6306141
story
Comments: 451 +- Your Rights Online: Patent Claim Could Block Import of Toyota's Hybrid Cars on Thursday October 08, @04:10PM
Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday October 08, @04:10PM
from the advancing-the-useful-arts-and-sciences dept.
from the advancing-the-useful-arts-and-sciences dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpatents.gif); width:75px; height:54px;
patents
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictransportation.gif); width:75px; height:69px;
transportation
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."
Related Stories
Toyota Builds a Patent Thicket For Hybrid Cars 307 comments
: by
GOOD-NIGHT, everybody ... Now I have to go administer FIRST-AID to my
pet LEISURE SUIT!!
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
That's bright! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:That's bright! (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?
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:4, 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.
Parent
The first gen Prius came out in 1997 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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!!!
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't believe parent is only scored 1 but anyway ...
Toyota Patent [uspto.gov] Filed: October 2, 2002
Paice Patent [uspto.gov] Filed: May 8, 2006
Toyota wins.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, 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 ....?
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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...
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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 [moneyandmarkets.com], and yet has a stock market that rallies 40% with apparently no end in sight... Yeah, I guess anything could happen.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...).
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:4, Insightful)
You've never seen an EOB statement eh?
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (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.
Parent
Re:That's bright! (Score:4, Insightful)
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....
Parent
Re:Toyota is peaking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Filing date (Score:5, Informative)
The filing date is May 8, 2006. Really? This technology wasn't around before then?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Filing date, Patent Troll (Score:4, 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)...
Parent
Import? (Score:3, Informative)
But, Toyota makes cars in the US...
Does not have to BLOCK anything... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
Re:Does not have to BLOCK anything... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Diesel electric trains .... (Score:3, Insightful)
ah, the eastern district of Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting that a company located in Florida [paice.net] would choose to sue a Japanese company in the seemingly random [wikipedia.org] location of Marshall, Texas [wikipedia.org].
Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting that a company located in Florida [paice.net] would choose to sue a Japanese company in the seemingly random [wikipedia.org] location of Marshall, Texas [wikipedia.org].
Marshall, Texas is part of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas [wikipedia.org]. The district has been criticized for a perceived bias towards plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits, including patent trolls and other holders of dubious patents.
Parent
Re:ah, the eastern district of Texas (Score:4, 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?
Parent
Can't see why Toyota should be worried (Score:4, 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?
That's Progress (Score:4, 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.
Re:Yes, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.....
Parent
Re:Yes, but.... (Score:5, Funny)
*guffaw*
Parent
Re:Yes, but.... (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Silly patents, tricks are for kids... (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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.