Toyota Prius Under Fire For Patent Infringement

tekiegreg writes "According to Auto Service World, Toyota (and possibly other hybrid companies) are guilty of violating a patent with their Prius hybrid Systems. The patent in particular looks like it covers most of how the drive-train and even the braking system of a Toyota Prius functions. The implications of which are big if there is no deal or settlement made (such as ceasing of hybrid vehicles in the United States)."

Easy Solution.

Remove the braking system. No more patent violation!

Re:Easy Solution.

BRAKING! Jeebus. Use a dictionary. Or read the article. Or the parent post.

Re:Easy Solution.

The Prius does not reduce emmisions. It reduces emmisions at the tailpipe compared to a conventional system.

When you consider the emmisions cost of the entire system, production, energy production/transmission and disposal, the current commercially available hybrids are unmitigated environmental disasters hidden by ignorance, smoke and mirrors.

How to get 10 mpg better milage while reducing emmisions from a standard, gasoline burning Accord:

Regear and retune the engine to give maximum efficiency while producing the same level of performance as a Prius.

Notice in the above post that the driver achieved his milage in the Prius through modification of his driving technique.

As a demonstration I once achieved 40 mpg from an completely box stock, 1976 Ford Fiesta on the open road simply by driving with my mind on efficiency rather than performance. If I had modified the car to run in this manner innately it would have reduced its emmisions greatly as well.

The Prius owner quoted above is an efficiency minded fellow who drove his car with his mind on driving as efficiently as possible. It is a biased anecdote.

Gas powered CRX drivers reported getting 60 mpg with low overall emmisions. The cars were simply tuned for economy rather than performance as well as being smaller and lighter than a Prius. It did not sell well, because it lacked performance. Buyers of this car, and the buyers of the Prius, are innately people who are willing to sacrifice performance for efficiency and the purported benefits of the hybrid system come mostly from this sacrifice of performance, not from the hybrid system.

Give me a blank sheet of paper and I will design you a vehicle that can sustain 30 mph on only 60 watts of power, is fueled by pizza and exhausts relatively small amounts of CO2 balanced by the carbon cycle.

But you would not likely buy such a vehicle because it would not make you happy.

The current line of hybrids are designed to make people happy by giving them the impression that they are achieving reduced fuel use and emmissions over some other system.

As an engineer I love electrics and hybrids and have been involved with them since the mid 70s. They are elegant. I appreciate that elegance.

But the claims surrounding the current crop of hybrids are faith based, not engineering based.

And people will defend their faith no matter.

KFG

Re:Easy Solution.

All the marketing hype and perceived value to a Prius has always been centered on city traffic.

Where cars themselves are especially stupid, and if you look at the packaging of a Prius it is obviously not a city commuter model but is equiped as a long range family hauler, because that is what people expect and will put their money down for.

. . .my average 10 minute drive

You are efficiency and environmentally concious and you drive ten minutes to work, including two to three minutes stopped at lights and a train crossing?

I would be ashamed of such an admission and all of your Prius, used as such, represents nothing but fuel waste in the first place.

the Prius gasoline engine TURNS OFF. So typically, I spend 2 to 3 minutes of my average 10 minute drive not poluting at all.

Are you aware of the fuel and emmissions costs of simply turning on a gasoline engine? They can exceed those of an engine idling for a minute or two. You would gain more benefit from this is you commuted on the Long Island Expressway, not in your short commute.

Also, a very simple engineering fact is that the amount of polution released in the atmosphere is directly related to the amount of fuel that is combusted.

No, this is intuitively obvious, but it is a simple engineering fact, that is to say empirical, that it is not always true, because a gasoline burning engine does not operate with a flat burning efficiency curve.

. . .is combusing less fuel because some of the energy contributing to the work is coming from a battery.

Which energy was produced by the elves that live under my bed?

Thus the Prius will be expelling less waste (pollution) than the other vehicle.

From its tailpipe. This is not at all the same thing as saying that its use expells less pollution. You have fallen prey to the smoke and mirrors. You are expelling that added pollution into my backyard instead of yours. I don't necessarily appreciate your treating me in such a fashion.

Even if that difference is less than 1%, it's still better than nothing.

Have you ever driven a conventional gas engineed car designed and tuned to your particular commute and measured it's fuel efficiency and emmissions against the Prius?

You are, I'm afraid, one of these people who see certain gross functions of the vehicle and translate that into a feeling that you are coming out ahead, without actually knowing that you are.

Your use is faith based.

You can crunch all the numbers you want on emmisions and functioning of the Prius system. . .

Q.E.D.

KFG

Re:Easy Solution.

Dr. Ferdinand Porsche designed and BUILT an AWD electric car in ~1908 (or earlier?) with regenerative braking.

I kinda suspect a bit of prior art somewhere.

/tin hat

It's the oil companies in disguise!

Re:/tin hat

I don't know why you got modded funny. It should be a well know fact (especially to /.ers) that OPEC buys up every alternative energy/locomotion patent it can get its hands on, and then calls it "Research".

I'm gonna go research a Mountain Dew...

Re:/tin hat

Notice all the Nutrasweet bashing going on among health gurus over the last couple of years. It was the perfect sweetener, now it causes everything from headaches to severe thunderstorms.

That bashing's been going on since soon after the product hit the market [sweetpoison.com]. I think the patent expiring is why you're hearing more about it because there isn't anyone to "stifle" the truth anymore. The [mercola.com] headaches [mercola.com]are actually caused by brain lesions [metroactive.com]. But, those aren't the worst part, the blindness [ethicalinvesting.com]is what really gets you. (For the tin hatters out there [sumeria.net])

Re:/tin hat

There is a tactic to deal with this: just before the patent expires, patent necessary but previously unpatented aspects of the invention. You can also patent all the obvious variations of it. The end result is most actual implementations breach a patent, even though the original patent has expired.

Pharmaceutical companies do this sort of thing all the time.

Re:/tin hat

That doesn't work. Once an invention is out there (on sale or otherwise "published"), you have a limited time (a year IIRC) to file for a patent.

The standard Pharmaceutical company trick is shortly before the patent expires, they introduce a new version with a trivial (but newly patented) "improvement". Aggressive marketing tries to get all their current customers switched to the new drug. When the patent expires, other companies can make generic versions of the original drug, and these may for all practical purposes be just as good at treating whatever it is, but pharmacists can't make the substitution for the new one without a new prescription.

The other trick is to find new uses for current drugs, and patent those new uses, which gets weird in that eventually generic companies can make the exact same drug, but not market it for the new purpose.

Both of these seem to me like side effects of applying patent law, which works reasonably well for things like mechanical engineering, to other realms.

Don't laugh!

Cobasys, a Texaco subsidiary, holds a patent for NiMH batteries. One of the reasons for the hybrid itself is that it carefully skirts this patent by having the internal combustion engine as the prime mover. A battery-only or battery-mostly vehicle might be subject to prohibitive license fees. This is why pluggable hybrids have not been commercially produced either.

Oil company conspiracy? You decide...

Easy way around that: switch to lithium

There's a group of companies developing lithium batteries that have created a patent pool. If your company develops technology for lithium batteries, you pay a fee to get into this group and then you can use for free any lithium patent from any company in the group. Of course, they get to use your patents as well, but with so many people looking out for submarine patents and the fact that your competitors signed a technology sharing agreement, the chance of a lawsuit is minimal.

Re:Don't laugh!

Plug-in hybrids are a lame idea, especially in the US where electricity is more expensive than gasoline.

Electricity is often about 10 cents/KWh. A gallon of gasoline holds about 34 KWh, so at $2.50/gal that's 7.3 cents/KWh.

The deal is that most of the thermodynamic losses involved in creating electric power happen before you pay for it. You might get 80% of the electrical power you pay for delivered to your tires after battery and motor losses. With gasoline, your engine is lucky to extract only 25% of the fuel's energy as useful work. That would make your fuel costs for a gasoline powered car at least twice as expensive than an electrically powered one for the same amount of work done.

Diagram

So if you want a visual of what they're actually talking about, look here [blogspot.com] because that damned patent site refers to images that are nowhere to be found. I think that linked diagram refers to the numbers that the patent information initially state about the design of it.

Theyre patent is pretty complete

Theyre patent is pretty complete, but only filed in 1990.
Unfortunately, I think reclaiming breaking energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier then that.

Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete

> Unfortunately, I think reclaiming breaking
> energy with an electric motor was thought of,
> and used much earlier then that.

Around 1870 in fact.

sPh

Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete

"Diesel Traction - A Manual for Enginemen", Copyright 1962 by the British Transport Commission, describes using regenerative braking where you use the traction motors in diesel-electric power cars as generators, feeding the current into banks of resistors bolted to the chassis. Somewhere around page 160-odd, about the bit where it's talking about wheel slip detection circuits and stuff.

I know I saw Telma [telmausa.com] retarders on buses, long before 1990. They work on the same principle.

Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete

EPO and for that matter every country (or at least the vast majority) use a first to file system. So an inventor often gets punished because big company X can file before they can since they have the money to start what is a very costly procedure. In the US Patent System, it is a first to invent. If two entities have filed for the same patent an interference procedure is followed where the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) will hold a hearing and make a determination based on the facts presented by both who was the first to actually invent the application.

Under the US Patent System, it counts as prior art if it was published by "others" (this means any person or group of persons different from the applicant) before the invention of the device. This is called 102(a) and they can swear behind this using the whole first to invent idea. Initially, items are considered "invented" when tey are filed. It also counts if a publication is made or it is in "use" (in the terms of in the public already) by anyone (including applicants) more then 1 year prior to the earliest US filing date. This is a 102(b) and a so-called "statutory bar". There is no way to swear behind these kinds of references. The final one that is commonly used is if a published US application or Patent was filed before the filing date of the current invention by another (this also applies to WIPO filing dates). This is called a 102(e) and like 102(a) is based on invention date so it can also be sworn behind.

I think you need to clarify the prototype being officially made statement. I cannot speak certainly for EPO or other patent offices, but the general idea is that the item described in the Patent Application has actually been invented. As such, there had better be a prototype of some sort sitting around somewhere. Most all patent laws center around a publication or existance of an item that is known to the public in same.

Re:Theyre patent is pretty complete

[Their] patent is pretty complete, but only filed in 1990.

Unfortunately, I think reclaiming [braking] energy with an electric motor was thought of, and used much earlier [than] that.

I seem to recall an article that was published in the late 1980s in Popular Science profiling a prototype hybrid car that was called the Uniq. It had regenerative braking.

Rail locomotives have had "Dynamic braking" for decades, in which energy is reclaimed from the wheels, but it is subsequently burned off in a huge resistor, but it is at least half of the formula.

So that takes regenerative braking itself off the table as far as prior art. That leaves the combiner gearbox.

The Uniq used no combiner gearbox, and neither do Honda's hybrids. Toyota has done a better job at marketing their hybrid drive, but Hondas are actually getting better MPG without the combiner gearbox (though a pure electric mode is not possible).

The bottom line is: There is some prior art; it is probably not enough to help Toyota with their immediate problem, but not all hybrids are affected.

"Surfacing, Captain"

Man, people who deliberately use "submarine patents" to try and make money off a popular technology really bug me. As do "technology companies" whose sole business model is to own patents. They wait and see, and if the tech becomes successful, they pounce. If it flops they stay away and let the infringer take the loss.

I respect the rights of patent owners, and I'm not sure how you could legally sanction this berhaviour without harming patent holders' legitimate rights, but the practice is just plain sleazy.

Now it may be that they have had suit against Toyota ever since the hybrid came on the market, and this is just a recent expansion of that suit, in which case they are not being weasels...

Re:"Surfacing, Captain"

If you take a look at the patent holding companies website (Solomon Technologies inc. ) it looks like they developed the technology and have been implementing it (in sailing vessels) for some time.

From their FAQ:

What is the Electric Wheel(TM)?
The Electric Wheel(TM) is a new technology motor (first patented in 1991) that significantly improves and exceeds the net horsepower output of existing electric and fossil fuel motors. Solomon Technologies currently provides three series of motor systems built on this technology; the ST37, the ST58 and the ST74. They have been designed for use in marine environments. The ST58 combines variable torque converters, brushless motors with Neodymium Iron Boron (NeFe B) magnets, and a powerful regenerative feedback function that converts the motor(s) into a generator of electricity to recharge the batteries while under sail, and provide electrical power to other appliances on the boat.

So looks like they are legit (or are a very elaborate front :-) )

Re:"Surfacing, Captain"

As a UK citizen, I'm unfamiliar with US law - how long does a US patent last? I assumed it was 5 years, considering this patent was filed in 1991 (if I read correctly) it must be at least 15 years monopoly - something that seams completely unfair to the progression of business...

Maybe the US (and indeed most countries) need to re-evaluate the law pertaining to patent law, what it was created for, and what it should cover today. Also, copyright law needs looking at - I'm pretty disgusted with the UK version as it stands, I'm sure the US has an equally if not worse one. 25 years or death plus 5 years sounds fair. After then, it doesn't mean no-one owns it, it means everyone owns it, surely?

Re:"Surfacing, Captain"

I respect the rights of patent owners, and I'm not sure how you could legally sanction this berhaviour without harming patent holders' legitimate rights, but the practice is just plain sleazy.

If a product that uses your patent without an agreement in place is on the market for X months and you, the patent holder, do not challenge such use, a license is automatically granted for that product.

If you have reason to believe a product is using your patent, you can file a challenge with the patent office stating so. The company offering the product has to respond saying that they are or are not violating your patent. If they say they are not, the previous "X month" window gets extended to the full term of the patent for that product. If they aren't using your patent, this has no effect. If they are using your patent, and tell the patent office they aren't, you now have the full term of the patent to prove them wrong.

You can only exercise this challenge Y times over the life of the patent. Y will not include any challenge that is upheld, either initially or after the fact.

Limit patent transferability

Simple solution.. Only the original inventor gets to benefit from having invented something. If the inventor (either private or company) decides to sell it's assets, then any patents become void and the knowledge public domain.

Summary is a little misleading

"According to Auto Service World, Toyota (and possibly other hybrid companies)

The article mentions no other hybrid companies. The only companies mentioned are either Solomon Technologies, the patent holder, and various different divisions of Toyota. The "and possibly other hybrid companies" is just pure speculation.

are guilty of violating a patent with their Prius hybrid Systems.

The article just says that Solomon is taking their complaint to the ITC to block Toyota from importing more vehicles. ITC can't rule guilt or fine Toyota. If Toyota manufactured the vehicles here, it likely would circumvent anything the ITC could do. There has been no admission of guilt by Toyota so the only other place guilt can be determined is in a court of law. Until the case currently in US District Court is ruled on, there is no guilt. Only accusations.

The implications of which are big if there is no deal or settlement made (such as ceasing of hybrid vehicles in the United States)."

No. In the case of the article it just would mean Toyota couldn't import hybrid vehicles of this design (presuming they don't license the patent and settle the District Court case). They would either have to make them state-side or find a different design. Beleive it or not, there is more then one way to design a hybrid vehicle. This ruling wouldn't have an immediate effect on other manufacturers of hybrid vehicles although it might set a precident for future litigation.

The patent

IANAL. I only read the abstract of TFA, which is not the legaly meaningful part. With that in mind, it seems that the patent only covers a transmission with an integrated electric motor that happens to use a planetary gear (or differential). Does anyone know if 1) Toyota's synergy drive has an integrated tranny/electric motor and 2)said transmission uses a planetary gear?

Re:The patent

Yes, and yes. The thing in question here is Toyota's Power Split Device [howstuffworks.com], which is a constantly-engaged planetary gear set that acts as a transmission and drives (or is partially driven by) the electric motor/generator. Which appears to be exactly what the patent describes.

Re:The patent

... however, this "constantly engaged planetary gear" has exactly the same function as a conventional differential, which connects a drive shaft to two wheels, permitting the wheels to spin at different speeds (particularly useful for cornering). In fact, this is mentioned within the patent text. The only difference is that this planetary gear assembly is coaxial.

I'm a little puzzled by the timing of this suit, which has emerged a full five years after Prius models have been available, and I don't think it was particularly secret that they were developing hybrid vehicles before 2000. (I own a 2000 model myself.) Did Solomon forget they had this patent? Wouldn't the doctrine of laches apply here? http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm [lectlaw.com].

Even in 1990 (when the patent was issued) wouldn't a gear assembly like this have been obvious to any knowledgable practitioner of the art?

Is it good news or bad news?

Google Under Fire For Patent Infringement - bad news.
Microsoft Under Fire For Patent Infringement - good news.
Sun Under Fire For Patent Infringement - depends on wind direction and world series basketball results.
Do we love or hate Toyota Prius?

Limited problem

It also expires in three years.

This actually looks like a reasonable patent -- the inventor did come up with a reasonably novel approach to getting decent efficiency out of electric motors under varying load conditions, and published it via the patent system long ago.

The auto companies pay plenty in patent royalties every year, and if they'd negotiated terms before using this (which may well be tracable to their designs) then I doubt they'd have had to pay much. They may not have to pay all that much now, hard to say.

Infinit Speed !!!

From the patent title :

Dual-input infinite-speed integral motor and transmission device

Now that's cool!

Didn't Toyota already research this?

I have to wonder why Toyota would be so negligent in its actions, unless they knew they were not infringing on anything?

The Solomon company uses their technology primarily for boats and not cars, maybe that is why Toyota thought their system was different enough that it didn't infringe on their patents.

Another example of patents in good use

Thank heavens we have those patents to encourage innovation. The invention would never have happened otherwise.

Er, Um, Patents Are Not Holy

All Toyota has to do is set 1% of its lawyers to work to overturn the patent. The patent office will let you patent most anything-- they do very little search for no-nos like prior art, prior disclosure, or the many other details that can invalidate a patent.

Electric braking and planetary transmissions have bveen around for about a century-- there's probably 1,000 prior patents and prior art in that genre.

With just a preliminary survey like that, Toyota can have a mighty strong negotiating position with the new patent holders. Like "here's $23,000, take it or have to spend about $5 million defending your patent."

Due Diligence

My patent law is a little rusty, but doesn't the patent owner have to claim infringement within a reasonable amount of time? How long has the Prius been out - 2 or 3 years? ANd they are just filing a claim now? The upshot is that if I own a patent, I can't just wait for years while it is infringed, and then come in and claim my triple damages based on the other guy's work. I have to challenge within a reasonable amount of time, or else the infringer has "squatter's rights".

This patent doesn't cover Prius' s drive

Lesson 1: READ THE CLAIMS.

Note that every claim is either a "base claim", that is, that starts a new description, or is a
"subsidiary claim" that depends or extends another claim.

Lesson 2: READ THE BASE CLAIMS TWICE.

The base claims are the patent's "weak spots" - if you can just dodge every base claim, then
the patent doesn't apply to you.

Notice that in this patent every base claim says "electrical" on both power inputs. That's
a major flaw; this patent has no claims that cover the case of only one electrical power
input and one of a totally other kind of power.

Lesson 3: THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT IF NONE OF THE CLAIMS APPLY.

The Prius driveline doesn't use an electrical motor on BOTH inputs, only on one. Hence it does
not infringe.

Next? :)

Seems semi valid

Really, the company holding this patent does actually use it. From what I gathered it has a lot to do with the braking system being used to charge the battery.

I'm guessing / hoping Toyota and this company will both be reasonable and find a fair way to settle this. Where this isn't a 'completely frivolous' case, where the patent holder is a company setup to make money off it's patents (which it doesn't use), I think they'll at least be reasonable.

Doesn't matter

This doesn't matter. The patent expires in four years.

30,000+ prior patents on this

A quick scan of the patent database shows about 11,500 patents with "planetary transmission" in them. About 22,000 with "electric braking".

Even if 99% of those are false hits, that still leaves about 300+ patents that just might have prior art or patent rights that this alleged patent infringes on.

Doesnt look too good for these noobies.

Eminent domain

Hmm... Given the push for energy independence, why doesn't the U.S. government simply claim eminent domain, pay out for the whopping three or four remainin years left on the patent at a 'fair market rate' and make the information pure public domain.

Talk about patents being good for research

If patents are, in theory, for the protection of research and innovation, why are not forced the owners to use the technology in a comercial product in a few years from the concesion, or dedicate it if they don't? I mean, it's much easier to patent something to prevent competition than to actually research and develop a product.

"Ceasing" what?

such as ceasing of hybrid vehicles in the United States

Will all of the cars cease at once, or will it be one driver at a time who finds their car stopping in the middle of the day? Will it be a gradual stop, or a sudden stop? And how about hybrid systems already in use in Honda, Ford, Komatsu, etc. engines, as well as locomotives? Will those cease, too?

Perhaps production/distribution will cease, but that's about it.

Prior work

When I go to the Motorcycle Show in Paris, France in 1991 I can see a electrical motorcycle from Swiss engineer who work just like that ! Since the motorcycle have more than 2 years at this time, this patent is void !

Use of word "Guilty"

I know news sites love to sensationalise, but there is a massive difference between a company saying "Hey mate, we think you infringe our patents and would like to talk to you about that."(alleging) Versus being found guilty of patent infringement(i.e proven guilty in a courtroom).

The reality is Toyota is big enough to buy out this company anyway, which is probably what they're looking for.

Also the regenerative braking system is something toyota can defend quite well, after all scope does play an important role in patent disputes.

This seems valid, but...

First, unlike many patents, this one seems fairly specific, and represents to me the sort of things that the patent process should be protecting. That said, I think it would be interesting if the patent system was set up in tiers. That is after you file a patent you have 'X' amount of time (say ~1-3 years give or take) to produce a working example of said patent, if not then the patent is invalidated. If you succeed then the patent is rewritten to the specific working example and extended for a reasonable period of time. This should prevent vague patents and should help eliminate submarine patents to some extent.

regenerative breaking

the patent itself disqualifies regenerative breaking as being applicable to this situation.

I say this because stating a term 'regenerative braking' without supplying a definition or method implies that 'regenerative braking' was an established term before the patent was files. it is quite obvious that if a braking method is called 'regenerative' then some system would be used to collect or use that power, else it would be called 'electric braking' or 'magnetic resistance breaking'

though that patent may hold up with reguards to the 'electric transfer case' this would not halt hybrid developement but force manufacurers to not use a gearbox to accept power from the electric and internal combustion engine. they would simply have to use an approach more like honda's where the electric motor assists the crank shaft or where the electric motors are wheel hub motors, effectively skirting the patent.

Patents last too long.

The pace of change is increasing dramatically, 10 years is plenty to recoup value on research if that is the real purpose of patents. Beyond that patents expiring sooner means more can easily be built upon that patent freely.

Protection for nonfiler

Every time a patent story comes up, people always point out that the developer needs to have his invention protected. However, a patent does more than just prevent people from copying the inventor's invention. A patent prevents anyone else from independently developing the invention. This is why the invention needs to be non-obvious, which sadly seems to have effectively dropped from the patent approval process. Who protects the independent inventor who happens to be working on the same idea and developing a similar device independently? It is at least as important to protect this independent inventor as it is to protect the patent filer.

The whole patent system seems pretty ill-conceived to me. I don't particularly have a better solution, but strong enforcement of the prior art and non-obvious criterion would be a good start. The problem in my mind is that the whole patent system is based on the premise that inventions are developed from scratch. This just isn't the way most progress is done. Almost all inventions are combinations or refinements of existing technology. Sometimes those combinations/refinements are a large leap, sometimes they are rather obvious next steps.

In the case of hybrid cars, it's a combination of existing internal combustion engine and electric engine technology. The ground breaking part isn't the combination so much as it's the design to make a practical system. It's obvious that the technologies could be combined, it's not that much of a leap to see that it could possibly improve gas mileage based on existing understanding of effeciencies, but it's very unclear how to put the whole thing together such that you actually end up with better gas mileage.

Hybrids aren't that big a deal.

I'm all for innovation, enhanced fuel efficiency, alternative fuels and all that. However, I have a fundamental problem with hybrids. Hybrids are an overly complex method for squeezing out a little extra mileage.

There are two reasons why they've been attractive. The first is that they're fashionable, especially with the celebrities driving around in them. But even then, the Prius has been more successful than any other hybrid not because it's superior, but simply because the styling is different from most cars. It looks futuristic, it looks like a hybrid. the car is essentially a fashion statement.

The second, less perceptable reason for your average consumer, is that hybrids don't feel like they're equipped with a small gasoline engine. The fuel efficiency all comes from the fact that the engine is small, not that there's some great leap in technology in the car. The distinction is that the electric motor provides additional power preventing the car from feeling too sluggish. In some cases the electric motor can motivate the car on it's own, but that only applies to the Prius and Ford hybrids, the Civic still needs the engine to get it going. It's only under a limited set of circumstances that the engine can fully take over anyway.

Then there's the premium a hybrid commands over a normal car, and the fact that the batteries themselves are extremely expensive, and are rated for, at most, 100,000 miles only under ideal circumstances. Then there's the fact that batteries can be highly polluting, both during manufacturing and disposal.

If you wan't real fuel efficiency buy a car with a 1 liter engine like are available in Europe. The car is going to be extremely sluggish, but it will get you from point A to point B. You can drive it like a normal car and still expect the kind of mileage hybrids struggle to match. If you want to go one up on that, get a small-displacement diesel which get even better mileage. Although, those cars tend to pollute considerably.

As an interim step I think hybrids are perfectly fine. My concern is that hybrids are going to turn into cash cows for automakers and they're going to get fixated on them neglecting development of far superior technologies.

What I predict is that the American automakers will go nuts over hybrids like they did over SUVs. By the time they've saturated the market with them and have to offer massive discounts to get them off their lots the foreign automakers will already be introducing new technologies. Man, I'd like to know what kind of idiots are running those companies.

Won't hurt only Toyota...

...since the US hybrid car makers have to pay royalties to Toyota for using their hybrid system. As mentioned in advertisements, Ford is planning on releasing numerous hybrid alternatives to their standard vehicles by 2010. Either Ford will have to scrap those projects (which will just be throwing money out the door), take a loss for every vehicle sold, or pass the cost onto the customers... if the guy holding the patent even lets the automakers use his "patented" technology.

It's a fad

Good. Hybrid technology is a fad and it's not sustainable. It's a cool geek toy and I'd buy a hybrid with no price premium, but not any wierd sense of "doing the right thing."

That's not to say that something mustn't be done; hybrids are just not the way to do it. It's unfortunate, but tough.

Prior Art

I know there's significant prior art out there, so this should be very easily challenged ... as well isn't there something in the yankee patent office about not being able to patent the obvious ...

Hybrids are a pipe dream anyway

Hybrids are overly complex, require expensive battery replacement. And are only marginally better then their regular counterparts in cost over their lifetime.

We are far better off investing in both straight electric and high efficiency diesel technology. Both are easier and cheaper to manufacture and allow for a wider range of fuel sources.

If Ford has to pay Toyota royalties...

Someone above pointed out that Ford is paying royalties to Toyota for the hybrid technology, but they left out a critical point - Ford isn't actually using Toyota's hybrid technology - they created their own in-house that was so close to what Toyota beat them to market with, that they decided to be on the safe side they would license the technology from Toyota to avoid litigation.

It's hard to be an apologist for Toyota on this one when they have been using their own patents on the technology to collect royalties from another company already. Really, Ford and Toyota both should have been paying this other company from the beginning.

Toyota isn't this benevolent company. They make hybrids because it makes good business sense (if not profit, which arguably they do now). They are using their patents with other automakers in exactly the way this other company is attempting to.

Don't panic

I had a professor in 1985 at the Univerity of Illinois who had built and published papers on an electric vehicle with regenerative braking. There is a nice report somewhere from the fire department on that one (NiCd-fire). At that point, the concept of gas-turbine/battery hybrids were already well under discussion.

There have certainly been some interesting innovations that make modern hybrids possible since then, primarily the interesting motor/generator/transmission gadgets, but the fundamentals that are critical to all hybrids go back way further.

Is this another SCO Lawsuit?

I can just picture SCO owning the company that's suing Toyota.

Should Lawyers Be Allowed to Describe Engineering?

It just seems to me that reading a description of said mechanical device, written in said legalese vocabulation, verges on parody. It was hard to read the patent with a straight face. It was hard to read it and comprehend.

It was hard to read it.

In my fantasy world...

...patents exist to promote innovation and companies exercise them to provide the best products possible in a competitive marketplace to allow consumers to purchase the products that they want most.

That's a fantasy, of course. I understand that in reality the patent system exists to ensure that vendors can lock customers in to specific technologies, regardless of the quality of the product, or to lock customers out of other technologies. And thank God for that! We can't have people willy-nilly spending money on other companies' products just because they're better!

Eminent domain (finally a good use)

In a case such as this I would this that there should be some clause within Emainent Domain that would allow the government to null and void the patent. If ever there was a good case of something being used for the greater good, this is it.

Prior art?

I had an R/C car in the 80's that had regenerative breaking. In fact, just about ALL electronic speed controllers had regenerative breaking back then - since the little cars don't have break pads they either regenerate or short out the motor

Toyota might be safe...

The Figure 1A in the patent looks more like a Chrysler K car than a Prius. Also, the transmission in Figure 2 looks more like the transmission on a McCormick Farmall tractor with the option power take off. Maybe the inventor was influenced by previous art or one of those Iacocca TV commercials from the '80s.

Regenerative braking?

I beg your pardon, but I have seen vehicles with regenerative braking my entire *life*... and I'm well into my fifties.

Or are 100% of all non-steam locomotives too "old tech" for the folks here?

Please note, btw, that ALL "diesel locomotives" are actually 'hybrids", using a diesel engine to generate electricity to run electric motors.

I'd say that prior art takes regenerative braking out of the so-called infringement.

          mark "yes, I am into trains...."

Couple of Points

From TFA: "The filing of the ITC complaint is the next step in our effort to fully prosecute the alleged infringement by Toyota and to protect our valuable intellectual property. We believe that the ITC's streamlined administrative process, as well as the technical depth of the ITC staff, will be helpful in expediting and supporting our claims." He continued, "While the ITC can not assess damages against an infringer, it can issue an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of infringing technology. We will continue our effort to protect our intellectual property to the fullest extent possible."

Just a couple of points came to mind...

1. Mr. DeVecchis says Solomon Technologies chose the ITC to file the complaint because of their technical depth. What about their depth in law? Could using the ITC be a way so as not to use the courts? And...

2. Doesn't this guy sound a lot like Darl McBride? Same sort of posturing...talking about protecting their "valuable intellectual property". Are they related? Cloned? Just wondering.

Re: Ford and Toyota Royalties

Having sold Toyota's, and having family members that sell Ford's, from what I understand, Ford couldn't make their technology work in time to make it too market, so they licensed Toyota's first gen hybrid technology (01-03 Prius), while Totota kept the 2nd gen technology for themselves (2004 models +).

Just wanted to clarify the issue....

Silly patent

As far as I can see, the patent simply describes an epicyclic gearbox used in a car, with an electric motor/generator on the third shaft. The epicyclic gearbox is not at all novel (it was used in the Model T Ford). While using it in conjunction with an electric motor is a good idea, I don't really think it would count as novel or non-obvious. The epicyclic is the prototypical three-way gearbox, and thus would be the obvious solution to allowing two engines (petrol and electric) to drive the wheels of a car.

Taking another angle, large Japanese companies like Toyota tend to be very careful about patents. If they haven't settled yet, they probably know they can win.

Earth to US Car Mfgs: Quit sucking and STFU!

Hold on there Blue-Collar Slashdotters! Hear me out before you go representing your Union support by flamebaiting this post!

American Automobile Manfactures suck! We will continue to suck as long as we have the current adminstrations at Ford, GM, and Mopar and Big Oil. Who runs these companies? Surely it is not the Unions. Instead, it is Rich White Men who lie to us! Who say "we support our Union works". Who tell us that they are spending millions on alternative fuel research which actually goes to pay off our government to drill in the Artic, to bulid a pipeline through Canada, into the Midwest United States. Who rape us at the pump at $3/gal!

Who had a better Christmas this year? The suits or the factory workers?

One thing I would like to tell you guys about is the Ford Assembly Plant in Hazelwood, Missouri. Mayor T.R. Carr of Hazelwood, St. Louis County Executive Charles Dooley, and Missouri Governor Matt Blunt have bent over backwards just to keep this factory open that Ford constantly breaks their promise of keeping it open. Ford is stealing money from the city of Hazelwood! They are taking the money and the they lie when they say they will fight to keep it open! This is the factory that makes the Ford Explorer. Why isn't Hazelwood assembling Explorers with hybrid fuel systems? Because Ford won't let them!

The Oil Companies that are paying off Ford, GM, and Mopar have told the manfacturers that if any factory in North America attempted to install hybrid fuel systems on their vehicle they would cease funding them. As a way to put a gun to their head, they would also have to shut down plants and blackball the corporation. The Oil industry is doing the same thing with companies that build military and commerical aircraft, industrial machinery, various energy co-ops and corporations, a few technology corporations, and the United States Governement (as if you didn't figure that one out.)

They only way we will ever break free from these profitiering blackmailers is to tell them to literally "F*** Off!".

Capitalism will do us in. Don't kid yourself.

he's psychic

Of course Jonathan Edwards could beat Toyota to file this patent [uspto.gov].

He's psychic!

I built prior art in 1978

Having read the patent through (and boy is it a chore getting those images of the USPTO server) I am fairly confident that my brother and I built something that did exactly this in about 1978. The problem that we had as this; we had a couple of electric motors in our Lego box that tended to run at different speeds and we didn't have any speed controllers, just on/off switches. We wanted more power for a model car than we could get from one motor so we hooked them together through a differential. Since you could switch the motors on and off independently you could run the output at different speeds. So we had a drive system with two inputs, at least one of which was an electric motor, which could run at varying speeds and which mechanically is identical to what they describe in their patent, more than a decade before it was filed.

I guess I should call Toyota and swear an affidavit for them! Not only is it prior art, but if an 11 year old and a 13 year old can invent it it's arguably obvious too.

Get rid of Patents

Obviously, since Patents now impede progress and innovation on this planet more than they help progress and innovation succeed, we must do away with Patents. Perhaps we should replace the failed Patent concept with something similar to a Public License or Creative Commons License. /anti-patent //has name on a patent

Re:good patent?

FYI: I'm not defending all patents.

That being said: where do you think R&D money comes from?

Once example: You do realize that developing new medicines costs a crapload of money right? You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right? Thankfully, the patents expire and the drugs become generics, bringing costs down.

R&D costs money, plain and simple. One day maybe we will adopt the Star Trek method (everyone works for the common good) but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. Hell I would do it if everyone else would!

Re:good patent?

> That being said: where do you think R&D money comes from?

> Once example: You do realize that developing new medicines costs a crapload of money right?
> You do realize that companies who develop medicines depend on patents to guarantee that it
> cannot be copied so they can make more money and make more medicines right? Thankfully, the
> patents expire and the drugs become generics, bringing costs down.

Pharmaceutical companies do spend a fair amount on R & D. However, it is nowhere near as much as they spend on marketing. The reality is that they are using patents to control the market, not to recoup their R & D investment.

Re:Toyota infringed? never!

Do you work for Ford?

Re:Blah

The physics of aerodynamics pretty much drives the exterior shape of the car if you want to get good highway mileage.

Re:Toyota infringed? never!

Errr... Toyota design and manufacture their own F1 cars in Cologne under the guidance of the two technical directors Mike Gascoyne (chassis) and Luca Marmorini (engine), using software by Dassault Systemes.

"iawtp"

Why "redundant"? I would mod it more along the lines of "funny" or "insightful" myself, and as another AC replying to parent notes, a second post being redundant, howabout that logic there... Look at the timestamp. It's the same MINUTE as the first post.

And it's so true. Every events like this, my own reaction always goes "see, now people must see the insanity and unreasonable arbitraryness of our patent system! . . . oh, who am I fooling."