Toyota Builds Thicket of Patents Around Hybrid To Block Competitors

[Sgent]

Source: Wall Street Journal

By JOHN MURPHY

The Obama administration's tough new fuel-efficiency standards could pose problems for some car makers, but Toyota Motor Corp. is hoping to benefit.

The Japanese company is betting the rules will give an advantage to its expanding lineup of hybrid vehicles, and it also aims to boost revenue by licensing to other car makers the patents that protect its fuel-saving technologies.

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.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640553503576637.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[obliviously]

1. If the other car makers

merely copied Toyota the technology would not advance. By having to think for themselves the other companies will come up with new and even more efficient designs.

[Javaman]

20. Plus, if auto manufacturers reverse engineer the same tech...

and show proof they didn't steal the tech, it's really hard for toyota to claim patent infringement.

[Fumesucker]

27. While it's not totally impossible to prove a negative..

It is extremely difficult.

And patented ideas are readily available, you really don't have to reverse engineer them.

[anonymous171]

2. Ah Capitalism. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

3. my guess is that the Japanese would license it to us cheaper than we would license it to them

especially given the greedy industrialists we have in this country. Maybe it is cheaper in the long run the way it is working out. Who wants to pay to re-invent the wheel and throw good money after spent money.

[anonymous171]

4. All industrialists are the same. Doesn't matter which country they are from. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

5. true although at least theirs were smart enough to build better cars with better mileage

ours just scraped the money off the top and let the sediment sink to the bottom

[WriteDown]

19. Ugh...

Do you know why the Prius was created? It was not for any noble purpose.

[Fumesucker]

28. It's obvious..

The Prius was created to garner patents that would lock other manufacturers out of a possibly very lucrative market for hybrid vehicles.

I'm sure that selling cars to consumers was entirely secondary.

[WriteDown]

29. No, it was designed for the Japanese market

who's roads and driving habits are very unique. It is also a market that is virtually closed off from American manufacturers. Not due to tariffs mind you, but due to the simple fact that the Japanese loyally strive to buy Japanese.

[Lionel Mandrake]

50. Ours are the most overpaid in the world.

Often the CEO of a corporation is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors.

These people can steal as much as they want from the company, and it's all legal.

[WriteDown]

16. Yeah, its not like corporate suicide is common in Japan

or anything. I am always amazed at the praise Japanese companies get.

[TankLV]

51. What seems lost on everyone is that Toyota is willing to PUT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY OUT THERE

FOR OTHERS TO USE!

GM and the rest would BUY the "patents" and HIDE IT ALL FOREVER like they have done with ALL OTHER fuel saving technology like better carburetors, etc. FOR OVER NINETY YEARS so they and their DICK CHENEY friend's can continue to SCREW the rest of us and continue to MAKE MILLIONS!!!

[sythe200]

6. These comments are astounding.

Do people here really believe that State enforced monopoly privilege is somehow 'capitalist' or 'free-market'? By preventing other companies from being able to copy and improve on the technology that Toyota has patented they have seriously hindered the advance of the hybrid technology that we all are going to depend on going into the future. Making sure that all hybrids in the future cost more and advance more slowly is a sure way of keeping people from buying them. Not a development I'm looking forward to.

[Fumesucker]

7. If other companies had been researching this area as long and hard as Toyota

We would not be having this conversation since they would have already developed their own technologies.

The early bird gets the worm and in this case Toyota is the earliest bird of all.

And besides, a great many patents can be broken through "prior art" if someone is diligent enough to find that prior art and pursue the case hard enough.

That energy prices would eventually climb and fossil fuel become ever more scarce has been obvious for a long time, why have other companies not invested the time and effort like Toyota to prepare for this eventuality?

[Romulox]

10. Er, surely an automotive expert such as yourself has heard of the Ford Fusion Hybrid?

It's like you developed a rant in 1988 and haven't looked at a newspaper since. :shrug:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=ford+fusion+hybrid+bet&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[Fumesucker]

13. You are saying this article is wrong then?

And that Toyota is not getting a lot of patents that other companies are going to have to license in order to develop hybrid autos?

In fact the big three all developed high mileage prototypes in the late 90's..

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269836.html?page=1

But that doesn't mean the technology has stood still since then.

[Romulox]

14. No. I'm saying your comments are divorced from reality, as per my link. nt

[Fumesucker]

15. If my comments are divorced from reality

Then the article is wrong..

You can't have it both ways.

[Romulox]

18. "Ford Fusion hybrid, the most patented car in history"

No, the article isn't wrong. Neither is the one below. As I said, it's your comments that need to be adjusted to fit the facts. :hi:

More technology than ever before is being added to modern automobiles, and much of this whiz-bang tech has been created to cut down on fuel consumption and reduce emissions. This being the case, it's not particularly surprising to hear that the new 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid holds the title of The Most Patented Car in History. So says Christine Wren, director of business development for The Patent Board, a firm that tracks and analyzes patents across 17 industries globally:

Ford's patented technologies are closer to the cutting edge than its competitors. Ford's overall patent portfolio plays a significant role in serving as a foundation for other technology innovation as shown by receiving 20 percent more citations than the average portfolio in this industry.

Just how many patents are we talking about? Apparently, there are 119 total patents and patent applications for the 2010 Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid alone, including patents related to Ford's proprietary hybrid technology, SmartGuage with EcoGuide, Blind Spot Information System and EasyFuel Capless Fuel-Filler System. Want to know more? Make the jump for the official pres


http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/03/ford-fusion-hybrid-the-most-patented-car-in-history/

[Fumesucker]

21. That article proves the other one wrong..

Thanks..

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. patents are becoming so esoteric that it's impossible for the patent clerks to verify...

... that the ideas are actually patentable.

Thousands of things are patented each year which are prior art, repackaged.

[Fumesucker]

25. I think I made that point in my first post..

But I appreciate you reiterating it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. I'm saying that many of the patents Toyota is grabbing

... are likely questionable.

If that is what you are saying, then we're in agreement.

[Fumesucker]

46. It wouldn't surprise me..

But Toyota has pockets deep enough to vigorously defend their patents, so it may be a moot point.

[amandabeech]

24. Don't forget the Ford Escape hybrid small SUV and its Mercury twin.

I believe that they came out in 2005.

[WriteDown]

17. Yep, like a cancer vaccine or an AIDS vaccine...

If some company is the first to come up with the cure, they should patent every aspect of it right away. That way they can ensure maximum profit. Right?

[Fumesucker]

26. Under our system as currently constituted they would be stupid not to..

Because if they don't, someone else will.

Our system of governance and business is, to a surprising extent, broken and needs a thorough overhaul which I'm virtually positive will never happen.

[WriteDown]

30. What would you suggest?

No patents?

[Fumesucker]

31. There are a great many things patented which really shouldn't be..

As I pointed out in my first post on this thread and another poster reiterated, a lot of patents can be broken through prior art if one does a thorough enough search and pursues the case strongly enough.

Anyone who thinks corporate megabux aren't corrupting the patent process is terminally naive.

[WriteDown]

32. Some examples of things that should not be patented?

Oxyclean? The Wonder Mop? Kaboom?

[Fumesucker]

37. Here are a few horror stories about the patent process..

It can become a real disaster quite often..

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/patnthor.pdf

[WriteDown]

38. Very interesting stories..

but I don't see anything on what shouldn't be patented or solutions to copying.

[Fumesucker]

39. Eh, I'm suprised you read the whole thing that fast..

Several of the items were examples of prior art, where the patents shouldn't have been issued in the first place..

The Grand Fenwick and Sallen & Key patents should never have been issued, particularly the latter one.

From the Sallen & Key example:

His patent was a totally obvious and horrendously bad non-solution to a non-problem.

Patents may not be "obvious to a practitioner", this one was..

[WriteDown]

40. I understand...

but what can be done to prevent that? Also, I see no solution to those that have their patents violated if they don't have the funds to defend it.

[Fumesucker]

41. You disputed that a great many patents should not have been issued in the first place..

I just showed that it is a common occurrence for "obvious to a practitioner" patents to be issued.

A more rigorous patent approval process would be a step in the right direction, but that would require serious money being spent by the patent office, so it is unlikely to happen.

And yes, there is basically no recourse for those who do not have the funds to defend their patents, somehow I don't think Toyota will fall into that category.

[WriteDown]

43. Find where I disputed it.

Maybe we need Einstein working back there :).

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. I think the government should consider exercising eminent domain on some patents. n/t

[hugo_from_TN]

33. That would sure spur innovation.

Err, no it wouldn't actually.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. There are competing interests at work

I don't think there's any shortage of innovation. What is in short supply is competition and government working in the public interest.

Read up on the history of EV-sized NiMh batteries. Chevron owns the patents to them, and it is hard to argue that this has promoted innovation, let alone public interest or competition.

[WriteDown]

36. Sure it has...

Battery technology has come a large way since that battery. I believe panasonic holds the Prius battery patent.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Other battery technologies have been pushed because the NiMh patent...

... has been used as nothing more than a legal mechanism to squash competition.

If I patented the internet, someone would have to devise a workaround. You might call this innovation, but I call it an arbitrary hurdle. Real innovation is promoted by putting novel ideas into the marketplace, not locking them away.

[WriteDown]

44. Not quite...

You do know that the current technology used was a byproduct of the collaboration between Chevron and Panasonic right? NiMH is about obsolete though. Li-Ion is all the power and half the weight. Chevron also doesn't have the only battery in town. If you're really jonesing for NiMH you can always buy from Electro Energy Inc. or Nilar Inc.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. EV technology progress has been demonstrably harmed by chevron sitting on the NiMh patent.

I'm not arguing that Li-ion technology such as LiFePo4 isn't as good or better, I am arguing that if someone had sat on a patent for vulcanized rubber, tire technology would have been held back... the eventual discovery of superior elastomers are irrelevant.

Manufacturers frequently use patents to protect market share to the detriment of innovation and competition.

[WriteDown]

47. How has it been harmed?

Considering they are still using the technology, that seems unlikely.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Large NiMh batteries are only sold to major OEM's

The manufacturer refuses to sell to smaller volume manufacturers.

[WriteDown]

54. Then you can go the other manufacturers I listed....

There are a lot of products you need to buy in large quantities.

[TankLV]

52. Look up the history of the Carburetor - we could have had astronomical fuel efficiencies for over

FIFTY YEARS now...

The Auto and Oil companies have COLLUDED so many times in the past on so many innovations, that it's hard to enumerate them all...

If you don't know or believe this, you haven't been paying attention.

There are countless stories of the Oil or Auto companies buying up the rights to inventions and then just SITTING ON THEM in order to keep THEIR CASH COWS flowing TO THEMSELVES ONLY TO THE DETREMENT OF THE REST OF US!!!

[WriteDown]

53. My 1982 BMW had fuel injection.....

so I'm not sure what you are saying.

[Abq_Sarah]

49. Why should other companies

Be allowed to take what Toyota spent years and millions of dollars to develop and use it without paying?

[melm00se]

8. it's funny....

based upon the comments in this thread, you would think that Toyota was the only manufacturer of hybrid automobiles and that there wasn't a single car company in the USA building hybrids.

So, let's take a look:

Toyota, 3 hybrids
Prius
Camry
Highlander

Honda, 2 Hybrids (and 2 limited release vehicles)
Civic
Insight
Civic GX and FCX Clarity (limited release)

Ford, 4 hybrids
Fusion
Escape
MKZ
Tribute
(plus Volvo brand 2011 releases)

GM, 8 hybids (plus 1 plug-in electric vehicle)
Malibu
VUE
Aura
Silverado
Tahoe
Yukon
Sierra
Escalade
Volt (future release, 2010)

What Toyota has (and could easily lose) is the incumbent spot and brand image.

[Sgent]

9. True....but

Honda gets 20% less gas mileage because they use a work around tech.
Ford licenses their tech from Toyota.
The article didn't mention GM at all.

[Romulox]

12. Ford developed their hybrid technology independently

Moreover, the Fusion does not contain any technology licensed from Toyota. :hi:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/

[Joanne98]

11. NATCH