...I'm too good for that!

:)

Re:That's bright!

[Dunbal]

Except the report does not say quite what you, or Martin Weiss says it does

      OK. Now tell me, what is the price of gold telling you? What is the strength of the US dollar telling you, compared to say the yen, the yuan, or even the Canadian dollar?

      I personally don't subscribe to any political philosophy. In fact I hate government of any kind, which is why I put myself in a situation where I legally never have to pay income tax. However what I believe in are the facts:

      The US has been spending and printing money like mad for years.
      The US has consistently lied to its population regarding real inflation, GDP and household income numbers (explain substitution and hedonics to me again?).
      The US is underwater in debt at ALL levels, from the consumer to the municipalities to the states to the federal government.
      For some reason US citizens expected the housing mega-bubble to last forever - to a point where many people were making vast sums just by "flipping" property.
      For some reason US banks thought they could make money by lending it to people who are broke or otherwise not credit-worthy. Well, I guess they did because they offloaded that debt onto other people, in the form of CDO's. So everyone else got fucked. Even so, the banks took a hit and went crying to Washington for free money.

      All of these things have had my family and I take a "bearish" outlook for YEARS. In 2008 we saw a small hiccup. But, to be quite honest, it wasn't enough, IMHO. I think this was just a tremor before the real earthquake. There hasn't been enough pain and suffering yet - even though 20% of the world's shipping capacity is PARKED off the coast of Singapore because instead of being full of Christmas goods being rushed to the US from China, there's no demand (you know freight costs are 1/10th of what they were a few years ago, right?).

      Just like the 1929 crash - the REAL fun didn't begin until 1933 or so. I certainly am not holding any stocks, apart from my short positions. I need to see many more corporate and personal BANKRUPTCIES first. THIS is what causes "real" deflation - not people hoarding their stuff - people STARVING, desperate to do anything. It's like capitulation on the stock market, only on amongst the population. But instead I see a government that thinks it can solve the "crisis" by - tadaaa - printing (or whatever you want to call it) MORE money.

      I don't enjoy being a doom-sayer. But thinking that the future is all roses in the current climate, and given the FACTS (gold at record highs, the Dow near 10k again without a correction, etc) if you don't smell a rat somewhere, well, I have an Eiffel Tower you might want to buy...

Re:That's bright!

[jwhitener]

"I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are. How fair is it for those doctors to have to treat bums off the street who haven't contributed anything to society."

At least that is logically consistent when being opposed to health care reform, (and I'm assuming the public option).

If you are against health care reform, you should be for hospitals and doctors only treating those that can pay for it. That is much closer to a free market, and health care will be MUCH cheaper over time with that system. The cost of doing business in the US will fall, companies will be less likely to move overseas, profits will soar!

However, I'd care to wager that a vast majority of people would not like to see a child die outside of an emergency room, just because his parents are poor. Because this isn't all about money, and morals play a factor, you have to ask yourself, what is the cheapest, most effective way, of driving down costs, while meeting that moral obligation?

It has been shown time and time again that preventative health care is much cheaper than waiting until something becomes an emergency, visiting the emergency room, and then passing that cost along to all of us in the form of higher health care insurance costs.

That means, if you agree we have a moral obligation to help that sick child with poor parents, you agree that everyone should be covered. The simplest solution is a public option.

Re:That's bright!

[Firethorn]

understand the technology of the time and how difficult it was to come up with a timed mechanism.

True, but there's more requirements to consider:
1. Cheap enough to put on non-premium cars
2. Reliable enough to not be a warranty nightmare through a nightmare range of operating temperatures/conditions
3. Easy to control by relatively untrained operators.

That makes it more complicated.

Reading this, I think it fails for non-specificness, I don't see how it applies to most hybrids because it seems to describe an all-wheel drive hybrid with seperate motors for the front/back. Otherwise it reads like the series hybrid diesel-electric trains that there were prototypes of back before '96.

Re:That's bright!

[cayenne8]

"I thought you liked your insurance company? They're the ones placing restrictions, not the government."

I do, I've yet to have them tell me I can't see a Dr (any of them I want to see so far) when I want to. They have yet to say they won't let me go for any tx I want. Honestly, I've no complaints and have not run into any restrictions on my tx or Dr. I've chosen.

"I'd gladly have my taxes go up by a hundred dollars a month if I didn't have to pay that $200 insurance premium."

Why do you pay so much? With the current W2 gig, I pay like $40/mo at most for insurance. When I was doing 1099 and had my own private insurance, yet, it was about $200/mo for a high deductible policy, but, with that I got the benefit of being able to sock a TON of money back pre-tax into a HSA which is really what I did my non-emergency medical needs from.

I've worked with the govt (Fed/DoD) in the past...and seeing the red tape, infighting, waste...I cannot imagine at ALL that having them take over my medical care (politicians making my medical decisions?) will in any manner improve upon my current level of health care, in fact, I see it as likely dragging it down a notch or two.

Re:That's bright!

[digitalunity]

Doesn't mean it SHOULD be patentable. If patents are to serve to foster innovation, it should be reserved for truly innovative inventions. Not existing concepts taken to the next logical step.

Re:That's bright!

[digitalunity]

They've done a bang up job so far, why stop now...

Re:That's bright!

[bdenton42]

So you propose to keep all taxes the same (including the Social Security & Medicare deductions totalling 15.3% of your income), but no longer provide Social Security or Medicare benefits?

Good luck with that... any politican who proposes that would be gone in the next election, if not much sooner.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether to be amused, or feel sorry for you.

Of course you don't always pay for sex. You "pay" for sex if you wind up having sex with someone who doesn't value it in and of itself. If you actually choose emotionally healthy, mature sexual partners, rather than people who are grudgingly willing to put out just to get something else they want, you'll find you aren't paying any more than they are (i.e., splitting the cost of a box of condoms).

Of course, in order to find sexual partners of this nature, you have to be emotionally mature, honest, and up front yourself. Lack of any of the above can leave you stuck wanting one thing but getting another.

Re:That's bright!

[bzipitidoo]

Of course steamrolling has happened. I'd like a new system set up in which it can't. What I mean is, if there were no speed limits, it would be impossible to speed. Can't get a parking ticket for an expired meter if the parking space isn't metered. Same thing with intellectual property. If ideas couldn't be owned, they couldn't be stolen. And they couldn't be hoarded, buried, blocked, squelched, forgotten or anything else contrary to the intent of advancement. The saddest use of a patent has to be to prevent anyone else from using an idea not so the owner can use it, but so that no one at all can use it as the owner feels it may compete with the owner's existing business. It's as if the telegraph company could have bought up the patents for the telephone to stop the telephone from existing so that everyone had to keep using telegraphs. Holding everything up while the involved parties haggle over it as if it is a consumable good is nearly as bad. Not only let Ford use the idea, but hope that Ford uses it! Then, to further encourage innovation, have the little guy receive compensation out of a fund set up for this purpose.

Instead of a vicious court fight full of nasty slurs over "theft" and talk of grossly disproportionate fines to punish wrongdoers when it isn't clear that anyone meant to or did anything wrong at all, we could have a nice pleasant discussion over how useful the idea was to Ford and therefore how much compensation the little guy deserves. When 2 kids fight over 1 toy, you shouldn't resolve the issue by smashing the toy, thrashing both kids within an inch of their lives, grounding them for a month, and threatening even more serious consequences(!) next time, but that's been the flavor of the courts' decisions. Even just allowing people to go ahead and use an idea and worry later about just compensation without having to fear being ruined by a bad day in court would be a big help. Maybe not as much fun for drama fans, but a whole lot better for us all.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

I do, I've yet to have them tell me I can't see a Dr (any of them I want to see so far) when I want to. They have yet to say they won't let me go for any tx I want. Honestly, I've no complaints and have not run into any restrictions on my tx or Dr. I've chosen.

You're lucky your employer chose that company. Many policies do, in fact, restrict all those things.

Why do you pay so much?

Because I have no choice. It's very good insurance; If I'd gone for a standard lens implant instead of the new tech, the entire operation would have been covered. I'd have had a big deductable with many companies.

My insurance company isn't beholden to me, they're beholden to their stockholders. And I can't replace them at an affordable price. I have no say about how they run the business, and have no recourse. With a public plan I can at least vote against somebody who appoints administrators.

Bureacracy isn't a function of government, it's a function of any organization that reaches some threshold in size. And most insurance companies are arguably more bureaucratic than many Federal government agencies.

Re:That's bright!

[nomadic]

Because I'm a fully qualified, board certified specialist who COULD practice medicine in the US, but refuses to because it's too much hassle. And what's worse is, I'm not the only one. There are many, many physicians who have opted out of medicine and into something less stressful (and potentially disastrous in financial terms). A country that encourages trained specialists to actually work in something less risky because of litigation or even worse, having insurance companies practice medicine by telling doctors what to do and what not to do, is a bit screwed up.

Yet specialists in the U.S. STILL manage to make twice as much money as their counterparts in other countries. Poor guys.

Re:That's bright!

[bzipitidoo]

Unclear thinking on their part. Fair competition maximizes wealth. The trouble with unbridled capitalism is that competitors can compete destructively and monopolize markets. It's the difference between a sports game and a brawl or a victory by forfeit. Without rules, there is no sport, there is only a vicious cutthroat brawl, which can so easily end in a lose-lose way. Without opponents, there is no game. The very existence of a monopoly means there is no more competition, and therefore no push to maximize everyone's wealth.

Monopolies are why the West has the worst prices on medicine. And they hardly even have to fight to win a monopoly, we hand them out!

Re:That's bright!

[santiagodraco]

Sarcasm > you.

Yes, I was being sarcastic :)

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

After 6 months they have to bring you on if you are working for the company and getting their insurance. Your HR person should help you with this.

Re:That's bright!

[BLKMGK]

I agree that patents shouldn't be used to stop innovation by others or to fence off business areas. However I do not see any sort of "fund" idea working either - who would put money into it? how could it ever compensate someone for an idea that facilitated say a billion dollar product? Instead things should be changed to make patents harder to get and I think that there should be rules in place to encourage the use of patented ideas and to accelerate loss of the patent when the idea isn't put to use. I also believe that it shouldn't be allowed for minor tweaks to rest the "shot clock" and allow the idea to be protected for ever longer periods of time - I'm looking at YOU drug companies!

Things are broken, badly. The body of knowledge a patent examiner must cover when granting a patent is crazy. The period of time a patent may cover needs to be tweaked. Allowances need to somehow be made though so that if a little guy comes up with an idea, a solid one, that will take tons of money to realize that he doesn't get screwed. Likewise we should discourage big well funded companies from swapping around patents like baseball cards in order to fence off business areas and entrench themselves ever deeper.

I don't know what the solution is here but imagining everyone sitting down nicely for tea like adults to discuss how much or how little to compensate someone isn't going to fly well IMO. The companies will say give little, the owner will say give lots. Who decides?

Re:That's bright!

[Saeger]

I certainly am not holding any stocks, apart from my short positions.

Hah. Finally full disclosure from you.

Sorry to hear your shorts are bleeding (probably from as far back as S&P 900), but the market can stay irrational (and/or manipulated) longer than you can stay sane wishing for another crash or even just a no-inflation fair value correction.

(btw - the one thing that will save this screwed planet from bigger booms and busts, and also decimate the old scarcity-based markets, is our accelerating technological progress. We're a few short decades away from massively disruptive nano-abundance along with the (A)Intelligence needed to maximize the efficiency and "good" of these increasingly complex systems all around us.)

Re:That's bright!

[BLKMGK]

Intermittent wipers weren't on ANY vehicles until ONE guy figured it out. He apparently spent a good bit of time working on it too. Hindsight says that of COURSE it was obvious! Except it wasn't for many years. So, was it okay for car companies to steal the idea since DUH in hindsight it was obvious? As I recall the man who invented it demonstrated it, was blown off, and then the company STOLE the idea. Not cool...

I agree that some ideas are WAY ahead of their time. I don't know how best to reward them, I'm open to suggestions....

Re:That's bright!

[iamhassi]

"If they honestly think they have a claim, then it would be absurd not to go after it. What would you have them do instead?"

how were they granted a patent? They filed in 2006, only 7 years after the first production hybrid. Is it too late for me to patent the wheel?

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

Where have you been for the last thirteen years? Since 1996 unless you're disabled you're REQUIRED to work to get any welfare (unless you're a multibillion dollar corporation)., and that welfare is time-limited.

I used "welfare" to be public support, not some specific program. Most welfare is state administered, not federal. Much of it may be federally funded, directly or indirectly, but only a few things, like medicaid and SS are actually administered by the feds. As such, I was speaking from my personal knowledge of public support programs, and I know many people that have been unemployed for long periods and received support. Furthermore, most that require work require that you be employed or "unemployed." In almost all cases I've seen, "unemployed" is covered like employed is (I put it in quotes to indicate that it doesn't mean someone that isn't working, but using the official definition where someone is not only not working, but is actively looking for work and registered as such). But I know people that, after 1996, have been receiving public aid for long periods while not holding a job or looking for one.

And you still completely missed the point that it isn't about cutting off welfare as opposed to how it's handled now. It's that rather than putting people who could work on welfare, you get them jobs. If someone could work full time and still qualify for welfare, then the minimum wage should be raised. If you can't live on wages from a job, then that job shouldn't exist. And yes, that means your hamburgers at McDonalds will increase. But use jobs to fix it, make them productive. No daycare centers for all the working parents? Then fund daycare centers and employ those same mothers as caregivers. At my daycare, more than one of the people working there has a child there.

Re:That's bright!

[cgenman]

Got kids you can't afford medical care for? That shows you couldn't afford kids!!

You do realize that anyone in a situation where their kids need an expensive medical procedure that they can't afford and can't get elsewhere will resort to lying, cheating, stealing, and any other measure legal or illegal that they can to make sure it happens.

Part of public welfare is a degree of suppressing public unrest, keeping all of us much safer than we otherwise would be.

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

Wow! You're right! That is simple!

As long as you don't ask the companies what they want, it is. What the US will only ever get is the perverted systems we have now. The government paying an insurance company who pays the provider's organization who then pays the provider. With large chunks of money taken off at every point. If the Government cut the check to the person seeking care or the doctor directly, then the insurance companies and "healthcare service providers" would be cut out and lose their overhead. It's easy to come up with. Easy to implement. But hard to pass. It's getting the fix past the corporations that will be impossible. Getting it actually implemented and implemented well is child's play compared to that.

Re:That's bright!

[sjames]

Monopoly is certainly one problem, but there are others.

One additional problem is that there is little elasticity in demand. If a consumer is seriously ill he can't simply decide to exit the market if it's not favorable. In more successful markets, consumers can at least defer demand until prices come more in line (drive the old clunker another year, get a smaller cheap TV, put a pillow under the sofa cushion...). When the alternative to a product or service is death, it's meaningless to talk about comparing utility.

Meanwhile, elective medicine is considerably more affordable.

Most economic theory assumes that the consumer has choices including exiting the market. Medicine is one of those special cases where it isn't true. Notably, legal defense is another such area. You can choose not to sue, but you can't just decide not to BE sued or prosecuted. Naturally, legal defense is quite expensive while if you're a plaintiff you may even get a no-risk win or don't pay deal (where winning means attorney's fees come from the defendant).

Another oddity is caused by the unfunded mandate for hospitals to treat anyone in mortal danger even if they can't pay. Those costs are added to the bills of paying consumers. However, HMOs have enough buying power to force the hospitals to pad the bills of uninsured patients more than insured, so they actually drive prices UP for the rest.

It's little surprise that capitalism doesn't work well in cases where it's preconditions are not met.

Re:That's bright!

[treeves]

That might be often true, but you can't say you know it's true for him as if you have the certainty coming from knowledge that it is true 100% of the time. Read my earlier post - my son's health care costs, I don't even know the total, but I know it was in the six figures at least. It perhaps was exceptional, our case, not the norm, to come away with essentially no debt, but you'd be wrong if you said it never happened.

Re:That's bright!

[AK Marc]

New Zealand. And I'm watching the ride from away. If it ends and looks like fun, I'll come back. If it crashes, I can keep my distance.

Re:That's bright!

[petermgreen]

I have a food mixer that used to belong to my grandmother, it's as old as I am. It has an AC motor, with brushes.
Sounds like what is known of as a "universal motor". That is a motor that can run off AC but is based on the design principles of DC motors.

How long have brushless motors been around?
Induction motors have been arround for years but without inverter based drives thier applications were limited to those requiring a relatively constant speed.

Brushless DC motors are a relatively new invention afaict (though i'm not sure exactly how new).

Re:That's bright!

[JimboFBX]

The fees to review your case is minuscule compared to the medical costs right? Many lawyers will review this kind of thing for free because they view a patient walking up to their door and saying "an insurance company is screwing me can you help?" as a multimillion dollar opportunity they don't want to pass up. They might ask for a fee at first, but give them your number and say, "Give me a call if you have the free time to review my case". My advice is to at least call around.

Re:That's bright!

[bzipitidoo]

Those who benefit should contribute to the funds. That would seem to mean everyone should contribute. Which means this should be handled by organizations that represent everyone-- governments are an obvious choice, but it need not be governments. The means of collection could be a tax, or a levy. Plenty of examples out there, such as the 4% that merchants must pay to credit card companies.

As to deciding what is a genuinely new invention and how much payout it deserves, yes, having discussions on a case by case basis does not seem a good idea. Really, that's what we do now in these court battles. Much better to have some simple rules and formulas that of course will not be perfect and won't always promote the desired behavior or be completely immune to gaming. But they can surely do better than our present system. Try to remove as much ambiguity as possible, remove the reasons and excuses for fights. There would not be a discussion on how much inventors should get, there would be some sort of registration system and schedule of rates, perhaps based on statistical extrapolations of samplings of usage.

Re:That's bright!

[TheLink]

> As I recall the man who invented it demonstrated it, was blown off, and then the company STOLE the idea.

Well if that happened then I agree he should be compensated.

But if the company really invented it by themselves, I don't think the inventor deserves anything, except credit for being first.

Otherwise you just end up slowing progress.

Re:That's bright!

[BLKMGK]

Building a large pool of money by getting everyone to pay what amounts to a tax is going to lead to abuses. One need only look at Medicaid, the UN, and well the Federal budget here in the US to see how that would work out. As you say - plenty of examples out there. I'm betting that taxes started out with "simple rules" too and now look at what we have :-( "Removing ambiguity" would become pretty difficult too considering how esoteric some patents are.
.
In a perfect world this might work, but I don't see such a Utopian world coming anytime soon. In the real world everyone seems to be trying to step on the backs of others to get ahead or get away with something - that's not going to change.

Re:That's bright!

[BLKMGK]

Yes, that IS what happened -> http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/02/25/005398.html and it was pretty seedy. He actually demonstrated to each of the companies his technology, they stopped responding to his calls, they released cars with HIS functionality. He had a years long battle to win compensation as a result. I may be wrong but I believe that Ford in particular thought themselves too big for the little guy to take down and tried to steamroll him. This came out in the proceedings if memory serves.
.
This is but ONE example that sprung to mind immediately. Simply getting "credit" for being first isn't good enough IMO. Of course it is possible for two different people to be completely disconnected and have the same idea. However the chances of this are becoming pretty slim. Simply giving the first guy a footnote if the second guy makes billions is pathetic and unfair. I do not see properly compensating the first person to slow progress at all, in fact I think just the opposite. If people are fairly compensated for innovative ideas then perhaps ideas will be shared more readily. If you didn't have to fear someone stealing the idea, as the wiper story demonstrates, then perhaps you will be more likely to be open about it. Suppose all of the money and time Robert spent fighting was put back into developing new ideas - what might he have created?
.
I've just remembered - they made a movie about his story! I haven't seen it but it ought to prove enlightening to you and perhaps interesting. Adding it to my NetFlix now :-) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/

Re:That's bright!

[Kalriath]

I'm so, so sorry. I can not believe I fell for that.

Then again, the AC that replied to me was even more of a moron so I don't feel so stupid now.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'legal costs' in loser pays countries is usually determined as a function of the value at issue, not the fantasy numbers one side may have put on their lawyer's bills. You're usually able to get at least average representation at those rates, but if you want to get a star lawyer, you'll end up paying the difference out of your own pocket, even if you win.

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany also deserves kudos for the outcome of WWII

Re:That's bright!

[PalmKiller]

What does this have to do with taking care of frivolous patents related to hybrids?

Re:That's bright!

[goondu]

Can anyone expect a national patent system not to favor patents of domestic origin over those of foreign origin? Even if in the end, the foreign party wins, there is plenty of red tape that can be thrown in the way. At the very least, isn't this be considered a act of loyalty to the tax paying domestic patent holders?

Re:That's bright!

[santiagodraco]

Lol.

I need more direct use of the emoticons!

Re:That's bright!

[Anonymous Coward]

> I do not see properly compensating the first person to slow progress at all

Neither do I.

But compensating is not the same as granting a monopoly.

The patent system grants monopolies.

If we are not careful the roads to progress will be blocked by more and more toll collectors who are not interested in building roads or even anything except more toll booths.

Re:That's bright!

[mcgrew]

If someone could work full time and still qualify for welfare, then the minimum wage should be raised.

Agreed. But almost all the people who work at McDonald's and many who work at WalMart are eligible for food stamps. Compared to other countries, our Federal minimum wage is a disgrace.

It's worse for waitresses; they often have to pay taxes on income they don't even get. Their minimum wage is lower than other jobs, and are assumed to make it up in tips, even if they're working the graveyard shift and my only get three customers. If I had my way the normal minimum wage would apply, and tips would be tax-free.

Re:That's bright!

[serbanp]

Toyota started selling the Prius in Japan in December 1997. This means that the hybrid's design started quite a few years before that, predating everything these Florida patent trolls came with.

Re:That's bright!

[siddesu]

You should have read the parent comment.

Re:That's bright!

[JasterBobaMereel]

They are not above this ... and I expect they have stolen ideas in the past ... and gotten away with it, by steamrolling the inventor ... and the Patent system did not stop them
I am not saying the innovator has to be the market leader, but they do have to be first and quick to defend their patent?

In this case why has it taken so long for the apparent inventor of a rather generalised hybrid engine system to make a case against Toyota, did they not see the hype around the Prius, over the last several years? Or perhaps they were just waiting until they could hold Toyota to ransom?

This smacks of Patent trolling, much more than a little inventor fighting the Big Bad company ...

Patents when managed and overseen properly can work, but too many of them are awarded without merit, and are far too generalized...

Re:That's bright!

[PalmKiller]

I did, I wrote the parent comment to your comment, or did you mean the parent to the parent comment :)

Re:That's bright!

[jmcvetta]

If they honestly think they have a claim, then it would be absurd not to go after it. What would you have them do instead?

IHow about jump in front of a bus? Or perhaps, for greater relevance, in front of a Prius...

Re:That's bright!

[jmcvetta]

But of course, in the United States, the process is the punishment.

If only I had some mod points..

Yes, but....

[djupedal]

The US is not the market for Toyota it once was. The reasons for selling into the US are declining with each passing year and Prius are showing up on used lots in increasing numbers, so I doubt the boys in Toyota Town will lose much sleep over this bit of news either way.

Re:Yes, but....

[Pechkin000]

Maybe its not the market it used to be but it is still a HUGE market for Toyota and it certanly would warrant lost sleep for the boys there.

Re:Yes, but....

[dvorakkeyboardrules]

Typically Toyota uses the US market to drive design improvements that they want to make and can't pay for at home via high profit margin specialty items. This is why they created the EV RAV4 way back in 1994 and the first round of PRIUS sedans when California backed off the polution requirements. Those early models were a way to pay the designers and engineers to improve the technology and get smarter without loosing buckets of money. Currently they are packing high demand US cars with extras like navigation (and solar panels starting next year) to increase the volume of the technology they want to use elsewhere on other things to drive down costs. Great smart marketing and management by them when they sucker us into paying high prices for these extras but we want the cars so we pay up and they make a lot of extra profit.......

Honda has been doing the same thing with engine technology in other products like race cars, snow blowers, ATVs and motor cycles for years. The technology and design features discovered and the factories built for one product pays for the design improvements in other places like great small cars......

C'est la vie.....

Re:Yes, but....

[sofar]

well, THIS certainly is a great way to make the US market even less appealing for Toyota.

All this will accomplish is: more expensive cars, less innovation, less competition. Exactly what patents are designed to achieve.

Re:Yes, but....

[Fluffeh]

*giggle* Couldn't they argue the patent validity based on PRIUS use?

*guffaw*

Re:Yes, but....

[Sponge Bath]

Right now Toyota is selling the Prius in the US about as fast as they can make them. Go talk to a dealer now and see what you have to choose from. Chances are you will need to order from the factory. As for showing up on used lots? Yes, I would expect as time passes and more new units are sold into the US, the numbers on used lots would eventually increase.

Re:Yes, but....

[tthomas48]

"The US is not the market for Toyota it once was. The reasons for selling into the US are declining with each passing year and Prius are showing up on used lots in increasing numbers"

* citation needed

I fail to understand this as Toyota outsells GM worldwide, and is within a few points in the US. Perhaps you're just seeing more Priuses (Priusi?) on used car lots because dealers are stocking what people want, and cash for clunkers took a lot of US cars out of the used car market?

The KBB of an 8 year old Prius is still around $10k. So, um... dunno what you're saying.

Re:Yes, but....

[PalmKiller]

Sales figures do not support your claim, sales are about the same on the camry and tundra, the tacoma only dropped slightly...probably due to the slightly higher tundra sales with the new bodystyle. Even in this declining market, the toyotas are selling. And just by observation, you have obviously not looked around lately. I see a lot of toyotas down here in the southern states. Many prius, tundras, tacomas, sienna vans, you name it. I think if anything the toyota sales here have increased by several magnitudes. Prius sales are down slightly 90K so far this year as apposed to 181K last yeat, but its due to the lower gas prices I think, and perhaps partially due to the other toyota hybrid offerings. Why you say? Well the best I can figure is the fact that you are almost guaranteed that a Toyota vehicle sold in the US is made in the US these days out of parts made in the US or Japan, which is kinda cool, and well it just don't make sense to buy from companies that are loosing their shirts due to bad management and have moved parts or all of the vehicle build to Canada and Mexico. And yes, I just traded my 2003 Ford F150 supercrew in on a Toyota Tundra double cab...more room, more power, better gas mileage, 6 1/2 foot bed, great price...and it was made in the new San Antonio plant. My wife has a 09 Camry that was made in Georgetown Kentucky, and before that she had a Sienna van that was made in Indiana.

Re:Yes, but....

[postbigbang]

So they ostensibly lose a little money and 'dump' cars in to the US. Not all of us are suckered into bloated options-- and US car makers are famous for them, too. That they were able to find a market is a good thing. US Prius owners get the benefit of higher resale value for not only mpg but overall quality aids resale and ownership costs, too. Sour grapes, dude.

The remaining US automakers could learn a few lessons. Look at how well NUMMI cars continue to sell.

Re:Yes, but....

[Sir_Dill]

Perhaps you're just seeing more Priuses (Priusi?)

I believe the word you were looking for was Priai.

Re:Yes, but....

[Kartoffel]

Yep, Toyota trucks are great. I'm holding out for a diesel Hilux (Tacoma) in the US market.

Re:Yes, but....

[Sebilrazen]

Priuses (Priusi?)

Prii. (Radius -> Radii, Octopus-> Octopi)

Re:Yes, but....

[cawpin]

How can somebody sue Toyota over the drivetrain in the Prius, claiming they have a patent for it, when Toyota bought a patent from GM to use for said drivetrain?

Re:Yes, but....

[Kesch]

Wait, Nintendo's entering the car market?

Re:Yes, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be Prii Since Radius is Radii, Prius would be Prii :p

Re:Yes, but....

[prichardson]

Octopus is not a latin word. It's greek. The correct plural would be "octopaedus". You know, if you wanted to be pedantic.

(this comment meant to be light hearted)

Re:Yes, but....

[Sebilrazen]

I'll be damned (Word Origin & History).

1758, genus name of a type of eight-armed cephalopod mollusks, from Gk. oktopous "eight-footed," from okto "eight" (see eight) + pous "foot." Proper plural is octopodes, though octopuses probably works better in English. Octopi is from mistaken assumption that -us is the L. noun ending that takes -i in plural.

Re:Yes, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Prius are showing up on used lots in increasing numbers

That would be true of any car that has an expanding market.

Re:Yes, but....

[Coren22]

I guess that means the Wii is plural of a Wuis, where can I get one of those :)

Re:Yes, but....

[Coren22]

I love my Camry, second one I bought after the insurance company totaled my last one from a fender-bender in a parking lot.

Here is the one I want:

[dvorakkeyboardrules]

www.commutercars.com They are custom built now, so beyond the willingness of this guy to purchase at $100k+. But, if they ever get to mass production at a price point below $20k (best guess of the company), I would likely get one. I think they have a unique approach to not only the electric vehicle but to make it "fit in" the existing infrastructure to solve the fossil fuel problem and the freeway overcrowding problem. Anyway, not an employee or owner of commuter cars; I just think they are cool.

Re:Here is the one I want:

[QuoteMstr]

Err, no thanks. If I'm going to buy a special-purpose tiny vehicle, I'll buy one that is even more fuel efficient, and doesn't look ridiculous.

Re:Here is the one I want:

[cellurl]

$100,000 Am I missing something?? I can get a Cessna for less...

Re:Here is the one I want:

[Sponge Bath]

...doesn't look ridiculous.

You say that after linking to an image of the Daimler-Maybach Reitwagen?

Re:Here is the one I want:

[SomeJoel]

$100,000 Am I missing something?? I can get a Cessna for less...

This may be true, but it's a lot harder to park.

Re:Here is the one I want:

[Anonymous Coward]

Aptera. Coming out this month, reasonably priced.

Hybrid model coming out too (soon enough).

http://cellofellow.homelinux.net/

Re:Here is the one I want:

[Sebilrazen]

Broken link.

Re:Here is the one I want:

[jeffasselin]

http://www.smartusa.com/ starts for a bit more than 10k.

Re:Here is the one I want:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been my saving grace for the last 5 or so years.
All I've driven is a motorcycle, except for when 3 or more people need to go somewhere together... then I use my car which rots in the garage until I start it :P
50-55 mpg, fun to ride, insurance is $75/year, and the price is low. Can't beat that.

Filing date

[glam0006]

The filing date is May 8, 2006. Really? This technology wasn't around before then?

Re:Filing date

[sharkb8]

The chain of priority goes back to 1999.

Re:Filing date

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota has been making the Prius since 1997.

Re:Filing date

[toppavak]

Exactly, how can a technology brought to market in 2001 violate a patent filed in 2006? Or, how come a patent that applies to a technology that was brought to market in 2001 be granted when it was filed in 2006?

Re:Filing date

[tsotha]

The US has a first-to-invent standard instead of the first-to-file standard you see in some other countries. If you can show you invented something before the other guy did (which usually requires a fair amount of documentation), you can get a patent even after the invention is in general use. You can also invalidate existing patents for the same invention. Of course there are all sorts of legal caveats, but that's the gist of it. The fact that the patent application was filed in 2006 doesn't necessarily mean they can't win.

Re:Filing date

[deblau]

The disclosure on which the claims of this patent are based was filed with the patent office at least as early as Apr. 2, 2001, and maybe as early as Sept. 14, 1998. Always check the cross-reference data, grasshopper.

Re:Filing date

[Disgruntled Goats]

Toyota has been making the Prius since 1997.

And was only for sale in Japan. The first US Prius didn't come about until 2001. Thus it is not prior art.

Re:Filing date

[Zordak]

And the first-generation Priuses may not have had the claimed technology. Just because it's there now, that doesn't mean it's always been there.

Re:Filing date

[Locutus]

look up US patent number 1558806 dated 1921

LoB

Re:Filing date

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Toyota has been making the Prius since 1997.

And was only for sale in Japan. The first US Prius didn't come about until 2001. Thus it is not prior art.

Just because it wasn't available in the US doesn't make it prior art. Prior art has no such restrictions.

Re:Filing date

[Locutus]

try 1921 and patent 1558806

only in tiff format it's so old so if you don't have a plugin on Ubuntu, try Konqueror or Dolphin since I think it uses Imagemagick. worked for me and this looks like it covers ICE, motor, and batteries

LoB

Re:Filing date

[jcorno]

Just because it wasn't available in the US doesn't make it prior art. Prior art has no such restrictions.

Yes it does. 35 USC 102(b) refers to inventions in use or offered for sale in the US only. You can maybe get around that if the owner's manual or service manual was available to the public and addressed the relevant features, since publications don't have that restriction; but as for the car itself, only domestic availability counts.

Re:Filing date

[DieByWire]

They had already won a verdict against Toyota in 2005, so the patent in question was active before May 8th, 2006.

I'm not sure why the patent linked to in the summary is dated 5/8/2006

Re:Filing date

[Chris Mattern]

35 USC 102(b) refers to inventions in use or offered for sale in the US only.

Yes, but almost certainly irrelevant. 35 USC 102(b) also covers if the invention was "described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country". So unless no repair manuals for the Prius were released, the Japanese introduction date works.

Re:Filing date

[Rogerborg]

From reading the patent (gasps!) it looks like it's just a "Yeah, the stuff in the prior art, but with another AC/DC converter". I expect they filed a shedload of patents for variant designs, then just sued over whichever one Toyota was already implementing.

Re:Filing date

[GooberToo]

has patented a way to apply force to a car's wheels from an electric motor or internal combustion engine.

So anyone who has ever down shifted and allowed engine braking is in violation of their patent! The patent office is useless and completely broken. Will they ever stop granting completely fucking obvious patents?!?!

Re:Filing date

[Coren22]

They even list the Prius as prior art in the patent, maybe they need to rethink this lawsuit...

Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Reason58]

The welfare of the people is definitely being promoted with this patent. I wonder if this no-name company is owned by Exxon?

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[TDyl]

Can anyone remember a, probably, fictional German movie from maybe thirty years ago that told the story of someone being hounded/murdered(?) by a massive oil conglomerate for producing a non petrol-burning car?

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Artraze]

Blaming 'Big Oil' is fun and all, but come on. Hybridization generally cuts gas consumption by less than 50%, and that's only in their mid-sized sedan class. Trucks (big-rig and pickup), trains, planes, clunkers, etc. still burn lots of gas, I doubt that hybrids would make Exxon blink an eye.

It you're really looking for some kind of conspiracy, the American auto makers would be the best place. This little company is trying to prevent the sale/import of Toyota's cars, rather than just collecting royalties. There are only two possible explanations: a) they're getting big money from other automakers to remove Toyota from the market, or b) they're do some serious hardball trolling. Still, the latter is more likely.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I *BELIEVE* it was a hydrogen/water powered car. And yeah there have been a lot of them...

In related news, our town had a trolley line from the city to about 30 miles out in the country, which was actually profitable back in the 60's or so. But Ford bought them out and shut them down in order to help promote car use...

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Dunbal]

I wonder if this no-name company is owned by Exxon?

      No, I'm sure that big oil wants you all to drive hybrids. After all, the price of oil is going to continue going up anyway just through sheer demand for all the OTHER applications of oil. Why burn up all that oil quickly today in internal combustion engines, when you can be charged an arm and a leg for it in a couple decades or so?

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what Chevy did with all the bus lines in San Fransisco.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[NoYob]

In related news, our town had a trolley line from the city to about 30 miles out in the country, which was actually profitable back in the 60's or so. But Ford bought them out and shut them down in order to help promote car use...

That's what Chevy did with all the bus lines in San Fransisco.

And behind the those car companies and those dealings was the Illuminati. You wait, part of their plans was to jack the price of gold up to over a $1,000 US and then, BAM! they'll crash the price and in the process making billions! It'll happen soon - you'll see!

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually pretty well documented that the big three are responsible for killing electric train lines in the US. Go back under your bridge.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Zordak]

There are only two possible explanations:

You missed about a thousand other options, including ... (z) they have a valid patent that Toyota infringes, and they went to the ITC because the ITC is much faster than the U.S. District Courts, and they know that if they get an import injunction against Toyota, Toyota will pay for a license to start the Priuses flowing again. In other words, the ITC doesn't award damages, but with a foreign defendant you can still use the threat of an ITC injunction to get a monetary settlement out of your opponent. It's a perfectly valid and reasonable strategy for a patent infringement case.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[piltdownman84]

Can anyone remember a, probably, fictional German movie from maybe thirty years ago that told the story of someone being hounded/murdered(?) by a massive oil conglomerate for producing a non petrol-burning car?

Are you talking about The Formula? It was an american movie, about a secret Nazi formula for turning coal into oil. The whole beginning is set in Nazi Germany, and then later in the film they return to Germany.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[dbIII]

The bizzare thing is there really are a few well known ways to turn coal into oil and some were used by both sides in WWII. It's not worth it unless you don't have any oil. Even then coal bed methane or similar is far better to burn in modified engines than making a liquid.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[david_thornley]

There was nothing secret about Nazi Germany turning coal into oil. They did it on a massive scale, until the plants were hit sufficiently hard by Allied bombers, and supplied a large amount of their oil needs in 1943.

Thing is, it isn't very economical. Germany did it because they really couldn't get enough oil themselves, particularly after starting the war with the Soviet Union (a major producer before the war). If the cost of oil goes up enough, though, more modern techniques may be cost-effective.

However, this sounds reasonably historically accurate by Hollywood standards.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

I would compare this to SCO. SCO was paid by Microsoft to sue Novell and IBM to stop the distribution of Linux and revoke IBM's AIX license (because they claim that Novell and IBM supposedly put proprietary code in the Linux source). Paice is probably being paid by a big American automaker to stop the Prius's sale. I also remember when one of these little patent trolls sued Nintendo, and it was discovered that Sony supported them. Behind these patent/copyright trolls, there is always a big company trying to stop competition.

Re:Let's ban all hybrids in the US

[Coren22]

I'm wondering why everyone is talking about importing. Does Toyota actually still import vehicles? My Camry came from a Kentucky plant. Though, it is unfortunately not hybrid as I could not justify the 12k difference in price.

Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Shadyman]

So what, they patented the transmission? CV joints? Axles?

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[sharkb8]

1. A hybrid vehicle, comprising: at least two pairs of wheels, each pair of wheels operable to receive power to propel said hybrid vehicle; a first alternating current (AC) electric motor, operable to provide power to a first pair of said at least two pairs of wheels to propel said hybrid vehicle; a second alternating current (AC) electric motor, operable to provide power to a second pair of said at least two pairs of wheels to propel said hybrid vehicle a third AC electric motor; an engine coupled to said third electric motor, operable to provide power to at least one of said two pairs of wheels to propel the hybrid vehicle, and/or to said third electric motor to drive the third electric motor to generate electric power; a first alternating current-direct current (AC-DC) converter having an AC side coupled to said first electric motor, operable to accept AC or DC current and convert the current to DC or AC current respectively; a second alternating current-direct current (AC-DC) converter having an AC side coupled to said second electric motor, operable to accept AC or DC current and convert the current to DC or AC current respectively; a third alternating current-direct current (AC-DC) converter coupled to said third electric motor, at least operable to accept AC current and convert the current to DC; an electrical storage device coupled to a DC side of said AC-DC converters, wherein the electrical storage device is operable to store DC energy received from said AC-DC converters and provide DC energy to at least said first and second AC-DC converters for providing power to at least said first and second electric motors; and a controller, operable to start and stop the engine to minimize fuel consumption. essentially, they patented a triple electric motor hybrid, wit the third motor capable of driving wheels, but also being connected to an engine to generate power.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Sponge Bath]

So what, they patented the transmission? CV joints? Axles?

Paice LLC Lawyer: Umm... Sure, why not?

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. A hybrid vehicle, comprising: at least two pairs of wheels, each pair of wheels operable to receive power to propel said hybrid vehicle; [snip] a third AC electric motor; an engine coupled to said third electric motor, operable to provide power to at least one of said two pairs of wheels to propel the hybrid vehicle, and/or to said third electric motor to drive the third electric motor to generate electric power; [etc].

I don't see how this in any way is infringed by Toyota. Where is the third electric motor on a Toyota hybrid? How is power provided to two separate pairs of wheels?

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Thagg]

They patented the transmission, exactly. The use of a planetary gearbox to sum the output of the gasoline and electric motors, or to have the gasoline motor drive the generator. I share the antipathy for software patents with most of the Slashdot crowd, but this is a classic hardware patent. Hardware patents have a long and important history, and are almost certainly a good thing.

Curiously, GM's Volt doesn't violate this patent, as it is a so-called "series hybrid", in that the gas motor only drives the generator, and the wheels are only driven by the electric motor. The Ford Fusion and Escape hybrids, and the Nissan Altima hybrid use exactly the same system that Toyota does, licensed from Toyota.

Toyota has made the system useful (in a way that the original patent isn't) by adding a second electric motor which assists in driving the wheels directly. This enables a "low gear", by having the gas motor run fast, driving the first motor/generator backwards to generate power, which drives the second electric motor. That is the decisive conceptual leap in the Synergy drive, and Toyota has of course patented that.

Thad

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[MightyMartian]

If Toyota has added its own innovation, then this their invention, not the company that's suing. I thought that was one of the key points of a patent.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[tepples]

If Toyota has added its own innovation, then this their invention, not the company that's suing.

It's possible for a single product to contain multiple inventions, such as one patented to Paice and one patented to Toyota.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Carbaholic]

Curiously, GM's Volt doesn't violate this patent, as it is a so-called "series hybrid", in that the gas motor only drives the generator, and the wheels are only driven by the electric motor.

what do you mean by the quotes and the so-calleds? it just plain is a series hybrid. They are fundamentally different systems.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[dontmakemethink]

But Toyota's invention is only an improvement upon the other invention. Toyota can patent the improvement, but they and all licensees must also obtain a license for the original patent. Just because you add a redial function to a phone doesn't mean you then can patent the phone.

However, if Toyota was in fact awarded the patent for the complete Synergy Drive, then the patent office screwed up and Toyota's off the hook until their patent is successfully challenged. Then there would be a grace period, meanwhile they design another hybrid drivetrain.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[markk]

That can't be what was patented because the Toyota Prius with that kind of drive has been on the market far longer than 2006.
If only Series 3 Prius's are affected I am really having a hard time figuring out what is involved. The summing gearbox has been a selling point of the Prius for 10 years now or so.

The fact that it is so recent a patent makes me think the article isn't real accurate.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Zordak]

Even if Toyota thought of it independently, Paice wins if they invented it first and filed a patent application on it. That's the way patents have always worked. The first to invent and disclose gets the right to exclude, regardless of whether you "copied" him or thought of it yourself. And as somebody else pointed out below, there may be more than one innovation involved. Think of it like this. If you invented the pencil and patented it, I could not make a pencil without your permission. But I could still invent a pencil with an eraser attached and patent it. You can't make a pencil with an attached eraser without my permission. I also cannot make a pencil with an attached eraser, because it includes a pencil, which would violate your patent. So nobody has the right to make a pencil with an attached eraser. We have to get to together to do that. Now a Prius is a pencil with an eraser plus about 100,000 other gadgets and gizmos. It's a complex piece of machinery, so there is a lot of room for different people to have patents on different parts.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware patents have a long and important history...

Yes they certainly do!

...and are almost certainly a good thing.

For some people you would be absolutely correct. For society in general, it's quite the opposite.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Miamicanes]

> But Toyota's invention is only an improvement upon the other invention. Toyota can patent the improvement,
> but they and all licensees must also obtain a license for the original patent. Just because you add a redial
> function to a phone doesn't mean you then can patent the phone.

And a major part of what's broken with the current patent system is the fact that it gives nearly unlimited veto power to whomever had that first "idea", without regard to other, equally fundamental patents that make the "original" patent commercially viable in the first place. Given enough cash, you could sit around with a bunch of patent attorneys, brainstorm ideas all day with no real idea of how you might actually make them *work* (or be manufacturable, or work more than .3 seconds before blowing up, or...), send the attorneys off to patent what's patentable, and sit on them for the next 20 years in case someone invents some real product that in any way, shape, or form bears some similarity to one of your patents.

Of course, the devil's in the details. A partial start might be a law that says that if you're challenged for patent infringement, and you can establish that YOU have a viable patent that meaningfully improves upon a patented item, improves its manufacturability, or uses it in some novel way, you can pay 50-80% of the net profits from the sales of the allegedly infringing item into a fund that gets split up among everyone who can establish that they have a patent being infringed. If you make no money, you owe nothing. If you make a hundred million dollars, you owe $50-80 million.

OK, there's a million details to work out, not the least of being the definitions of "novel" and "improvement", and a strategy for determining how it should be divided up, but the point is that it would ensure that the patent owners make at least as much money as the alleged infringers, while simultaneously maximizing the odds of someone finding a cool way to make use of patents that ultimately serves the constitutional foundation of American IP law -- advancement of the sciences and useful arts.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

Planetary gearboxes have been around since the 1950s by my reckoning, and as I'm not a motor nut, I wouldn't be surprised if they were around well before that. Motors have been around since the late 17th century. The rabble are nothing but fraudsters hoping for a "can't be bothered" pay day from a large company.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Throtex]

Priority back to September 14, 1998, albeit with several continuations-in-part in the chain. April 2, 2001 is the earliest disclosure which is the same as the issued patent. So the claim has a priority date somewhere between 1998 and 2001, not 2006.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[dbIII]

The Model T Ford has one. It enabled tricks like being able to shift from top gear to reverse to slow down with no risk to the engine or transmission. This patent is talking about having two inputs instead of one but I'll bet there was something like a ship from the 1920s that did that with planetary gears to drive the propeller from more than one engine.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Anne Thwacks]

The use of a planetary gearbox to sum the output of the gasoline and electric motors, or to have the gasoline motor drive the generator.

The standard engineering solution to this problem. Obvious to anyone "sufficiently skilled in the art" - ie everyone except the USPTO.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Hognoxious]

The use of a planetary gearbox to sum the output of the gasoline and electric motors, or to have the gasoline motor drive the generator.

Sounds awfully like a diff. Ergo, obvious to a skilled practitioner.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no difference between software patents and hardware patents when it comes to obviousness and prior art. Based on prior patents (expired) on hybrids and common sense, the patent here is much more obvious than some software patents like patents that deal with MP3s, for example.

They are just as patent trolling as Amazon with their 1-click patent.

Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids...

[Coren22]

Did Toyota start making a 4WD Prius and I missed it?

Prius

[QuoteMstr]

I'm glad I have mine (though it's only a second-generation.)

Not again

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, I bit into this same shitpie once before... look up Solomon Technologies in 2006/2007 to see how this one will turn out.

(used to be symbol SOLM.ob, now called Technipower or something)

Ah, Patents

[Der Huhn Teufel]

It's amazing how descriptive a patent can be while still claiming virtually nothing at all. Almost every hybrid vehicle on the market could be sued under that patent. Aren't patent trolls the greatest?

Re:Ah, Patents

[sharkb8]

I don't think most hybrid cars have a third electric motor coupled to an engine for generating electric power and also coupled to the wheels for driving the car also.

Re:Ah, Patents

[Duradin]

If you can't innovate, litigate!

Re:Ah, Patents

[tomhudson]

Any hybrid with a block heater can also be sued - 4 separate claims on hybrids that "pre-heat the engine".

This troll filed for his patent in 2003.

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota had one of their patents filed in 1993 and granted in 1995

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Wx8lAAAAEBAJ&dq=toyota+electric+motor

And another filed in 1997 and issued in 1998:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=r9YWAAAAEBAJ&dq=toyota+electric+motor

Someone else had prior art in 1993.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MTEaAAAAEBAJ&dq=toyota+electric+motor

Evil corporations shouldn't steal from little guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Right?

Prior art in the 1830's?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure prior art is established there - back in the 1830's?

How did this even get patented?

[tomhudson]

This looks like stuff they had in Scientific American back in 1972. Even the microcontroller was anticipated. The only addition (and it's mostly a bullshit one) is "a two-speed transmission may further be provided, to further broaden the vehicle's load range". CVT transmissions weren't envisioned then.

Sure enough, if you look at the list of cited patents, they go back to the early 70s. This is not new, and should not have received a separate patent as an "invention". There's zero inventing involved.

Sample bogus claims:
11. The hybrid vehicle of claim 10, wherein said engine is preheated prior to starting.
16. The method of claim 13, comprising the further step of preheating said engine prior to starting.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein said engine is preheated prior to starting.

This is broad enough to be claiming a patent on a f*cking block heater on any hybrid.

Never mind all the "non-invention-ness" of:
6. The hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein said engine comprises a turbocharger operable to increase the maximum torque output by said engine, and wherein said turbocharger is so operated when the power required of said engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein said engine comprises a turbocharger operable to increase the maximum torque output by said engine, and wherein said controller causes said turbocharger to be so operated when the power required of said engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.
23. The method of claim 22, further comprising: operating a turbocharger coupled to the engine of the hybrid vehicle to increase maximum torque output (MTO) produced by the engine when torque required of the engine exceeds a predetermined value for at least a predetermined period of time.

- in other words the "invention" of using a turbo-charger to increase performance.

Gee, why not add a supercharger at the same time? No turbo lag, etc.

Your patent system is fucked up. Hopefully the Japs will do everyone a favour and do a a Pearl Harbour on it.

Re:How did this even get patented?

[Zordak]

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You'll note that each of the "obvious" claims you complained about started with "the hybrid vehicle of claim X..." Those are called dependent claims. That means you are taking everything in claim X and incorporating it into that claim by reference. To properly read claim 6, first go to claim 1 and copy and paste every word in claim 1 into the beginning of claim 6. Now you know the scope of claim 6. Seriously, congratulations for at least getting that you have to look at the claims. That puts you ahead of most of the crowd here. But it's still not as simple as all that. Go back and read claim 1 together with claim 6. Does it still look like "a patent on a turbo charger"? (Answer: No).

Re:How did this even get patented?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your patent system is fucked up. Hopefully the Japs will do everyone a favour and do a a Pearl Harbour on it.

How about you suck a dick, you cock-smoking Montreal based faggot.

You know, I can stand a lot of shit from you, but being the US' closest, bitchiest, and most vulnerable neighbor (one of our National Guard units could own the whole shithole in a month) I'd STFU.

Seriously Thomas, you need to rethink who your masters are. They reside not in Ottawa, but in Washington. Don't believe me? Piss us off. The EU will not save you.

Re:How did this even get patented?

[tomhudson]

The "hybrid vehicle" claim trail goes back to 1999. However, working implementations were already in use in the '70s. The patent on the "device" in the claim should never have been granted.

Look in the dead tree files for buses powered by an engine+electric motors to drive the wheels, among other things.

So since the original patent is bogus - prior art from several decades before the original claim was filed - so is "preheating the engine".

the USPTO is broken. Fortunately, within the next decade, the rest of the world won't care. The dollar will continue its' historic devaluation in inverse lock-step with the national debt. Look for it to be work +/- 20 cents in terms of today's purchasing power by the end of the next decade. (Not so surprising when you consider that in the last 40 years, it's lost over 90% of its' purchasing power, and by some measures, over 96%).

Re:How did this even get patented?

[tomhudson]

Riiight - this from the country that's going to default on its' debt by 2020. Not going to happen.

Fix your problems. Stop electing crack-heads for president (that's 3 terms in a row now). Stop letting Wall Street dictate what's best for America. Stop letting lobbyists dictate health-care policies that run contrary to the country's best long-term interest. Stop believing that a GED means anything. Stop giving taxpayer money to the people who helped cause the economic melt-down by their scams. Start charging people for mortgage fraud, rather than helping them stay in homes illegally gotten. Start nationalizing the banks and firms that were at the heart of the mortgage bubble. Stop allowing hedging on investments that you don't own a direct interest in. Stop allowing lobbyists to fund electoral campaigns.

In other words, start cleaning up your own mess like any grown adult should. Your patent system, the DMCA, etc., are just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:How did this even get patented?

[howlingmadhowie]

one point. cvs transmissions were designed and implemented by the dutch company DAF in 1958.

Re:How did this even get patented?

[Jedi Alec]

Not gonna happen. The system is too entrenched, the populace too uninformed.

They're on a direct course for either a total meltdown, violent revolution or who knows...a nice civil war to keep the two sides of the debate occupied.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world the ones watching Fox are the ones with the firearms...

Re:How did this even get patented?

[tomhudson]

There's a number of steps that could be taken to fix the US, but lets face it, ain't gonna happen:

1. Cut military spending by 50% (the military uses 97% of all the energy used by the feds). Total spending is between 900 billion and 1.2 trillion. Savings - around $500 billion annually
2. Take HALF the money spent on the military and divert it to exploration - space and ocean. These have a better long-term payback in terms of jobs - Cost - around $250 billion, but it will revitalize education, tech, etc.
3. Remove the deduction for interest paid on home loans - it's really a subsidy from renters (who were more prudent) to owners - savings of $80 billion a year.
4. Stop bailing out homeowners and banks and wall street; you got greedy, you pay the price. Instead of making housing less affordable with subsidies (which just keeps the price artificially high), let the market find the true price - a price where investors can make money, and people aren't afraid that the price might drop even more. Savings - $500 billion.
5. End the health-care debate. Medicaid for everyone, mandatory to be enrolled in it, sliding fee scale. Charge enough so that you can cover the administration costs. Total cost will be less than is currently spent right now by the country, but it will cover everyone. Savings - $15 billion a year.
6. Stop worrying about the stock market. Most jobs are created by small business. Worry about THEM instead. Make it clear that Wall Street is on its' own, that firms and banks that fail will be nationalized, not bailed out, and that people WILL go to jail if they've committed crimes, not get golden parachutes. Savings - priceless.
7. Electoral finance reform - no more PACs. Individuals only, limit of $3k per annum per person.
8. Tell California no more fed money whatsoever if Prop. 13 isn't rescinded. No need to bail out Cali in 2 years.

Total savings would be (after spending) at least $850 billion. The 4 biggest biggest porkers - military contractors, finance, health care, and politicians - should have to go on a lean diet, rather than starving out the rest of the country.

Of course, ain't gonna happen Politicians don't want to lose those precious campaign bribes.

Import?

[Dunbal]

But, Toyota makes cars in the US...

Re:Import?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't make the Prius in the US though. They were going to manufacture them at their plant near Tupelo, MS, but that's been shelved due to the economy.

Re:Import?

[royallthefourth]

But, Toyota makes cars in the US...

Some, but not all. I recently purchased a new Yaris. According to the sticker, it's 100% Japanese.

Re:Import?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Prius is only made in Japan right now...

Re:Import?

[midicase]

> But, Toyota makes cars in the US...

Yes, some, but all the hybrids are imports. Part of my morning bike ride takes be by Jaxport, where Southeast Toyota brings in all the imports for, well, the Southeast. There are hybrids lined up bumper to bumper every day.

Re:Import?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same -- my Yaris says the same thing.

It amazes me that the Japanese can build a car over there, pay to put it on a boat, pay to get it into the country, and STILL sell a better product for less than Ford.

And I bet the people who built that car over there enjoy at least as high a standard of living as the folks at the factories in Detroit -- and not only because they still have jobs.

Re:Import?

[Coren22]

Their factories are mostly automated, and were built by the US after WWII, so they have less employees and less operating expenses then Ford. They also make much better cars.

Re:Import?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their factories are mostly automated, and were built by the US after WWII

Are you seriously telling me that they haven't been modernized beyond recognition since then? I'd be surprised if any buildings have remained the same let alone machinery inside...

Interesting vehicle.

[zippthorne]

Won't do well in the Northeast, though. No way those tiny wheels are comfortable on the cratered mountain trails we like to call "streets."

Also.. the car weighs more than a minivan. Where do you put your knees?

Go Saturn !

[Anonymous Coward]

Errrr..... General Motors errrr.......... Chrysler errr..... and
so on and so forth.

Yours In Norilsk,
Philboyd Studge

Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[mi]

Patent Claim Could Block Import of Toyota's Hybrid Cars on 17:10 Thursday 08 October 2009

Contrary to oft-repeated headlines, a patent-holder never wants to block a patent-using technology from the market. They just want to get paid for it. If, indeed, the patent is valid — and the size of the patent-holder is no indication either way — Toyota simply needs to pay for the technology...

The article write-up seems like it is written by a Toyota-shill. If a Paice-shill were to write it, it could've been rephrased along the following lines:

After over 3 years of trying to dodge its responsibility, Toyota may finally be forced by the US International Trade Commission to respect America's Intellectual Property laws and pay a small American firm for the valuable technology, that Toyota found so useful for its hybrid vehicles.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Whorhay]

I of course can't cite any examples because I don't know if one exists. But it is plausible for a patent holder to prevent their invention from making it to the market. This would only make sense in a case like consipracy nuts always pushed, that the oil companies bought out the patents for incredibly efficient ICE engines because it would hurt the value of their main product.

Again, not saying it's ever happened but a situation like that isn't too hard to imagine.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Dahan]

Contrary to oft-repeated headlines, a patent-holder never wants to block a patent-using technology from the market. They just want to get paid for it.

If that were true, why did Paice ask the court to block sales of the Toyota cars in question? Is there a reason for them to ask for something they don't actually want? TFA: "In the earlier case, the jury awarded $4.3 million in damages and the verdict was upheld on appeal. U.S. District Judge David Folsom in Marshall rejected Paice's request to issue a court order to halt sales of the Toyota vehicles. "

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[rgmoore]

If that were true, why did Paice ask the court to block sales of the Toyota cars in question?

Leverage. As long as Toyota is allowed to continue importing their hybrids, they have little reason to settle. Instead, they'll aggressively fight the suit in the hopes of either getting the patent invalidated or driving Paice into bankruptcy with legal fees. If Paice can get an injunction, though, it will hurt Toyota badly; they'll be forced to negotiate some kind of royalty deal or lose their hybrid sales. Even if the deal lets Toyota contest the patent, it still give Paice enough money to keep in business for the length of the suit plus a nice chunk of cash for bonuses and dividends.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[betterunixthanunix]

Perhaps it played out more like this:

After three years of not realizing they were violating a patent, Toyato is suddenly surprised to discover that their engineers reinvented an existed technology.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. That is patently (pardon the pun) illegal under the Sherman Act. You can operate a monopoly using your patent, but you cannot engage in anticompetitive practices.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Zordak]

If that were true, why did Paice ask the court to block sales of the Toyota cars in question?

Because that's the only thing the ITC has power to do. It can't award monetary damages. The money comes in when Paice gets an injunction against Toyota, and Toyota decides to pony up for a license instead of lose the ability to import Priuses.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Zordak]

You're about 90% right, but you missed one thing. The ITC can't award any money to Paice; it can only award an import injunction. The value of the injunction is as leverage to get Toyota to pay up.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

Example: Robertson screws. Henry Ford wanted them, ol' man Robertson couldn't get Ford to pay the price he wanted, and Ford couldn't buy them from anyone else. Ford went elsewhere, and thus Robertson never had the cash to expand into the US market, and the screws are only widely available in Canada. The patents were expired by the mid 60s, but by then nobody cared. So we suffer with the silly slot and antiquated Phillips screws.

Entrenched shittyness due to greed.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Dahan]

Because that's the only thing the ITC has power to do. It can't award monetary damages. The money comes in when Paice gets an injunction against Toyota, and Toyota decides to pony up for a license instead of lose the ability to import Priuses.

The part of TFA I quoted referred to the original patent suit in federal court, not the current matter before the ITC. The court does have power to award monetary damages, and it used that power: "Instead, in April he ordered Toyota to pay royalties based on the wholesale prices equal to 0.48 percent for a second- generation Prius, 0.32 percent for each Highlander and 0.26 percent for each Lexus RX400h. Toyota is appealing that order."

mi said that patent holders just wanted to get paid for their patents. If that's what Paice wanted, seems like they would've just asked for that. The court obviously has the power to order Toyota to pay up, seeing that that's exactly what it did...

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Dahan]

If Paice can get an injunction, though, it will hurt Toyota badly; they'll be forced to negotiate some kind of royalty deal or lose their hybrid sales.

But the court already ordered Toyota to pay royalties "based on the wholesale prices equal to 0.48 percent for a second- generation Prius, 0.32 percent for each Highlander and 0.26 percent for each Lexus RX400h."

No, it seems that Paice really wants to block Toyota hybrid sales... they tried to do that in their original patent suit (which they won), but the judge didn't agree that Toyota sales should be blocked; instead, he awarded Paice royalties. So now Paice is trying again in a different venue--the ITC.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Chris Burke]

Contrary to oft-repeated headlines, a patent-holder never wants to block a patent-using technology from the market. They just want to get paid for it. If, indeed, the patent is valid -- and the size of the patent-holder is no indication either way -- Toyota simply needs to pay for the technology...

The article write-up seems like it is written by a Toyota-shill.

Uh, except for the word "tiny" which I guess could be taken to mean they aren't worth respecting (or that they're the underdog in this situation compared to the Toyota behemoth), no it doesn't. It doesn't suggest that the patent is invalid, it doesn't suggest they're just trolling for cash, it doesn't even suggest that Toyota isn't maliciously using the patent. "Paice thinks Toyota is using their patent and is taking them to court." How much more neutral can you get?

And blocking the sale of their product is the worst-case for Toyota, and injunctions are a very common result when someone is found to be violating a patent. Obviously Paice wants Toyota to license the patent, but preventing Toyota from selling Priuses if they don't license is the lever they use to get that done, and in the meantime the injunction would be in place and Toyota couldn't import the cars. If Toyota decided not to play ball, then yeah, they couldn't sell the Prius at all anymore. So, again, that was completely factual.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Zordak]

Quite right. Brain checks out sometimes at the end of the work day. Read the first sentence and glossed over the rest of the post.

mi said that patent holders just wanted to get paid for their patents. If that's what Paice wanted, seems like they would've just asked for that. The court obviously has the power to order Toyota to pay up, seeing that that's exactly what it did...

I haven't read the court's order, so anybody can correct me if I'm wrong. But generally you'll get damages for past infringement and an injunction against future infringement (but the Supreme Court did find in eBay that an injunction is not an automatic remedy---it's just what normally happens). Once you get the injunction, the defendant has two options if they want to keep selling their product. They can design around your claims, possibly giving up valuable features, or they can negotiate a license with you. Since the injunction would give Paice the right to prevent Toyota from importing infringing Priuses, they get to say, "Pay us BIG $$$, or design out the (very important) infringing features if you want to keep selling Priuses." So it's (probably) not that Paice wants to keep Toyota from importing Priuses. It's that they want the right to keep Toyota from importing Priuses without writing them a big check first.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[rgmoore]

But the court already ordered Toyota to pay royalties "based on the wholesale prices equal to 0.48 percent for a second- generation Prius, 0.32 percent for each Highlander and 0.26 percent for each Lexus RX400h."

But those aren't the cars at issue in this case. Paice is now suing over new vehicles that were sold since the last suit. It sounds as if Toyota is playing hardball by claiming that new models have modified drivetrains that don't violate the patent. As long as the suits take longer than a car generation, they can force Paice to re-litigate for each new generation of hybrid. I don't know if the judge will put up with that behavior, but I can see why Toyota is willing to give it a try.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is another option: Toyota sells the cars either without the patented part, or with a part that is an improvement over the patented part.

The patent seems to list (after many rewrites) about every design aspect published or patented by Toyota. This means that there is very little actually patented in the patent, so the "valuable technology" may actually be something that Toyota decides to simply replace or alter instead.
In many countries (not sure about the US) you can also design (and patent!) an improved version of the patented part, which gains you the right to sell the part in question, and as an added bonus blocks your competitor from selling the same improvement. (not that the competitor is selling cars in this case)

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[Coren22]

Currently, Robertson screws are being sold at Home Depot, they are used in decking and such where oxidation is a concern. I thought they were a new invention, and never knew the name. Thank you for enlightening me.

Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything...

[petermgreen]

It seems these import blocks let them do an end run arround the regular courts thereby effectively forcing the company to settle (under the threat of an import block) rather than having thier case heard in the normal way.

Is my understanding correct?

Diesel-Electric?

[Roger W Moore]

Perhaps they did not go back far enough? Diesel-electric transmission has been around since the 1920's. From the 1960's until they electrified the line the East Coast Mainline in the UK ran Diesel-Electric trains. Of course the system is somewhat simpler than hybrid cars but the basic principle is the same: fuel runs generator and the generator charges batteries and powers electric traction motors.

Re:Diesel-Electric?

[Interoperable]

In that case the combustion engine is only used to provide electrical to the electric motors that drive the train. This patent is for a system that allows both the combustion engine and the electric motor to apply torque to the wheels simultaneously (or independently) and charge the battery through regenerative braking. It still seems to me that the notion of a hybrid powered vehicle using a microprocessor to control power ratios would be obvious and only a specific implementation would be patentable...but I also haven't read much of the patent so maybe this one does propose an implementation.

Re:Diesel-Electric?

[Roger W Moore]

I understood that there is some battery capacity onboard diesel-electric's - at a minimum for the starter motor - but no where near enough for any significant travel. So it is not quite so different. I'd also be surprised if regenerative breaking is not included on more recent examples too. Certainly it has been included on pure electric cars well before 2006.

Re:Diesel-Electric?

[Anonymous Coward]

that ain't how a Toyota Hybrid (or the invention described in the patent) works

in the toyota-style hybrid the engine and traction motors work in parallel through different shafts on a planetary gearset, and one (or more) of the traction motors can be run as a generator to charge (or regeneratively charge) the batteries

Re:Diesel-Electric?

[mpe]

I understood that there is some battery capacity onboard diesel-electric's - at a minimum for the starter motor - but no where near enough for any significant travel.

But quite possibly enough energy for a car to travel considerable distance. Even just a locomotive considerably larger and more massive than any car.

I'd also be surprised if regenerative breaking is not included on more recent examples too.

The alternative is to connect to connect the traction motors to a bank of fan cooled resistors.

Re:Diesel-Electric?

[mpe]

in the toyota-style hybrid the engine and traction motors work in parallel through different shafts on a planetary gearset,

How are things done on a multi-engine helicopter? These have been around for a long time.

Re:Diesel-Electric?

[Roger W Moore]

Actually there was an item on the BBC yesterday. They are now training drivers to use regenerative breaking for trains in the UK. Rather than store it locally they put power back into the overhead lines. Apparently it is around 14% efficient which, since the power is not always there on demand, means they get to power ~10% of trains "for free".

Diesel electric trains ....

[taniwha]

reading the claims sounds much more like it describes diesel-electric trains than Toyota's dual transmission drive

Aren't trains obvious prior art for hybrids?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought train engines generated electricity and had electric motors to drive the wheels.

ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Trepidity]

Interesting that a company located in Florida would choose to sue a Japanese company in the seemingly random location of Marshall, Texas.

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Xiterion]

Would you propose instead that a legitimate patent suit choose a venue known for being unfriendly to patent claims instead? Just because all patent trolls sue in Marshall, Texas does not mean all patent suits in Marshall, Texas are patent trolls.

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Kartoffel]

East Texas is a known patent troll haven.

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[piltdownman84]

Interesting that a company located in Florida would choose to sue a Japanese company in the seemingly random location of Marshall, Texas.

Marshall, Texas is part of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The district has been criticized for a perceived bias towards plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits, including patent trolls and other holders of dubious patents.

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Trepidity]

I'd prefer they chose a sensible venue based on the location of the relevant parties, witnesses, and/or evidence. For example, they could sue in Florida, where they're located; or in New York, the North American headquarters of Toyota; or in Kentucky, the location of Toyota's American R&D facilities. But why Marshall, Texas? What can they point to in Marshall, Texas that makes it uniquely suited to serve as a venue for this case?

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

*WOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH*

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a keen sense for the obvious, Mr. Karma Whore

Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone in Texas drives a Toyota ?

Nuke the system!!

[countertrolling]

And I'm counting on these patent and copyright wars to get us to do just that. It's our only hope to help get people to see what's it's all about. So more of this is a very good thing. Patents and copyrights are the "sub-prime loans" of innovation, and the effect will be the same as the real ub-prime loans had on the economy. They give unqualified people way too much power.

Here is a way around it.

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha ha, they just need to stop calling it a hybrid. Then it wouldn't violate the patent.

Um, gee...

[rickb928]

"way to apply force to a car's wheels from an electric motor or internal combustion engine"

Isn't there plenty of prior art on this?

BTW, the patent app is flawed. They specify a 2-speed transmission. My hybrid will NOT have a 2-speed transmission, I assure you. And it will have mechanical braking with an auxiliary regenerative system. Looks like i have a great chance at getting a patent on that, or some combination thereof.

Joking aside, this is continuing evidence of our patent system being pretty well hosed.

Claim 1 is rather interesting

[sir_eccles]

To infringe claim 1 it would seem that you need at least one electric motor driving one pair of wheels and a second electric motor driving a second pair of wheels. i.e. four wheel drive with two electric motors (plus a third electric motor coupled to the IC engine).

Not sure (without hunting down that judgement) how given their extensive citing of Toyota products in their spec that they somehow convinced a court to award a win in 2005?

Re:Claim 1 is rather interesting

[russotto]

Not sure (without hunting down that judgement) how given their extensive citing of Toyota products in their spec that they somehow convinced a court to award a win in 2005?

Patent trolling 101
1) Do a little research
2) Brainstorm a whole bunch of extensions to the things you've researched
3) Submit patent applications covering these extensions you've brainstormed
4) Wait for someone to invent something which could be covered by your patent
5) Sue!

The important part is your patent application must be convoluted enough so that for any given invention, you can credibly argue either that it's substantially different and thus not prior art (if it was invented earlier), or that it's substantially similar and is therefore infringing (if it was invented later). Fortunately, the Patent Office's total incompetence and the deference of the courts to the Patent Office makes this much easier.

It should go without saying that any patents generated by this technique are non-disclosive; that is, no expert in the field would actually learn anything by reading them, as no development was actually done.

Who holds the patent on gas engines?

[vehicle tracking]

I find it hard to believe that a patent would be issued on such a broad invention. The first gas engine was invented by Siegfried Marcus in 1870. Did he have a patent? I would bet the small company that holds this patent is fighting it on a very small technicality.

Re:Filing date, Patent Troll

[aqui]

Yes and the Toyota Prius has been around since err

1997.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius)

and it was sold worldwide since 2001 (I'm assuming that includes the US).

If the US had technology companies run by engineers and technical people rather than lawyers and accountants perhaps they would chose
"innovation" over "litigation" as a business strategy.

The sad truth is that even if someone at GM or Ford had the same idea in 1997 or earlier the bean counters and lawyers would have axed a hybrid in favour of more profitable SUVs..

If you don't believe me look at who's on the board at GM, do a search for engineer in this article: (http://www.finchannel.com/news_flash/Oil_&_Auto/43476_New_Slate_of_GM_Board_of_Directors_Members_Selected_/)
funny... almost no engineers...

VS at Daimler: (http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7158-1-65184-1-0-0-0-0-0-8-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html)
4 out of 5 on the management board have engineering backgrounds..

Hmmm.

Stealing US ideas... what ideas? The idea to sue everybody... maybe I should patent "patent troll law suits" and sue all the patent lawyers (after all it is a "business process" and a "unique" invention)...

Re:Yes, but.... this is the new America

[moon3]

Behold the Paice LLC company structure. No employees, management only. Also they are located at "Shady drive" street no kidding.

the solution here is very simple

[DragonTHC]

Toyota should buy Paice for pennies and then their patent will be owned by Toyota.

Simple.

Re:the solution here is very simple

[Zordak]

Paice would probably love it if Toyota offered to buy them out. Then all the principals walk away rich. What's the downside?

Re:the solution here is very simple

[quacking duck]

Right, just like IBM should have bought SCO when the latter sued IBM for violating "their" UNIX copyrights.

Simple... and it would've saved IBM years and millions of dollars in legal expenses.

Re:the solution here is very simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple... and it would've saved IBM years and millions of dollars in legal expenses.

A squad of ninjas would have been as simple and cost effective not to mention far more amusing.

Re:the solution here is very simple

[backwardMechanic]

Excellent idea, that'll show 'em. Then nobody else will want to become a patent troll...

Re:the solution here is very simple

[Amanitin]

This move by Toyota would mean that they recognize the patent as valid.
That in turn would make the patent and the troll company with it three zeroes more worth in a flash.

Prior art in a 20 second demonstration.

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1. Get in almost any manual car from the last 70 years.
Step 2. Put it in gear.
Step 3. Crank the engine over.

Oh look, the electric starter motor applies force to the cars wheels!

I'm patenting being a patent troll. That ought to fuck them.

Re:Filing date, Patent Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd fight you tooth and nail with prior art there, and ironically proclaim that they have proven the patent system works as a result of their mountains of prior art proving you right.

Can't see why Toyota should be worried

[GumphMaster]

Given that the patent application was filed May 8, 2006 is seems that Toyota's hybrid easily predates (circa 1997) the patent.

The patent claims start, "1. A hybrid vehicle, comprising: at least two pairs of wheels, each pair of wheels operable to receive power to propel said hybrid vehicle;..." No later claim seems to remove the requirement that power is deliverable to all pair of wheels. Does a Prius drive all four wheels?

Re:Can't see why Toyota should be worried

[Anonymous Coward]

no but the patent does not say 4WD either. it says TWO PAIRS. that could be front right and rear right as one pair and front left and rear left as the other pair. the prius is a FWD so two pairs are receiving power from two AC motors as specified in the patent and it has a third alternator as specified in the patent.
it also does not predate the patent. the prius with two independent AC motors was introduced after 1999, which is the patent priority date. the first set of prius vehicles had only one or two DC motors, AFAIK. IAAPL

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

I cheer with each on of these. The only way things are going to change is if the big boys hurt.

Re: Isn't it patently obvious

[colinnwn]

If you wanted to build a car with 2 power systems, wouldn't a planetary gearbox be the obvious choice to use, to be able to drive the wheels with one or both power systems? If so, wouldn't this patent be valid?

So much for Toyota's Patent Thicket...

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Covered by Slashdot here. What will they think up next?

Piercing the corporate veil?

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Maybe, maybe not.

Toyota is peaking.

[reporter]

Fears that Toyota will own 100% of the American market were and are exaggerated. Toyota is now exhibiting the symptoms of a dominant company that has reached the limits of its growth. Just recently, Toyota issued the largest recall in its history. The defect was an improperly installed floor mat.

Now, Toyota has been convicted of infringing some hybrid-technology patents and is allegedly infringing on even more hybrid-technology patents.

Before we start sympathizing with Toyota instead of the "mean, money-hungry" patent holder, we should note that patents on solid, useful technologies are valid and are vital to spurring innovation. If we lived in a society when any corporate giant can just steal anyone's ideas, then we will diminish the spirit of innovation.

However, even more is at stake here. Toyota has used its lawyers to force Ford (and now General Motors) to pay royalties to Toyota for hybrid-technology patents that it supposedly invented. A consequence of this new patent-infringement case may be that Ford has been paying the wrong business entity, and Toyota should refund all the royalties back to Ford. Such a situation would level the playing field for Ford.

Note that Ford took a Japanese-designed vehicle, the Mazda 6, and both transformed it into the Fusion and elevated the Fusion to the quality level of a Toyota Camry. At Ford, quality is now really job #1 -- after the market brutally taught Ford managers and their unionized workers a lesson that they will never forget.

Re:Toyota is peaking.

[Jesus_666]

But the question remains why the case was awarded against them - as post #29686903 points out, the patent the Prius supposedly infringes against is based on a patent that has recognized the Prius. Plus, the first patent was filed after the Prius entered mass production. That doesn't quite support the idea of Toyota stealing the tech unless Paice took extremely long to get that patent filed after disclosing its contents to Toyota.

Re:Toyota is peaking.

[techeddy]

we should note that patents on solid, useful technologies are valid and are vital to spurring innovation.

seems like a contentious idea stated as a fact. I recomend reading this book which is freely downloadable, since it may help you see the other side of the "usefulness of patents". Although I do agree sometimes patents are useful, such as in the pharmaceutical industry, where formulae must be published and bringing the product to market is a phenomenally large investment, I do not think your blanket assertion is valid.

Re:Toyota is peaking.

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, Ford and Toyota were developing hybrid technology at around the same time, and in the process, came up with similar technologies and decided to cross-license their stuff to each other. Nobody trolled anybody. It was a mutually beneficial process.

That's Progress

[Doc Ruby]

Thank Vulcan for Paice, without whose invention we would never have hybrid or electric cars. Without the Patent Office creating their monopoly, which has never produced a car, people freely speaking about how to make electric and hybrid cars would be getting us off internal combustion. And that's bad for America.

Re:That's Progress

[exallon]

Has anyone thought about patenting the wheel?

Re: Isn't it patently obvious

[AK Marc]

The US patent system has no recognition of needs driving innovation. It assumes smart people think up things no one else would have (or else they would have by now). However, that's not how things work anymore. General technology drive the next need, then there's a race to fill that need. Many patented things would have been thought of by others between the time of the application and awarding, even if no one had ever applied. This fast pace of innovation wasn't considered by the patent system. The current system is unconstitutional in that it no longer encourages innovation, which is a requirement. The encouragement comes from filling the need that exists, and the patent is a profit-protection sytstem, not the encouragement. If patents were to be completely abolished, the level of innovation in the US would increase, not decrease, and thus the system is broken and illegal.

"Obvious" is simply not tested for by the "would someone else trying to fix that problem come up with the same answer?" test. Most of the answers are obvious if you state the question clearly. But finding the right question is often the hard part. This is a mechanical patent for a system that existed long before, but for a new application. It's no different than the "over the Internet" patents. Combining two force inputs into one output? Done before. Done like this describes. Just not done for electric cars. It isn't obvious in that the idea in a vacuum is novel and non-intutive. However, for an expert in the field trying to make an electric hybrid, this is an obvious solution and not even novel because it has been done before in other applications.

Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly there were electric cars around 70 years ago (Teslas' car is well documented). Thats 1930's technology for you! The patent is VOID! NEXT!

Nice

[zogger]

The looks take some getting used to (like the smart car), but the specs are good. I am impressed they are running with the generator trailer idea, or the "modular hybrid" for extended driving trips. To me, that makes *loads* more sense than onboard dual engine/electric motor, then batterties plus fuel tank, etc, that you have with a regular gas/electric hybrid. That's just too much weight. Pure electric, make it a hybrid with the generator trailer, only attached when you REALLY need to drive long trips.

100 grand though....ain't getting one. Some day do my own electric conversion, proly on a smallish pickup. 10 grand is more reasonable there.

The first gen Prius came out in 1997

[mister_playboy]

The first generation Prius was sold only in Japan, but it went on sale in December 1997.

Re:The first gen Prius came out in 1997

[sglines]

And the patent wasn't filed until 2006. Does any patent examiner understand "prior art?"

Re:The first gen Prius came out in 1997

[gr8_phk]

The power-split concept used in the Prius was first described in a paper by some TRW guys in 1971. Also, in regard to the present patent, I think the Toyota RX400h is damn close. The patent compares itself to a bunch of others is such a way: we're better than A in this way. We're better than B in this way (never mind that so is A). We're better than C in this way (and so was Q). and so on. I didn't see anything novel here, and I DO work in the industry. It would be helpful to see a diagram with a circle around the "new" part. AFAICT it might be a particular placement of a clutch, but I'm not going to spend the time figuring it out as it appears to be a troll trying to nail Toyota on a minor issue.

Re:The first gen Prius came out in 1997

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the first gen was sold in the US, but not in any high volume. They were 4 door sedans with an air vent in the back A pillar for the battery pack.

Re:The first gen Prius came out in 1997

[raygundan]

The original version (NHW10) was only sold in Japan, from 1997-2000. What you're calling "first generation" was the first sold in the US (NHW11), but the second revision of the car. The first version probably would have been unsellable in the US, as the gasoline engine was only 58hp.

The Enemy of My Enemy

[bill_mcgonigle]

The filing date is May 8, 2006. Really? This technology wasn't around before then?

Oh, who cares. I hope they get the injunction. Then a million Prius owners will tell everybody who will listen (or may be confused for listening) just how awful the patent system has become.
 

Re:The Enemy of My Enemy

[demachina]

Toyota has a slew of patents on hybrid technology which I think was a key reason Ford chose to license them instead of trying to compete in the space.

In a lot of ways Toyota is just getting a dose of its own medicine. I don't have much sympathy for one patent wielding company being sued by another patent wielding company.

Re:The Enemy of My Enemy

[Rogerborg]

The difference is that Toyota patents the things that they make. They're being attacked by a patent troll who copied-and-pasted Toyota's patent and added "yeah, that, but with another AC/DC converter in it". In crayon.

Good thing nobody patented the wheel

[mykos]

Good thing patent laws weren't around (or as ridiculous) when the various inventions leading up to today's technology happened. It would really cripple a lot of industries if we all had to pay royalties on the wheel, metallurgy, and sliced bread.

Re:Ignorant troll

[tomhudson]

The "device" is also a retarded patent - the claim trail goes back to '99, but BUSES using the same setup were being trialed in Norway back in the '70s.

Prior art - and not just a "concept", but a working implementation.

So "preheating the engine in the device" is also invalid.

The USPTO has to go back to demanding working implementations before granting a patent. Not that it's going to matter in another decade, since the world+dog will have moved its' economic center to somewhere on the other side of the globe, when the US defaults on its' debt.

Uhh..

[Anonymous Coward]

They're suing to settle. Not to win.

History geek moment

[agnosticnixie]

France has a republican constitution in 1791, 1793, 1796, it had a constutionnal monarchy with constitutions where the only change was who ruled in 1804, 1814, 1815 and 1831. The French bill of rights is OLDER than its constitution, dating from 1789. Feudalism was abolished there. It was abolished in Sweden earlier, and it had a written constitution establishing a constitutional since 1777, there was also a polish and corsican constitution but at that point it was trying to repaint a burning house as they were conquered respectively by Russia-Prussia-Austria in 1793 and France in 1757.

Sesame Street moment...

[agnosticnixie]

the missing word is monarchy, brought to you by the letter m

Re:Sesame Street moment...

[Antiocheian]

Though if you remove the letter m you get the rule of asses...

Wait just a moment.

[VertigoMan]

Hold the presses. I'm not a patent lawyer but something stinks here. I worked on a bus when I was getting my degree in Automotive and Diesel technology that used regenerative braking. Now this bus worked pretty much how they describe in their patent and it was at least 10 years old when I got to work on it. All this was back in the mid 90s. So how the hell can they claim a patent on something that was already in use? Hmmm I should start looking for things already in use and file a few patents myself. I wonder if the idea of patent trolling has been patented yet.

Re:Wait just a moment.

[The Creator]

I wonder if the idea of patent trolling has been patented yet.

It has, the patent is owned but IBM. (I'm not kidding!)

This is brighter than you think.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not having a professional police force or a firefighters in a town where residents don't need it. Neither is having a professional army if a country faces no big threats. It's a matter of efficiency, not some general principle or God-given right to be protected by "professionals" at someone else's expense.

In fact, since police departments *are* local, you *do* have a choice of living in a place where you can rely on your guns to protect yourself, and many people do.

And the rich still have their private guards, because they know how effective the public police actually are when it comes to protecting *you*. In fact, the police have no specific duty to do so, and you cannot sue them for even obvious gross negligence, like not responding to your "save me!" 911 call in any useful way.

Actually, this happened

[Kupfernigk]

Boulton and Watt held patents on the original steam (as distinct from vacuum) engine which held up development for many years. The engine patents were nearly as bad as patenting the wheel - they basically were allowed to patent the crank when used as part of a steam engine, though it is an ancient mechanism. Fox Talbot had patents on photography which held up development for years. The patent laws were just as ridiculous then.

Re:Actually, this happened

[smellsofbikes]

Ditto the battling between the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss over directional control of aircraft: the Wrights came up with an innovative idea to use wing-warping to allow aircraft to do coordinated turns by allowing the pilot to simultaneously roll the aircraft via wing-warping, and yaw the aircraft using the rudder, giving it the ability to turn smoothly and controllably. Glenn Curtiss and others promptly invented the aileron, which allows for roll control without having the wing warp, at which point the Wrights sued everyone they could manage to sue, for infringing on their patent for roll control on aircraft, and the ensuing legal fights kept American aviation at a standstill for a crucially important decade in the development of aviation technology. It took Congress to get the Wrights to back off, and they only finally did because WWI was on the horizon and the US didn't have a single plane worth beans in comparison to the un-stifled European fighters and bombers.

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone thought about patenting the wheel?

Yes. You'll have to wait until 2021 until you can use one freely (in Australia at least)
Circular Transportation Facilitation Device (Australian innovation patent 20011000012) (PDF)

Sad, but true....

[rts008]

How about work for a living instead of patenting vague ideas and waiting for a company to make something that sort of resembles it?

            Believe you me, I want to see more of these patent trolls. Keep them coming until the system breaks.

[Sarcasm-on]Get with the current program, dooood! Trolls are Tough to kill![sarcasm-off]

I hear you, man...and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

That is the same reason I, personally was opposed to the recent bailout...let it crash and burn...the much stronger, smarter Phoenix would then rise from the ashes.(so to speak)

Your complaint is the dumbest ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Small inventor has invention. Sees big company infringe on it. Sues them. Big company has 100000 patents and countersues. Small inventor has no money to contest and folds.

That's with this current system.

So by that reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota owns Paice's idea because they patented the device that was the basis of the Paice patent before Paice did.

Thank You!

[gbutler69]

I couldn't agree more. I get so sick of people saying that those less fortunate than themselves should just suck it up and die. Everytime I hear someone say something like that, and this from a person who has paid more than $30,000 per year in Federal Income taxes, I want to punch them in their damn, stupid, greedy, self-absorbed FACE!

Remove litigation?

[BLKMGK]

I have a co-worker who's mother went in for outpatient surgery. The Dr. made a "mistake" and nicked her bowels - multiple times! The infection got VERY bad while the original Dr. kept dismissing it. Finally a DIFFERENT Dr. on staff looked at her and rushed her into surgery where the "mistakes" were found. The second Dr. claimed that she was just hours from death, the first Dr. admitted he made some errors. The woman has since been in and out of the hospital multiple times and has nearly died more than once. She may yet expire and she will probably NEVER be what she was - she can hardly get out of bed these days and she WAS a fairly active woman prior to this "simple" surgery.

Threat of litigation should (in theory) keep mistakes to a minimum. While the threat certainly didn't seem to work in this case perhaps having this guy's practice sued into the ground will get a lazy Dr. out of the business or force him to be a good bit more careful should he be working on YOU next.

Frivolous litigation should certainly be avoided but in cases where someone truly screws up, doesn't pay enough attention to the patient to realize it, and nearly results in death - and certainly resulted in debilitation - then I'm sorry but it should be used!

Re: Serves Toyota right actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Toyota has built a brick wall of patents around it's hybrid technology to prevent any other company from producing there own hybrids or paying Toyota. It seems fitting that they'd trip over their own feet.

might it be good if the trolls won?

[demerson3]

If the trolls won this particular battle in the war, imagine the reaction in the public's eyes if suddenly all toyota hybrids were yanked from the marketplace. I'm fairly certain a large number of people would be pretty shocked-- and most of them more or less unaware of the dismal state of patent law. It could potentially be the needed seed to tear down all this absurd patent law. Thoughts?

hold a second

[Anonymous Coward]

the patent is from 2008, and Toyota is making those cars well before 2008?

Thanks

2 Words: Prior Art

[tuxgeek]

[US Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Full Text and Image Database] Filed: May 8, 2006
A hybrid vehicle comprises an internal combustion engine, a traction motor, a starter motor, and a battery bank, all controlled by a microprocessor in accordance with the vehicle's instantaneous torque demands so that the engine is run only under conditions of high efficiency, typically only when the load is at least equal to 30% of the engine's maximum torque output. In some embodiments, a turbocharger may be provided, activated only when the load exceeds the engine's maximum torque output for an extended period; a two-speed transmission may further be provided, to further broaden the vehicle's load range. A hybrid brake system provides regenerative braking, with mechanical braking available in the event the battery bank is fully charged, in emergencies, or at rest; a control mechanism is provided to control the brake system to provide linear brake feel under varying circumstances.

The Prius has been around for many years.
From wikipedia:

The Toyota Prius (pronounced /pris/) is a full hybrid electric mid-size car developed and manufactured by the Toyota Motor Corporation. It first went on sale in Japan in 1997, making it the first mass-produced hybrid vehicle

Looks to me like this patent troll has stolen Toyota's IP and somehow patented it out from under Toyota.
Toyota will prevail in court considering their deeper pockets to protect their IP.
This patent troll should be sacked and publicly humiliated for the thieving scum they are.

Using an AC system in a hybrid car DOES make sense

[Firethorn]

Okay, first, I'd like to point out that the Tesla Roadster, a pure EV, uses an AC motor as well.

1. AC Motors, especially large ones, tend to be cheaper and more efficient than DC ones. You can go from ~80% to 90%
2. AC Motors can also act as generators, enabling regenerative braking/charging the batteries on a hybrid without an extra generator.
3. A simple rheostat works well at low power levels and efficiency - but when you're looking to strangle every meter out of a kwh, a rheostat is very inefficient at controlling power levels, and at car power levels, you're looking at wasting a LOT of watts as heat. What you'd really want is a DC-DC converter - which normally converts it to high frequency AC to do the transformation. Might as well skip that and just feed it to the motor as AC.
4. At the power levels we're looking at, an advanced controller can convert the DC to AC at better than 90% efficiency and control power/speed much closer than a DC motor + rheostat. It can also compensate for changing voltage levels due to battery depletion.

Re:Using an AC system in a hybrid car DOES make se

[digitalunity]

Not to nitpick, but on item #2, a split ring DC motor is just as capable of being a generator as it is a motor.

That doesn't negate your other very accurate points though.

Re:Using an AC system in a hybrid car DOES make se

[Firethorn]

Yeah, I also forgot to mention the whole brush problem, and/or the expense of brushless designs.

I perhaps should have said that it's easier to use an AC motor as a generator than it is for DC motors. I knew it's possible to make a DC generator, I think I even remembered it can double as a motor, but I remembered there was some issue such that AC generators are normally used today, even if it's going to promptly rectified into DC. Lookin stuff up - the only DC generator designs I'm seeing are brush type. They also, by default, don't produce even DC electricity - it looks more like AC output through a rectifier.

At one point I was looking at making my own EV. After reading the literature and engineering, I was determined to go with an AC drive system. DC was cheaper, but the AC systems were both more powerful and more efficient. All the DC installs I saw didn't use regenerative braking, for example. It was a standard feature for the AC ones. Even without regenerative braking the AC system would have more range for a given battery pack.

Re:Using an AC system in a hybrid car DOES make se

[mcgrew]

I remembered there was some issue such that AC generators are normally used today, even if it's going to promptly rectified into DC

I always wondered why they went from DC generators in cars ("generators") to AC generators ("alternators"). Must have to do with effeciency.

Re:Using an AC system in a hybrid car DOES make se

[digitalunity]

That's due mostly to longevity, efficiency and the compactness of the alternator versus a permanent magnet DC generator. Compactness comes into play because a DC generator the same size as an AC generator would have a lower output capacity.

Re:Using an AC system in a hybrid car DOES make se

[HornWumpus]

In a DC generator all the current has to go through the brushes.

In an alternator only the excitation current goes through the brushes.

Hence DC generators eat brushes.

And all the reasons the sib poster said.