Toyota Builds a Patent Thicket For Hybrid Cars 307
Lorien_the_first_one sends along a WSJ piece reporting on how Toyota is hoping to benefit from new Obama Administration regulations for automobiles here in the US. "Since it started developing the gas-electric Prius more than a decade ago, Toyota has kept its attorneys just as busy as its engineers, meticulously filing for patents on more than 2,000 systems and components for its best-selling hybrid. Its third-generation Prius, which hit showrooms in May, accounts for about half of those patents alone. Toyota's goal: to make it difficult for other auto makers to develop their own hybrids without seeking licensing from Toyota, as Ford Motor Co. already did to make its Escape hybrid and Nissan Motor Co. has for its Altima hybrid."
Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what patents *should* be used for: secure rewards for innovators who take the risk of bringing out a future-leading product.
The US auto companies who had a product vision apparently inspired by Country & Western music unfortunately passed on the opportunity, and now they'll have to pay.
Re:Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)
i agree that American Auto should suck it. The timing around the toyota patents sucks though.
Feet dragging patents may be great for the bottom line and act as some sort of poetic justice, but the patents retard widespread deployment of hybrid vehicles and chokes further development of the technology. by the time some patents would expire (e.g. 20 years), our window to affect climate change may have past.
at least Toyota banks mad cash on their prius in the mean time.
Re: (Score:2)
at least Toyota banks mad cash on their prius in the mean time.
I doubt they make much money off of that thing. They probably make about as much as they do from a Corolla, despite it costing significantly more than a Corolla.
Re:Kudos to them (Score:4, Interesting)
Toyota makes more money off the Greenwashing effect of selling the Prius with the Hybrid Synergy Drivetrain. the brand is so friendly now when you see a Toyota Kluger/Highlander fill up its 72L gas tank, it's perceived as a hipper choice than buying a Trailblazer or Land Rover.
Re: (Score:2)
Is a 72 litre gas tank in an SUV not quite small? My 1996 Peugeot 306 XN has a 50-55 litre tank (although the meter suggests 60L, I have never filled it up that much - I am assuming that includes the reserve) and its a medium sized hatchback.
I would wager that the Tailblazer and the Landy have much more thirsty tanks than the hybrid machine.
Re: (Score:2)
The Blazer and the Disco have no hybrid equivalents. Look at the illusion created by Toyota: the hybrid Highlander looks almost the same as the gas-only Highlander. both benefit from the greenwash even though only one of them is "green". Basically everybody that drives a Toyota benefits from the goodwill achieved with Toyota having a Prius in their lineup.
Through slight of marketing, toyota has turned an untenable product (leviathan class SUV) into something green.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
at least Toyota banks mad cash on their prius in the mean time.
I doubt they make much money off of that thing. They probably make about as much as they do from a Corolla, despite it costing significantly more than a Corolla.
Yes, they probably do: it's a corporate strategy to have approximately flat margins across their model line so that they don't care which toyota you buy, so long as it's a toyota.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Feet dragging patents
There's no other kind. It takes years and years to revise a patent to the point where the USPTO will accept it. I worked at a (software) company that wrote and initially filed a patent in 2000, and it was still not through the process by 2008. Contrary to what many people around here may think, the USPTO does do a fair bit of work to try and make sure that patents are fair, so the process does take time.
Re:Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)
That's debatable. Would Toyota have risked millions (billions?) on developing the technology in the first place if they weren't expecting a big reward if they succeeded. Without patents they would be the big losers now and those who dragged their feet and played it "safe" would be the big winners as they would copy the successful technology without having to risk a dime on developing it. I'm not saying that the current situation is ideal but when criticizing the patents, it's worth remembering the pros as well as the cons.
Re:Kudos to them (Score:5, Interesting)
at least Toyota banks mad cash on their prius in the mean time.
Actually, that's sort of the problem for Toyota. They got hit with a patent judgment [bloomberg.com] over their hybrid vehicles in eastern Texas a couple of years ago. The plaintiff was awarded nearly $100 a vehicle [scribd.com] as an on-going royalty (which is about 17% of Toyota's relatively slim profit margin).
So I agree. Kudos to Toyota for playing the game like it should be played. They got hit pretty hard and they needed to fight fire with fire. Good for them.
Re:Kudos to them (Score:4, Insightful)
by the time some patents would expire (e.g. 20 years), our window to affect climate change may have past.
Presumably Toyota could license the patents to recoup investment costs and make a profit long before they expire. THAT's the way the patent game is supposed to be played. It lowers the barrier to entry for everyone and allows the innovator to profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the government passing tax and trade caps and artificially driving up energy costs will just make Toyota's patents assets that much more valuable. They will be able to recoup their costs and then some several times over in the next 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Your not going to effect climate change within the next 20 years. I'm not trolling or anything but the reality is that every small or third world country that is going to benefit from the tax and trade the US is getting will be adding roughly 8-9 times the amount of carbon we can offset by their increased standards of living. Further more, no one is addressing China which is out polluting the US or India which is growing to be right up there.
Nothing the US or Europe does will cancel out this effect (in the
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing the US or Europe does will cancel out this effect (in the next 20-50 years) unless they cause a massive starvation or die off of their populations.
US & Europe to China: "Get at least as clean as us or we stop trading with you."
Re: (Score:2)
That will not happen. Europe is meeting a lot of their Kyoto compliance through offshoring to china and India. The US has regulated most of it's manufacturing offshore too.
Any efforts to stop trading with China or India or any other country developing will either result in the same pollution going elsewhere or seriously hurt the US and EU hard. And the ability to change that will not be met in 20 years nor will the ability to go green happen at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
but the patents retard widespread deployment of hybrid vehicles and chokes further development of the technology. by the time some patents would expire (e.g. 20 years), our window to affect climate change may have past.
Oh sure, whine about big bad toyota protecting their research, acting as though they'd still behave similarly without patents. Meanwhile, advocate stripping them of their possessions because of the issue of the day - it's too important to make money on!
If we do this to them, we can do it to you down the road. It's not like toyota is just sitting on their laurels here.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, selling was not the problem. Building enough to meet demand was ;-)
Re:Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is exactly what patents *should* be used for: secure rewards for innovators who take the risk of bringing out a future-leading product."
Using them as a weapon against your competition who *laughed at you* all the way into *bankruptcy* is just a bonus, a coup de grace.
Re: (Score:2)
June 1994 -- Le Mans and Chrysler's hybrid (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think Japanese companies were the only ones working on hybrids, take a look at this article from June 1994:
Formula Hybrid at Le Mans [google.com]
The neat idea behind Chrysler's design is that the turbine must be de-coupled from the drive train. The electric engine is the thing that is moving the car. This way the turbine can run at the most efficient RPM.
The fact is that American car companies built cars that could actually make a profit on. Those vehicles were SUV's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a particularly new idea... Diesel-electric submarines were built this way back in the 1930's.
Stop with the conspiracies! (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect. GM *lost* money on many of it cars. I recall the number being around $1,000-$1,500 a vehicle. The SUV's were the only line where they actually made money per car.
Personally, I think GM should have just let the autoworkers pull a world-wide strike years ago. In the long run they would have been ahead even though the short term costs would have been very painful.
There is no conspiracy other than the will to survive. You can see why a company losing money on each car would *have* to fight against further regulation.
one more thing (Score:2)
It seems to me the only organization that came out of this whole bailout was the UAW.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but all too often the /. hivemnind defines "innovator" strictly as "someone I [like|agree with}approve of|all of the above]".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the same argument used for drug price controls - let someone have a breakthrough and then steal their work. All that does is keep people from investing in research. Think about it for a moment. If you spend a year of your time developing a new technology and your competitor proceeds to copy it, then to break even you have to charge a higher price than you competitor would need to since you have a year of your time as an extra cost. The idea is that if the patented idea is good enough, the compet
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no. Pharma corporations don’t spend much of their own dollars in research; most research is done in university, often funded by government grants. What pharma really do is “research” into having the drug approved by authorities, and then spends heavyly on marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
20 years might be a bit much.
Back when patents first came around, that was a different story.
Nowadays, things move a bit faster...
Obvious... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe this has been their plan from day one. While the Prius and their other hybrids have been good for the company both in terms of corporate image and moving vehicles, patent licensing is where the money is.
By cornering the market on hybrid system patents (many of which would also apply to hydrogen and other alternative-energy vehicles), they stand to make a lot more money than just selling their own cars. The Ford Escape hybrid is a perfect example, as Ford licensed Toyota's 1st generation hybrid drive system rather than developing their own (Toyota had already moved on to the newer hybrid system by that point in time).
Disclaimer: I own a Prius
Re:Obvious... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, they developed their own system, and found it to be functionally similar to Toyota's, so rather than embroil themselves in lawsuits with Toyota, they cross-licensed.
Disclaimer: I own an Escape Hybrid.
Re:Obvious... (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, as of just six weeks ago, you have GM clinging to the old line [usatoday.com]: "as long as gas is cheap, Americans will want big, powerful vehicles. He compared [Obama's] policy to trying to fight obesity by having the government require that clothing only be made in small sizes." This after GM already went broke pursuing that strategy, while Toyota is poised to make a killing on their small fuel-efficient cars!
Re:Obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure. The question is, why did Toyota invest its profits from the last generation of technology to stay relevant in a changing world, whereas US car companies almost completely failed to do so?
You mean "were." SUV's are getting dumped in fire sales. This resulted in the bankruptcy of GM, which only accelerated the trend. When the world economy starts to recover and oil prices surge again, will the traditionalists finally realize that the 90s are not coming back?
Now there's the GM mindset in a nutshell: "if toy companies haven't already solved the problem, we're sure not going to try!"
Car makers shouldnt be making these cars anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
They SHOULD be making volt-style plugin series hybrids instead of Prius style parallel hybrids that have a direct connection between the gasoline engine and the wheels
Re: (Score:2)
And series hybrids are better than parallel hybrids because...?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And series hybrids are better than parallel hybrids because...?
In random order:
1: More efficient.
2: Easier to swap out the fuel source (just bolt-in a new generator)
3: You can run the darn things on pure-grid if your trips are short enough
4: Less parts to break.
A parallel hybrid is a full internal combustion-kinetic drivetrain, along with a full electric drivetrain. (Both share parts somewhere between reaction and asphalt.)
A serial hybrid is an internal-combustion GENERATOR that runs a full electric drivetrain. This is how diesel locomotives work.
Marketing speak of so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Don't you incur a net loss in efficiency by converting mechanical power to electrical and back to mechanical?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure the idea is to have the engine spin at the optimally efficient RPM and drive a generator designed to also provide maximum power at that RPM and that will be more efficient than running the engine at any of the range of RPMs required at various speeds.
I don't buy it as :
1. The HSD system already uses a CVT system that keeps the engine damn close to that optimal RPM across the speed range, so I don't see much possible gain there.
2. The obvious conversion losses you mention.
Maybe this is the good kind of patent? (Score:5, Interesting)
If patents are supposedly to encourage new technological developments, without knowing the details, it sounds like this might actually be a responsible use. After all, it gives Toyota a financial incentive to come up with more efficient cars. And the competition is actually licensing it. Unlike in the farmaceutical industry, where companies patent publicly-funded findings from NIH research so that they can be the only ones profiting from it. Or software, where people patent stuff to be able to sue their competitors out of a product space.
Toyota's goal: to protect it's hard work... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's a fact that Toyota's goal is to prevent any one else from making hybrids without licensing?
Or maybe their goal is to protect their hard earned IP that they spent ten years working on while the rest of the world laughed at them?
Good work , Toyota. you deserve those patents.
Re:Toyota's goal: to protect it's hard work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Toyota's goal: to protect it's hard work... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Atkinson cycle engine technology in the Prius is based on the engine invented by Atkinson to avoid Otto's patents on the internal combustion engine. The idea of the patent is to protect the inventor. A side effect of that is to spur creativity in others to develop alternatives that don't violate the patents. That doesn't mean that no one else can make a hybrid without paying Toyota, it means that they can avoid Toyota's patents by inventing a different hybrid technology. I haven't heard of Honda paying Toyota for the hybrid tech they put in the Civic and other hybrid models.
American researchers in universities did a lot of R&D on hybrids back in the '60s - it's time for the American auto companies to continue that.
BTW - my understanding is that Ford didn't pay for Toyota's technology because it was easier than inventing their own. Rather, they invented their own hybrid tech but it was not sufficiently different from Toyota's in the end and they had to pay as a result.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't "have to pay", they just decided to licence Toyota's system because it was very similar and was much, much better than Ford's. So they decided to carry on in the same vein, but skip the R&D and buy a much better performance system "off the shelf" rather than continue to refine their own version, which is a good use of the patent system - Toyota developed it after all, and put in a lot of time and money, so for Ford to benefit from that, they can licence it and get a ready researched system r
it's no secret.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they want people to think they're on top. Unfortunately, the general population still believes that patents reward actual innovation and ingenuity, when actually they reward people that patent general ideas that can be used against the entire industry to kill innovation and make millions of dollars in royalties.
tl;dr: Patents are to make money rather than to protect unique ideas.
Ford does not license Hybrid tech from Toyota (Score:5, Informative)
This is a common misconception, but Ford does not license their hybrid technology from Toyota. Related post at Autoblog where they explain: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/
Re: (Score:2)
US auto makers blew it by mid 2001 (Score:5, Insightful)
They had been working half-assed on hybrids since 1993 and were more than happy to give all that up to take cash from the US government to show million dollar hydrogen prototype cars and trucks. Can you say dumb? Unfortunately, the US government is allowing them to continue operating and sticking US citizens with the bill. IMO, any of those three which couldn't continue operating should have been parted out and the remains crushed like GM did with the EV1. What a waste of money and it is their own fault Toyota is going to stomp on them with patent licensing costs as they should. After all, Toyota was the one who had to endure about 8 years of bashing by the US press and US auto makers for doing hybrid systems. They even had to endure a law suite by Mobile/Texaco when Toyota and Panasonic built prismatic NiMH batteries the oil company said were outside of the NiMH patent licenses which Mobile/Texaco purchased from GM. The large NiMH batteries used in the Rav4 EV had to be discontinued but at a cost of millions of dollars, they were allowed to continue making and using the prismatic design used in the Prius battery packs. Toyota deserves to be rewarded for what they've done with and for hybrid system designs.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
"what does that have to do with not developing hybrids?" it has everything to do with it when they do it to the exclusion of the other technologies. The US auto makers were even anti-hybrid while the Bush/Cheney administration was paying them to go after hydrogen. Toyota has a fuel cell vehicle also but they didn't blink on continuing the hybrid line. I saw it as a way to keep a hand in the market incase there were the required breakthroughs to make them viable. It's the exclusionary aspect of how the Big 3
How much of this is relavent to generic hybrids? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd guess that at least a few of these patents deal with the weird new "cvt" that only uses planetary gears instead of belts or chains, which is a pretty significant and original idea for a car. A simulation of the gear system can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/inachan/prius/planet_e.html [mac.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Defensive not offensive. (Score:3, Interesting)
Useless against patent trolls (Score:3, Interesting)
The typical patent troll is a (usually small) company that does not produce the product itself, but only tries to cash in on the patent. So the patent troll does not violate the defensive patent, and suing them back becomes useless.
Where it works is among companies that actually produce the product in question. Which often ends up in cross-licensing as you correctly observed, and in that context patents might as well not exist at all.
More than a decade ago... (Score:2)
So Toyota is just supposed to let a decade of R&D go out the window? I hate software patents as much as the next person, but Toyota had to invent physical items from scratch in anticipation of high gas prices. They were way ahead of the curve and deserve to be compensated by having their inventions protected for a period of time so they can recoup their costs and make a profit. You want to have a state-of-the-art hybrid? Buy a prius.
Toyota's too late to fully capitalize on that (Score:3, Insightful)
Toyota's goal: to make it difficult for other auto makers to develop their own hybrids without seeking licensing from Toyota
I would like to introduce to you the Ford Fusion Hybrid [usatoday.com], which has been rated above the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima hybrids in numerous reviews.
And while Nissan did license Toyota's hybrid technology, Ford did not. The Ford Fusion Hybrid is the first automotive hybrid drive train to be developed in the US, by a US auto company, and built in North America for an American car. So if Toyota is trying to preemptively squash competition with their patents, they are too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading the review you've linked to, the rating seems entirely subjective. I'll just cite it:
Prius is lower-priced, has about the same room inside, has a handy hatchback configuration, gets better mileage â" and most of those attributes could improve when the 2010 Prius goes on sale in a few months â" so how could Fusion be the best hybrid?
Simple. Fusion drives better. A car is, after all, a driving machine. Brownie points for saving somewhat more fuel or offering a cargo-friendly hatchback, but driving feel is most important.
Also, mileage in particular is noted as mediocre for a hybrid in this review - and isn't that pretty much the defining characteristic for any hybrid?
I just want a goddamned diesel here in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
I went to Toyota's UK site and looked at what's available. Most of the cars there are available with insanely efficient diesel engines, for some cars there's more than one option. And they're more environment friendly, since there's no battery to make and recycle, fuel efficiency is comparable, and the only harmful byproduct is soot, which settles on the ground.
I would LOVE to buy those cars here in the US. Thing is, they're not available here. My plan is to wait until they are, so if Toyota wants to sell me a car, they better offer a diesel one.
Re: (Score:2)
I would LOVE to buy those cars here in the US. Thing is, they're not available here. My plan is to wait until they are, so if Toyota wants to sell me a car, they better offer a diesel one.
Go here:
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml [usa.gov]
or here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/ [congress.org]
Write up a letter, and send it to your:
*-> President
*-> 2 Senators
*-> 1 Representative in Congress ("House")
*-> Governor
*-> 1-3 State Legislators
Tell them that you want a diesel car, and that they should be legal to sell in all 50 states.
Toyota is NOT ignoring the market. The market is just too expensive, confusing, and arbitrary for them to bother with just yet.
Re:I just want a goddamned diesel here in the US (Score:4, Informative)
Bear in mind that the mpg that you are seeing is based on the fact that an Imperial gallon is larger than an US gallon. It is 4.5l for an Imperial gallon to 3.8l for a US gallon. Naturally they get better MPG.
That said the fuel efficiency of diesel cars in Europe is quite astounding, the Audi A2 was the best but no longer in production. The VW Bluemotion Polo and Gold do around 61mpg (US gallon), which is better than a Prius.
More power to 'em (Score:3, Interesting)
Toyota makes fine automobiles and the American big 3 deserve to go bankrupt for the shit vehicles they have been producing up 'til now.
Ford's story is completely different than Nissan's (Score:3, Informative)
From everything I've read, Ford independently developed their hybrid technology, then discovered that it was close enough to Toyota's that they had to license Toyota's patents.
Nissan, on the other hand, is using Toyota technology itself, purchased directly from Toyota, the only major difference being that the gasoline engine part is a Nissan engine as opposed to a Toyota. The electrical bits are 100% Toyota.
hybrids are dead anyway (Score:2)
I don't see hybrids like the Prius going anywhere. Serial hybrids and electric cars are the future.
Since when does Japan care... (Score:4, Interesting)
Since when does Japan care about US Intellectual Property law? Sorry for sounding so harsh, but part of the reason the American semiconductor industry died is the Japanese companies didn't pay licensing on the patents for RAM. It's no wonder they could build it cheaper.
Even today, I have several friends who design stearing columns for most of the major automakers. Toyota buys the minimum run of columns, then takes the shipment and reverse engineers it to build them on their own. No licensing or anything, so my friend's company just barely breaks even (the minimum order is just enough to cover the engineering costs).
So now they're going to use the system that they ignore because they'll make money off of it? Fuck. That. Shit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bill
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Diesel-electric locomotives use the diesel engines to power electric generators that then power individual electric motors at each wheel. The diesel engines are not directly connected to the wheels. The closest car analogue is the Chevy Volt.
Hybrid-electric vehicles, meanwhile, are basically just regular ICE vehicles that share a common driveshaft with an electric motor. They can operate entirely on electric, entirely on the ICE, or combine the two.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be pedantic, historically speaking, there have been series hybrid cars. There just aren't any on the market today.
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
Those are series hybrids, which is how the Chevy Volt will work (when the gas engine is engaged). The Prius is a series hybrid as well (it's got a neat but relatively complicated dual electric motor pseudo-CVT system). Other cars, such as the Honda Insight (the old one, don't know about the new) was a parallel hybrid, where the electric motor provided additional torque, but couldn't run the car alone.
Yeah, it's similar. There are some differences (trains don't generally have to deal with stop-and-go traffic, etc) but the idea isn't too far off.
I remember reading in Forbes years ago that there was a car company (Ford?) who wanted to make a hybrid. They developed their own system and it performed much worse than the Prius (the first gen in the US). That, combined with the fact their system was so similar to Toyota's they were afraid of lawsuits, led them to license the Toyota Hybrid System (THS), which was later named the Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD), since the Fords of the world wouldn't want their cars being powered by a Toyota Hybrid System.
It's a bit of a mess, but at least there are some hybrid cars. As other companies do more of this stuff (like the Volt, the Fusion if it doesn't use the HSD, etc) it will get to the point no one will be able to produce a car without violating patents, so they'll just cross-license everything and things will be the same as they are now.
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it was Ford, and it was functionally similar enough to HSD that upon close inspection, it might as well have been HSD. They licensed the HSD from Toyota while implementing their own design, the licensing done entirely for legal reasons, while they themselves licensed some of their diesel tech to Toyota in exchange. As the article points out, no money changed hands.
Implementation-wise, what you've got is an independent traction motor and a generator that's slaved to the ICE. The generator's engaged when the battery is at low SOC, which you perceive as the engine then starts struggling to both propel the vehicle and charge the battery at the same time. The generator only acts as a motor in the act of starting the ICE. The independent traction motor handles both propulsion and regenerative braking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it was Ford, and it was functionally similar enough to HSD that upon close inspection, it might as well have been HSD. They licensed the HSD from Toyota while implementing their own design, the licensing done entirely for legal reasons, while they themselves licensed some of their diesel tech to Toyota in exchange. As the article points out, no money changed hands.
Ford buys 90% of it's hybrid powertrain from Aisin and Denso (Aisin is part of Toyota, and Denso is practically part of Toyota). Ford never developed a thing. The reason no money changed hands is because they agreed to buy the powertrain from Toyota at ridiculous prices. The whole thing is really quite funny, as Toyota/Denso probably make $1000 for every hybrid Ford sells, and Ford loses around $5000 on each one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nah. The really funny thing is that Ford could have spent money 10 years ago to also develop this stuff when Toyota didn't have any patents on it. Instead they spent the money lobbying congress so that they could continue to build gas guzzlers and wouldn't be bound to California's zero emission standards. In contrast, Toyota saw the writing on the wall and used Ford/GM/Dodge's stalling tactics to get a headstart on where the market would eventually go.
The moral of the story is: don't hold long-term onto sto
But the purpose of research and development... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is to research and develop products for the future, not the present. It's called having "vision" and being able to (correctly) see where the industry was heading, and having products available when they're wanted.
Toyota's understanding of what buyers will value in the future enabled it to identify low emissions as a key selling feature as early as 1992 [hybridcars.com], in the first version of its Earth Charter [toyota.co.jp]. Unlike US automakers, who likely would send this announcement (if it existed at all) to their PR firm to be
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean they never developed a thing? There are very few ways to put an electric motor and a gasoline motor together in a car to make it work. Ford did not license Toyota's hybrid synergy drive. Ford licensed about 20 of Toyota's patents when the Ford developers noticed the similarities. There are hundreds of other patents that went into the Ford Fusion that have nothing else to do with Toyota's hybrid synergy drive.
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
You have the series and parallel confused. A series car typically has the electric motor inline with the engine to provide boost. This is how the original Honda Insight and hybrid Civic work. A parallel hybrid like Toyota's Prius and the Ford Escape can run on any combination of electric and gasoline. It uses a planetary gear assembly with the gasoline engine driving the planets. The sun gear goes to a generator/alternator (that can also be a motor) and the outer ring goes to the wheels and another electric motor. The CVT is basically just how it shunts power between the two motors. Mechanically it's fairly simple. If the gasoline engine dies it can use the electric motors to power itself. If an electric motor dies the car won't move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Prior art? (Score:4, Informative)
I could not tell after reading and rereading your comment if you actually understood the difference between a series and parallel hybrid, so here we go: In a parallel hybrid both the electric motor and the whatever-else motor (gasoline, diesel, air, whatever) drive some wheels somewhere. You could have electric to the front wheels, and gasoline to the rear; that would be a parallel hybrid. In a series hybrid, only the electric motor(s) drive the wheels, and the fuel engine (or whatever) is connected only to a generator which can charge the batteries. The electrical energy from the generator can be added to the output from the batteries to provide power for acceleration, but what is relevant is that there is no mechanical connection between engine and road. If the electrical and fuel engines both go into a single transmission which drives the powertrain, it is a parallel hybrid. Every hybrid currently available from a major automaker is a parallel hybrid, though as others have mentioned there are upcoming series vehicles, like the Volt. In most cases, parallel hybrids can only limp home without gasoline, if they'll even do that. However, in most cases parallel hybrids can be driven in any battery condition (so long as they are undamaged) if you refuel them.
I don't know what "A series car typically has the electric motor inline with the engine to provide boost." means... In cars, boost is what you get from turbocharging... unless you're talking about Knight Rider. A series car by definition does not have the electric motor inline with the engine. AFAIK the only people who ACTUALLY have an electric motor literally in line with the engine is Subaru; I don't know how close they are to production but a year or two ago they demonstrated an Impreza with an automatic trans, and the torque converter replaced with an electric motor. Pretty hot. However, that is a parallel hybrid system...
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of patents is to prevent progress (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit of a mess, but at least there are some hybrid cars. As other companies do more of this stuff (like the Volt, the Fusion if it doesn't use the HSD, etc) it will get to the point no one will be able to produce a car without violating patents, so they'll just cross-license everything and things will be the same as they are now.
The purpose of patents is to prevent progress. It's no longer to permit an inventor to the exclusive use of his art, and perhaps it's never been. There will never be a mass market electric car because these competing companies would rather prevent the electric car than share the market that destroys the internal combustion engine with another carmaker.
Unless we do away with patents. Then it's a race to market with the cleverest implementation of the newest technology you can get, because that's what sells, and every popular feature becomes common (commons?) in a very short time, requiring car makers to make continuous improvement in order to stay in business.
Re:The purpose of patents is to prevent progress (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not trolling, but I think an argument can be made (and has been made in many other slashdot threads) that patents (can) do exactly the opposite - advance progress, in the slightly longer term.
While they arguably can 'prevent' progress in the very short term for someone who doesn't want to license the patent to make a related invention/device, for something that's expensive and/or time-consuming to develop, there is no incentive if someone else can come along and steal the idea immediately. At that point, only the very rich or very altruistic will make inventions.
I am not saying that the ONLY reason people make inventions is to get rich.. but the possibility of that happening is IMHO a reason someone goes beyond just pondering a new idea into developing it further (and/or at least further enough so that someone besides the inventor can use).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Every new thing these days has many parts. No matter how clever you are you are unlikely to discover anything unique that can get to market by itself. And so you are blocked by all the myriad others who got to the patent office before you, or who might have. Instead of spending your time innovating new things you waste your brilliant years playing the patent game. Small inventors have almost no hope any more.
This is not a new thing. I believe the commercial exploitation of the steam engine was blocked
Re: (Score:2)
How many thing were invented and patented in the last 20 years? That is after all, the length of a patent. Not everything or every concept is covered by a patent that is currently valid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't have to be this way. Although the US Constitution allows the Congress the power to grant patents, it in no way compells Congress to do so. If they stopped doing it, the rennaissance of the craft inventor would energize innovation.
Patent statutes have been around for 500 years. When was this patent-free "renaissance of the craft inventor" you hypothesize? 'Cause frankly, there's been a lot more innovation the past 500 years, or even in the past 50 years, than there was in the previous 5000.
Re: (Score:2)
It could also be argued that strict government regulation spurs innovation.
But I have a feeling many slashdotters would disagree with that, just as they disagree about patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The purpose of patents is to prevent progress. It's no longer to permit an inventor to the exclusive use of his art, and perhaps it's never been.
It's true... In the past 500 years in which patent statutes existed, no inventions have been made and we've made absolutely no progress in the technological arts. Why, just going back to the 1980s and the State Street decision legalizing business method patents, there has been absolutely no innovation since.
Re:Prior art? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the prius is a paralell hybrid with electrical and fuel storage. The gas engine can drive the wheels directly. The electric motor can also drive the wheels directly without the gas engine running.
Locomotives wheels are only driven by electric motors, and the electricity comes from the gas engine. There is no direct connection between diesel and wheels. There is also almost no electric storage between diesel and electric motors, so if the diesel engine stops, the electric motors stop.
The prius real advance is the ability to manage and smoothly use whatever power source is best suited at any time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a new word for you: aerodynamics.
Which is a major reason why the Prius and the Isight and the Volt get such good mileage. And look pretty much the same as well. Extremely low drag coefficients. Put a box on four wheels to hold four humans, some cargo, and an engine, and when you get right down to it there's only one optimum shape.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Achievable Cd numbers are pretty close for a wide range of vehicles, so most of the difference in aerodynamic drag is due to the difference in frontal area. There's really no excuse to munt up a car's appearance just to eke out another 2% improvement in Cd when they can reduce actual drag by far more simply by making it a couple of inches narrower.
Re: (Score:2)
On the highway, aerodynamics do play a part. However, I think the engines and their management play a greater role. The Prius uses Atkinson-ized cam timings. That means greater efficiency at the cost of power. Honda, on the other hand, also uses lean-burn and somehow got around the resulting higher NOx production too. And, of course, there's the electric drive which can capture, store, and release kinetic energy in the city.
Re: (Score:2)
half-Japanese girls, half-Japanese hybrid cars
Stop giving them ideas! [wikipedia.org]
I Said God Damn! (Score:2)
El Scorcho! [rhapsody.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what they patented and how willing or unwilling they are to license.
But it comes down to if you improve upon and existing patent you have to license the that patent. If .. you still have to license A. And if you create C that is an improvement on B.. you must license A and B to not be infringing.
B is an improvement on A
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me that a fix to the patent system is a compulsory licensing scheme similar to the copyright royalties board.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want everyone to build hybrids or other efficeint cars, you simply CAN NOT allow one company to have a stranglehold on the technology!
Quite right. As soon as Toyota uses their "mammoth" patent portfolio to keep GM or Ford from making hybrid cars, the government should step in... and institute mandatory licensing of Toyota's patents.
Toyota paid money to develop techology, and then TOLD US HOW THEY DID IT on the condition that they'd get control of who makes it for 15 years. Good for them. GM and Ford have done much the same thing, for a boondoggle more patents. If the private companies cannot find a way to get a profitable margin betwe
Re:The Solution is Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for patent reform, but this seems to me to be a classic case of the appropriate use of patents. The parent is just a moron. Toyota put a helluva lot of money and time into its hybrid technology, why shouldn't it reap the benefits of it, whether through the sale of its own hybrids or by licensing the technology?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Toyota isn't just locking up hybrid patents, they are also locking up fuel cell and control system patents.
I have a Honda Civic Hybrid that just had its hybrid battery die at the 64,000 mile mark. It's well within warranty and Honda r
Re: (Score:2)
They are not. You are free to license the hybrid technology from them or develop your own. All major automakers including VW have patent portfolios numbering tens of thousands that are being licensed and crosslicensed all over the place, this is nothing unusual.
Re:anti-patent patent (Score:4, Interesting)
Volvo licenses their safety patents for free. They consider it for the greater good as well as good marketing. And there are a lot of Volvos on the road. I'm not saying that Toyota should just give away their hybrid patents, but there is precedence of a viable company doing that and making quite a bit of money along the way.
The upshot is that if you believe that global climate change is real, humans have a very small window now to avert disaster - if that windows hasn't closed completely already. I think civilization as we know it and a billion or more human lives, as well as untold numbers of animals kind of take priority over patent rights.
Let Toyota make a profit from the patents but don't allow them to limit competition or to choke off what could be a huge part of preventing disaster. These need to be mandated licensing with arbitrated fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you don't like it you're free to buy Toyota and give us all the patents for free.
but seriously, I get the point. Patents seem to be one more way for the strong to protect themselves from the weak. It is a broken system, but its the only system we've got.