Patent Claim Could Block Import of Toyota's Hybrid Cars

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Claim Could Block Import of Toyota's Hybrid Cars

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 8, 2009 @09:10AM 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."

82 of 451 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That's bright! by phocutus · 2009-10-08 09:14 · 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 · 2009-10-08 09:28 · 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 · 2009-10-08 09:31 · 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 jim_v2000 · 2009-10-08 09:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A one sentence summary is vague. Their patent filing is not.
  
  --
  Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
4. Re:That's bright! by Dunbal · 2009-10-08 09:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:That's bright! by Dunbal · 2009-10-08 09:44 · 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.
6. Re:That's bright! by serbanp · 2009-10-08 10:04 · 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.
7. Re:That's bright! by Kartoffel · 2009-10-08 10:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
8. Re:That's bright! by sofar · 2009-10-08 10:11 · 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.
9. Re:That's bright! by siddesu · 2009-10-08 10:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
10. Re:That's bright! by Moridineas · 2009-10-08 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Where's the info that the patent covers technology used in 2nd generation Priuses?
11. Re:That's bright! by icebike · 2009-10-08 10:33 · 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.
12. Re:That's bright! by aztracker1 · 2009-10-08 10:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You've never seen an EOB statement eh?
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
13. Re:That's bright! by Locutus · 2009-10-08 10:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
14. Re:That's bright! by pembo13 · 2009-10-08 10:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
15. Re:That's bright! by Dunbal · 2009-10-08 10:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
16. Re:That's bright! by Grishnakh · 2009-10-08 11:12 · 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.
17. Re:That's bright! by Sperbels · 2009-10-08 11:13 · 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.
18. Re:That's bright! by cayenne8 · 2009-10-08 11:14 · 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.........
19. Re:That's bright! by AK+Marc · 2009-10-08 11:33 · 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
20. Re:That's bright! by treeves · 2009-10-08 11:33 · 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.
21. Re:That's bright! by digitalunity · 2009-10-08 11:35 · 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.
22. Re:That's bright! by lgw · 2009-10-08 11:44 · 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.
23. Re:That's bright! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-10-08 11:49 · 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.
24. Re:That's bright! by Technician · 2009-10-08 12:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
25. Re:That's bright! by Mr.+Freeman · 2009-10-08 12:20 · 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.
26. Re:That's bright! by Rewind · 2009-10-08 12:34 · 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.
  
  --
  ?
27. Re:That's bright! by Golddess · 2009-10-08 12:45 · 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)-
28. Re:That's bright! by AK+Marc · 2009-10-08 12:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
29. Re:That's bright! by sofar · 2009-10-08 13:15 · 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.
30. Re:That's bright! by AK+Marc · 2009-10-08 13:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
31. Re:That's bright! by liquiddark · 2009-10-08 13:33 · 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?
32. Re:That's bright! by biryokumaru · 2009-10-08 14:05 · 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!
33. Re:That's bright! by Manchot · 2009-10-08 14:27 · 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.
34. Re:That's bright! by agnosticnixie · 2009-10-08 14:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The problem was you, not her if the misogyny that's seeping through is any indication.
35. Re:That's bright! by grapeape · 2009-10-08 14:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
36. Re:That's bright! by eihab · 2009-10-08 14:48 · 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.
37. Re:That's bright! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-08 16:21 · 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!!!
38. Re:That's bright! by easyTree · 2009-10-08 17:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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"
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
39. Re:That's bright! by JasterBobaMereel · 2009-10-08 19:47 · 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
40. Re:That's bright! by category_five · 2009-10-08 20:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
41. Re:That's bright! by Anne+Thwacks · 2009-10-08 20:22 · 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
42. Re:That's bright! by RMH101 · 2009-10-08 20:48 · 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.
43. Re:That's bright! by Wild+Wizard · 2009-10-08 20:54 · 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.
44. Re:That's bright! by init100 · 2009-10-08 21:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
45. Re:That's bright! by Kashgarinn · 2009-10-08 21:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "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.
46. Re:That's bright! by ortholattice · 2009-10-09 00:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
47. Re:That's bright! by BLKMGK · 2009-10-09 00:56 · 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
48. Re:That's bright! by mcgrew · 2009-10-09 02:41 · 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!
49. Re:That's bright! by bzipitidoo · 2009-10-09 07:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Filing date by glam0006 · 2009-10-08 09:16 · Score: 5, Informative

The filing date is May 8, 2006. Really? This technology wasn't around before then?
1. Re:Filing date by sharkb8 · 2009-10-08 09:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The chain of priority goes back to 1999.
2. Re:Filing date by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-08 09:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Toyota has been making the Prius since 1997.
3. Re:Filing date by tsotha · 2009-10-08 10:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Filing date by Fujisawa+Sensei · 2009-10-08 10:55 · 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.
Re:Yes, but.... by dvorakkeyboardrules · 2009-10-08 09:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

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:Silly patents, tricks are for kids... by sharkb8 · 2009-10-08 09:21 · Score: 2, Informative

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:Yes, but.... by Fluffeh · 2009-10-08 09:22 · Score: 4, Funny

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

*guffaw*

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids... by Thagg · 2009-10-08 09:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Re:Here is the one I want: by SomeJoel · 2009-10-08 09:30 · Score: 2, Funny

$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.

--
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
Import? by Dunbal · 2009-10-08 09:31 · Score: 2, Informative

But, Toyota makes cars in the US...

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Does not have to BLOCK anything... by mi · 2009-10-08 09:32 · 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 · 2009-10-08 10:01 · 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 · 2009-10-08 10:33 · 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:Does not have to BLOCK anything... by Dahan · 2009-10-08 10:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything... by rgmoore · 2009-10-08 13:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Re:Yes, but.... by tthomas48 · 2009-10-08 09:38 · 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.
Diesel electric trains .... by taniwha · 2009-10-08 09:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

reading the claims sounds much more like it describes diesel-electric trains than Toyota's dual transmission drive
Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids... by tepples · 2009-10-08 09:39 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
ah, the eastern district of Texas by Trepidity · 2009-10-08 09:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas by Kartoffel · 2009-10-08 10:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  East Texas is a known patent troll haven.
2. Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas by piltdownman84 · 2009-10-08 10:23 · 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:ah, the eastern district of Texas by Trepidity · 2009-10-08 10:27 · 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
Re:Filing date, Patent Troll by aqui · 2009-10-08 10:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

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)...

--
----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
Can't see why Toyota should be worried by GumphMaster · 2009-10-08 10:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Toyota is peaking. by reporter · 2009-10-08 11:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Toyota is peaking. by Jesus_666 · 2009-10-08 12:48 · 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)
Re:Yes, but.... by Kesch · 2009-10-08 11:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Wait, Nintendo's entering the car market?

--
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
That's Progress by Doc+Ruby · 2009-10-08 11:47 · 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
The first gen Prius came out in 1997 by mister_playboy · 2009-10-08 12:46 · 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
The Enemy of My Enemy by bill_mcgonigle · 2009-10-08 13:14 · 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)
Actually, this happened by Kupfernigk · 2009-10-08 19:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."