Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Claim Could Block Import of Toyota's Hybrid Cars

Posted by timothy on from the advancing-the-useful-arts-and-sciences dept.

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."

46 of 451 comments (clear)

  1. That's bright! by phocutus · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:That's bright! by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:That's bright! by JLF65 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:That's bright! by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:That's bright! by serbanp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:That's bright! by sofar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:That's bright! by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    7. Re:That's bright! by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've never seen an EOB statement eh?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    8. Re:That's bright! by treeves · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:That's bright! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:That's bright! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:That's bright! by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:That's bright! by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "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....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:That's bright! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    14. Re:That's bright! by treeves · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    15. Re:That's bright! by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:That's bright! by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    17. Re:That's bright! by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    18. Re:That's bright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:That's bright! by Rewind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ?
    20. Re:That's bright! by Golddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    21. Re:That's bright! by sofar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    22. Re:That's bright! by liquiddark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    23. Re:That's bright! by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    24. Re:That's bright! by agnosticnixie · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    25. Re:That's bright! by eihab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    26. Re:That's bright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!!!

    27. Re:That's bright! by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ....?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    28. Re:That's bright! by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    29. Re:That's bright! by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Toyota Patent Filed: October 2, 2002

      Paice Patent Filed: May 8, 2006

      Toyota wins.

    30. Re:That's bright! by BLKMGK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    31. Re:That's bright! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. Let's ban all hybrids in the US by Reason58 · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

  3. This troll filed for his patent in 2003. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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

  4. Does not have to BLOCK anything... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything... by rgmoore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    2. Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything... by Zordak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  5. Re:Yes, but.... by tthomas48 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  6. Diesel electric trains .... by taniwha · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  7. the solution here is very simple by DragonTHC · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    Simple.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  8. Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  9. Re:Filing date by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  10. That's Progress by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  11. Re:Toyota is peaking. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  12. The Enemy of My Enemy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
     

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  13. Re:Using an AC system in a hybrid car DOES make se by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!