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 jim_v2000 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 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.

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

      I suspect they were formed to troll patents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:That's bright! by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've never seen an EOB statement eh?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    10. Re:That's bright! by Locutus · · 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
    11. Re:That's bright! by pembo13 · · 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
    12. Re:That's bright! by Dunbal · · 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.........
    15. 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.
    16. Re:That's bright! by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.

      --
      ?
    19. 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)-
    20. Re:That's bright! by AK+Marc · · 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
    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 Manchot · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    24. Re:That's bright! by grapeape · · 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.

    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 Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Informative
      A country that provided the world with such things as electricity, the automobile, the outcome of WWII,

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

      I think you watch too many Hollywood movies.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    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.

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

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

  3. Re:Yes, but.... by dvorakkeyboardrules · · 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.....

  4. Re:Yes, but.... by Fluffeh · · 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!
  5. Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids... by Thagg · · 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.
  6. 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.
    2. Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything... by Dahan · · 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.

  7. 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.

  8. ah, the eastern district of Texas by Trepidity · · 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 piltdownman84 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

    2. 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, Patent Troll by aqui · · 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."
  10. Can't see why Toyota should be worried by GumphMaster · · 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
  11. 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

  12. The first gen Prius came out in 1997 by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  13. 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)