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."

25 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 aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've never seen an EOB statement eh?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    7. 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.

    8. 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.........
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

      --
      ?
    12. 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)-
    13. 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.

    14. 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?

    15. 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.
    16. 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!!!

    17. 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
    18. 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.

  2. 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 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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

  6. 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)