Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 451 comments (clear)

  1. Filing date by glam0006 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  2. Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas by piltdownman84 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:That's bright! by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  4. Re:That's bright! by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  5. The first gen Prius came out in 1997 by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first generation Prius was sold only in Japan, but it went on sale in December 1997.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  6. Re:That's bright! by Manchot · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:That's bright! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII