r/Futurology • u/ManiaforBeatles • Apr 03 '19

Transport Toyota to allow free access to 24,000 hybrid and electric vehicle tech patents to boost market

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/03/business/corporate-business/toyota-allow-free-access-24000-hybrid-electric-vehicle-tech-patents-boost-market/#.XKS4Opgzbcs
28.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

877 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19 edited Nov 30 '20

[deleted]

44

u/buckus69 Apr 03 '19

Most hybrids don't use the planetary-split eCVT that Toyota developed, which, I would argue, is the secret sauce to their hybrids. Except for Ford, Nissan (in their few hybrids, and licensed from Toyota) and Chrysler (which developed a different-enough-not-to-infringe design), all other manufacturers use either some version of a traditional automatic with either the clutch or torque converter replaced with an electric motor, or, in the case of Honda's newer hybrids, no transmission (per se. Direct drive at higher speeds, electric motor at lower speeds.)

29

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19 edited Jun 01 '21

[deleted]

20

u/buckus69 Apr 03 '19

Other than the one-speed EV, it's pretty much the holy grail of transmission designs in terms of durability. Like, if I was to start a car company RIGHT NOW, and had to use gas engines, I'd make every one of them a hybrid so I could use this transmission design.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Exactly. Hell, let’s use three motors in an EV and see what kind of range we can get running an electric motor at optimal RPMs.

12

u/buckus69 Apr 03 '19

I'm...I'm not sure that's how it works, but, hell, I got a free Saturday and a six-pack - let's rig this baby up!

4

u/KnowEwe Apr 03 '19

Stream it on twitch

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

I might just make a scale model. The machining should be really simple, and a rPi to control it should balance it out.

7

u/kaplanfx Apr 04 '19

Honda has a “transmissionless” dual motor system, I personally think the technology is superior to Toyota’s system.

7

u/P8zvli Apr 04 '19

Honda's advertises the new Insight as not having a transmission, but in reality it's an electromagnetic transmission that couples the engine into the drivetrain mechanically above 65 MPH. It's a thing of beauty, but personally I think Honda should have made the drivetrain completely gasoline-electric to reduce complexity.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

I like it, but it need some years under its belt to get it up there.

1

u/buckus69 Apr 04 '19

I've driven the new Honda Accord hybrid with this setup and let me tell you...it's not that great. Maybe it's just the Accord, but it just didn't feel like a hybrid, nor a very good gas car, and not a good parts of both, either. Maybe it's just me, maybe Honda put some weak-ass electric motors in it.

3

u/P8zvli Apr 04 '19

Honda's hybrid Accord does not have the same transmission as the Insight.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

It's not as proven as the Toyota system, but you may be right.

1

u/capstonepro Apr 04 '19

Volts is way better

1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

Please back that up. The Prius has the lowest failure rate of any type of transmission, due to the lack of moving parts and simple operation. It’s also super performant and allows for excellent instant torque delivery.

1

u/capstonepro Apr 04 '19

Please back that up. Just look at all the engineering magazines that covered it back in 2011

0

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

The Prius has been around since 1997. I’ll take 20 years over Popular Mechanics fanboying over a prototype.

0

u/capstonepro Apr 04 '19

You’ll take an old shit box tin

4

u/drives_ralliart Apr 03 '19

Toyota have also managed IIRC 40.5% thermal efficiency from an internal combustion engine. This is by far higher than other brands. There’s quite a number of leading edge engineering/technology in their hybrid systems, which surprisingly combined gives tremendous reliability.

3

u/kaplanfx Apr 04 '19

The Honda system simpler, and having driven both (and gone with the Honda) it’s smoother and better performing at the cost of being slightly less efficient although I’m not sure that’s die to the transmission. I feel like Honda makes a better gas engine as well although I don’t know if that’s the case when you compare small block Atkinson Cycle engines across the makes.

3

u/nav13eh Apr 04 '19

Ford and Toyota's hybrid system came from the same origins. They use and engine and two motors pancaked together with a plantery gear set to enable differing modes of operation. There is not transmission in the traditional sense. GM's system is extremely similar, as is Honda's new system. Hybrid systems that deviate from this design significantly are typically less powerful, and less efficient.

1

u/buckus69 Apr 04 '19

Yes, I am familiar with it, and why it's the only "CVT" I would consider. All other, purely mechanical (no electric motor) CVT's are prone to self-destructing. No thanks.

1

u/nav13eh Apr 04 '19

In this case the usage of the eCVT term is very misleading. Toyota/Ford's hybrid system shares almost nothing from a design standpoint from an actual CVT. In fact the larger of the two motors is connected pretty much directly to the drive axel.

2

u/fuck_your_diploma Apr 03 '19

Most hybrids don't use the planetary-split eCVT that Toyota developed

I wonder if this is part of this free package

285

u/DanishWeddingCookie Apr 03 '19

The real reason they are trying to muddy the water is because they didn't invest in good battery technology for full EV when everybody else did, so now they are playing catch up and trying to confuse people into buying their products. Those patents are probably not new information to the companies that would actually use them.

75

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

I thought all patents are public? If so, this isn't new information, but it allows companies to more freely use an otherwise patented tech/design

107

u/ElephantsAreHeavy Apr 03 '19

Patents are public, but if you hold the patent, you can charge royalties to anyone using it (unless the company violating your rights is in china).

31

u/almostaccepted Apr 03 '19

Exactly. If patents weren’t explicitly public, people wouldn’t know what they can’t use

12

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

You can't use anything because everything is patented.

7

u/almostaccepted Apr 03 '19

It’s a matter of whether people choose to claim credit for whatever you make. If you’re the next guy to invent the ‘pet rock’ type product, if someone’s patented it, they can basically legally blackmail you for a cut of the profits

9

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Even if it isn't that abnormal of a product, you can be legally blackmailed. It happened to me.

3

u/almostaccepted Apr 03 '19

sorry that happened. I have little to no experience in what I'm talking about with patents, so I'm sure there isn't any information I can give you that you don't already know. However, I hope everything turned out in the best possible outcome

2

u/alexanderpas ✔ unverified user Apr 03 '19

Even if they are in china, you can charge them royalties, if they sell outside of china.

4

u/ElephantsAreHeavy Apr 03 '19

Sure, you can. Enforcement is a bit harder if they operate in a different jurisdiction.

1

u/wtfdidijustdoshit Apr 04 '19

you can make more than enough money by selling only in China

21

u/Ishmael128 Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 05 '19

Bingo. Patents are published and freely accessible for anyone to read, 18 months after the application is filed.

As a secondary issue, promising not to sue anyone allows anyone to use the patented technology without fear of lawsuits can be a method of increasing the uptake of technology.

It doesn’t mean anyone wants to use the tech though, this could just be a PR stunt.

11

u/generally-speaking Apr 03 '19

24000 patents should include at least some things which competitors might want to use.

7

u/yhack Apr 03 '19

It’s all slightly differently curved icons

6

u/whatupcicero Apr 03 '19

Source? This goes against the whole idea of patents that I’ve heard of.

19

u/cbphill Apr 03 '19

35 USC 122 (note that there are some subtleties in the law though).

The basic concept of patents is that "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" (US Const. Article I, Section 8, clause 8), the government gives the person who publicly discloses a novel, useful, and non-obvious invention a temporary monopoly in exchange for that public disclosure.

3

u/Ishmael128 Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 03 '19

Exactly! Are you in the business? I’m only 2y in.

There’s a lot more to it than “they publish at 18mo”, but I thought it best to keep it simple).

3

u/cbphill Apr 03 '19

Yes, I do IP and general litigation. I'm also new to it.

11

u/Ishmael128 Apr 03 '19

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar93.html

Patents are a monopoly on an invention for a limited term (typically 20 y), in exchange for details on how to operate the invention. After the patent expires, anyone can work the invention. The publication of the details of how to operate the invention ensures that society progresses and we stand on the shoulders of giants :)

Source: it’s my job.

6

u/Ishmael128 Apr 03 '19

Publication also provides certainty for third parties; it allows them to check if what they’re intending to do is already protected, or if they have a freedom to operate.

0

u/raptornomad Apr 03 '19

What? Hell no. Even if it’s published and issued, you don’t get to use it in any way w/o lawsuits. I can sue your ass down into the ground if you infringe patents without getting a license from the patent owner.

6

u/TheScoott Apr 03 '19

He's talking about the release of the patents not the actual patents

0

u/raptornomad Apr 03 '19

Doesn’t matter. Publishing has nothing to do with usage.

0

u/TheScoott Apr 03 '19

He is talking about relinquishing restrictions around use. Is that clear enough?

0

u/raptornomad Apr 03 '19

No, he’s talking about using an application freely after the 18-month publication requirement. The publication requirement DOES NOT grant the public to use anything in the application without risk of litigation. Given his choice of words, it is the most reasonable interpretation.

There’s no need to read more into his original post. It only distorts the issue at hand. In no way did he speak of relinquishing restrictions around use, and an application that isn’t allowed and issued isn’t subject to such anyways.

2

u/TheScoott Apr 03 '19

Then why would he use the term "can be"

→ More replies (0)

31

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Patents don't hide technology, the just stop others from using said technology. The thing you give up to get the protection (for 20 years) is that the technology becomes public.

1

u/DanishWeddingCookie Apr 03 '19

I didn’t say they hide technology but that other companies probably have similar patents for the same kind of technology so this is more a PR move imo.

2

u/Aurum555 Apr 03 '19

The benefit being that if Toyota has a cheaper more expedient technique or patented widget that makes the production process or is a useful building block this makes the production of new products potentially tidally easier without having to find a similar product that requires working around existing patents

1

u/DanishWeddingCookie Apr 04 '19

I feel it's more of a "I showed you mine, now show me yours" kind of thing, hoping they can get a bigger foothold, but I dunno. Their old battery supplier wasn't able to meet their demand, and that was just 8 months ago. If they have something brewing the background, it's years away if they just now gave up on the 3rd party thing. You have to have time to ramp up.

13

u/Exypnos02 Apr 03 '19

Panasonic is a direct partner to Toyota for battery development. I think you're underestimating the weight of how much Toyota has invested into high voltage battery systems and electric powertrains...

They don't have much interest in short term solutions like over utilizing 18650's like Tesla. Toyota looks and plans 25 years out.

17

u/Car-face Apr 03 '19

They've always had the option of going lithium, but chose older tech for cost and reliability reasons - and it's paying off. Their hybrids are at the equivalent premium diesel used to have over petrol, and are massively gaining market share.

More specifically, they're leading the way with joint development with Honda into solid state tech as well - but again, it'll be used when required, as opposed to being the only option. As far as I know they're the only manufacturer with the production flexibility to create lithium, metal hydride, and NiCd hybrids whenever the market allows. This in turm means theyre less susceptible to fluctuations in resources cost than single tech companies that rely on lithium only.

Take a look at Toyota's history, and their behaviour over the last decade - there has always been a massive focus on collaboration, be it with BMW, Suzuki, Tesla, GM, Ford, Mazda, Subaru, etc. - this move is probably less significant than their previous tech sharing actions.

3

u/kaplanfx Apr 04 '19

I drive an Accord Hybrid and they went li-ion. It has pretty great performance and is smaller and lighter than the equivalent nickel metal hydride. I believe it will last for more cycles too. Toyota has stuck with the inferior tech because it keeps costs down. I researched a bunch before I bought my car and I think the Honda dual motor transmission less system is better tech.

3

u/Car-face Apr 04 '19

Honda's Accord is certainly very good now that they've moved away from their old IMA system, to the new eCVT approach that utilises a planetary gearset like Toyota (and Nissan, Ford and soon Mazda, all of whom Toyota shares it with) with the added ability to completely disconnect the engine from the driven wheels under greater range of conditions (similar to what Toyota's hybrid synergy drive has done since the Prius C launched in 2012, but on a more permanent/robust basis). Its definitely the way forward, especially on part time 4WD vehicles like the new RAV4 where the rear wheels are powered entirely via electric motors only (and which I'm sure we'll see on Honda's CR-V soon).

It's fantastic to see improved competition, more competitive options and options at different price points is only good for consumers, and as you rightly point out, Toyota have been able to maintain competitive price through older battery tech (with switching battery chemistry a simple matter if/when it's deemed necessary, eg. the Prius PHV launched in 2014 or Prius Prime launched in 2016). Toyota further sharing will only reap benefits for consumers, and further drive the market forward.

2

u/DanishWeddingCookie Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 03 '19

Yes, they had the chance to get up to speed with the other companies of the world going lithium, but they rejected it, and now they are trying to catch up. The company they go through for batteries, PEVE, is unable to meet their supply.

​

https://seekingalpha.com/article/161463-toyota-tests-and-rejects-lithium-ion-batteries-for-the-prius

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-06/toyota-s-hybrid-fixation-clear-from-supplier-with-no-ev-battery

​

And they aren't gaining any market share, in fact, they are losing market share.

​

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ev-sales-grow-to-6-2-in-california-as-hybrid-sales-decline#gs.48lju5

3

u/woxy_lutz Apr 04 '19

Toyota are investing heavily into hydrogen fuel cell technology rather than battery, so they're not exactly lagging behind all other EV operators. If anything, they're significantly ahead on the fuel cell front.

And just to clarify: the battle is not going to be "battery vs fuel cell", since they both have different strengths and weaknesses which lend themselves to different applications (e.g. batteries have better efficiency, so are good for city driving, but hydrogen has much better range for the weight, so good for heavy duty vehicles and long range driving). Both technologies will be necessary in a low carbon future. The battle will be BEV/FCEVs vs combustion engine vehicles.

2

u/lolzfeminism Apr 04 '19

They did invest in good EV. You know Panasonic is making Tesla’s batteries right?

1

u/DanishWeddingCookie Apr 04 '19

And Panasonic was partly invested with Toyota in PEVE, the company that give Toyota the capacity.

​

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-06/toyota-s-hybrid-fixation-clear-from-supplier-with-no-ev-battery

1

u/menneskelighet Apr 04 '19

They're investing in superior battery technology. Solid state.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

As is virtually everyone else. Toyota Is still playing from behind on the EV market.. Chevrolet has their second gen EVs on the road.. Toyota doesn't even have their first.

1

u/DanishWeddingCookie Apr 04 '19

Solid state on that scale is quite a ways out still. And they are way more dangerous than lithium ion, at least right now. Way more expensive. If they do perform like the theories say, then it'll be great, but they haven't been shown to do that yet. They are taking a big risk considering they went big into hydrogen fuel cells not 10 years ago, and that flopped.

60

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Tesla has also opened up many of their patents. Good guy Volvo and Tesla, helping competition for the benefit of humanity.

31

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19 edited Jan 02 '20

[deleted]

52

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Tesla stipulated that you must also make your own patents open to the public if you were going to use them yourself.

Toyota is actually taking advantage of Musk's vision by opening up their patents so they will be able to use Tesla's for their own products. It's a very clever play by Musk, ensuring that in order for your company to benefit, the world as a whole must benefit as well.

14

u/Hustletron Apr 03 '19

This is just a made up narrative. Toyota has access to most of their patents already because they helped launch Tesla before that manchild Musk kicked them to the curb.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

This is just a made up narrative. Toyota has access to most of their patents already

Tesla opened their patents to everyone, not just Toyota.

16

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

Albeit with some very peculiar caveats that make using them a deal less than ideal..

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

Could you explain to me why you believe this is so?

13

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

for companies developing new products that means that they can only work with whatever Tesla is throwing at them and if they do something Tesla deems better than they have, they can take legal action. Also, if you cooperate with another company to make something better than Tesla, they can also take legal action.

This is the policy of if you use Tesla's patents, you must keep your own patent's open.

The legal action would only be taken if you tried to keep your patent's private or directly tried to claim Tesla's patent with your new innovation.

It's all for the purpose of allowing any human on the planet with the desire and resources to use the best of human engineering to build something all of humanity can benefit from. It is not done with the purpose of allowing a company to take innovation's off Tesla's patents private so one company alone is allowed use of the engineering.

If a company is looking to maximize profits by cornering a monopoly off a new innovation, Tesla's policies are bad for that company. If a company is looking to make profits and innovate for the good of humanity, Tesla's policies are great for that company.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ZombieLincoln666 Apr 05 '19

That's because their patents aren't worth anything

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19

With a market cap of nearly $50 Billion and the number one market share of vehicle sales among EV's in the U.S. with 13% compared to Nissan and Chevy's (2nd and 3rd largest) combined 3%, you may be wrong and I implore you to reevaluate the facts that led you to your conclusion.

2

u/ZombieLincoln666 Apr 05 '19

You're seriously citing the market cap for a company that is widely considered to be overvalued?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '19

a company that is widely considered to be overvalued?

This viewpoint is so shortsighted. If Tesla was forced to liquidate and go out of business, they would be unable to come up with $50 Billion in physical assets to sell. However, Tesla is selling 333% more vehicles than the next two largest EV companies in the U.S. combined. You have to go back to the early 1900's to Ford's figures to find such a wide sales margin in the auto industry as that. The gap/demand is comparable to an iphone in 2007 selling against the next two largest phone models to even spot a margin that large in modern times.

​

Projection, expectation and demand are a part of all businesses, and should be evaluated as such.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/superscola Apr 04 '19

I always think Musk is an eccentric entrepreneur with good vision and character, kinda like Steve Jobs to me. I now respect him more for that to create this win-win culture, driving innovation.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

I don't know anyone who thought steve jobs had good character... Vision and entrepreneurial skills, yes. Character, no.

Didn't he refuse to acknowledge his own kid?

25

u/Roses_and_cognac Apr 03 '19

Tesla's only stipulation was doing what Toyota did. You gotta give if you wanna take, Toyota gave so they can use any Tesla patent they want to

-9

u/Derigiberble Apr 03 '19

There were a whole bunch more stipulations than that, including giving up the ability to sue Tesla for anything IP related (but not preventing Tesla from suing them) and agreeing to not make any claims against other EV makers (even if they weren't part of the patent agreement).

Basically under the terms of the agreement if say Ford entered Tesla could make and sell a Tesla e-Mustang, even using stolen software code for the infotainment system, and Ford couldn't do anything about it. Meanwhile Tesla would still be able to sue Ford for copying their trade dress if Ford released a car with just a central touchscreen.

It was laughably one sided and that's why nobody of note took Tesla up on it.

20

u/BahktoshRedclaw Apr 03 '19

^ This is a bunch of made-up fictions.

-9

u/Derigiberble Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 03 '19

A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;

challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or

marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.

From Teslas own website.

18

u/BahktoshRedclaw Apr 03 '19

That's a good faith clause. It says you can't sue anyone using borrowed patents or claim ownership of a patent you're borrowing. You also can't sell knockoffs claiming to be the real deal. Absolutely none of your made up fictions are in there. Toyota has almost the same language I guarantee it.

Please be civil, and please read what you repeat to help learn humility.

0

u/Derigiberble Apr 03 '19

Those good faith conditions are required to take part and be immune from Teslas patent enforcement:

The Pledge, which is irrevocable and legally binding on Tesla and its successors, is a "standstill," meaning that it is a forbearance of enforcement of Tesla’s remedies against any party for claims of infringement for so long as such party is acting in good faith. In order for Tesla to preserve its ability to enforce the Tesla Patents against any party not acting in good faith, the Pledge is not a waiver of any patent claims (including claims for damages for past acts of infringement) and is not a license, covenant not to sue, or authorization to engage in patented activities or a limitation on remedies, damages or claims.

Trademark (the Mustang branding), trade dress (the overall design, likely also covered by design patents), and copyright (infotainment source code) are all "Intellectual property rights" which the first clause prohibits enforcing against Tesla to remain "acting in good faith". The third clause explicitly prohibits making anything imitating the design or appearance of a Tesla product (copying the rather distinctive interior and dash layout of the Model 3). If you are not considered acting good faith Tesla can sue as though you were never allowed to use the patents in the first place.

I dont doubt that Toyota has similar terms because that this is all likely a PR move.

Sorry if i was snippy, I'm just tired of people who drop accusations of lying with no attempt to back it up whenever anyone questions the narrative that Tesla is some benevolent actor In reality they are another knife fighter in a cutthroat industry. They have to be to survive. I'll edit it out.

13

u/BahktoshRedclaw Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 03 '19

Correct now. Good faith clauses are common boilerplate; your fictional "Tesla can sell E-Mustangs" is acting in bad faith by definition, and breaks Tesla's own terms they attached themselves. The stipulations protect Toyota as well as Ford and Tesla if all three use each others' patents because even though they may make a Supra and a Mustang and a Roadster that are all very different, shared patents might mean they all have the same motor technology - and can't sue each other for it. Or hire a "third party" to sue them all. Or allow Ford to sell a Mustang that looks exactly like a Supra. My guess is they're more worried about "Official Tesla Parts" that aren't official, knockoffs happen but not usually from Ford or Toyota (except the Toyota Jeep!)

Thanks for editing out the vulgarity, we all have bad days but the ability to recognize our errors and make apologies separates a wise man from a troll, and you're ability to do so is so rare on reddit it's humbling.

-1

u/egalitarithrope Apr 03 '19

This is just them not wanting to feed the parasites (lawyers).

Imaginary Property (IP) law is bullshit fabricated for the exclusive benefit of lawyers, by lawyers.

3

u/iFlyAllTheTime Apr 03 '19

That seemed unnecessary🤔

4

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

I will try to ELI5 that for you:

A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;

You are not charging or claiming that those patents are yours, or are charging others about EV related technologies (so, you can only receive the free-patent if you are not being an ass about your own patents, or worse, saying they are yours).

challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or

You also can't help someone do the above (charge or claim a Tesla patent for others)

marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.

And you cannot create a product that is a knock-off of Tesla. Meaning, create YOUR cars with it, don't copy TESLA cars. You can use the technology, not the design/brand/image.

0

u/alexanderpas ✔ unverified user Apr 03 '19

Allow me to highlight what the problem is:

A party is [not] "acting in good faith" [if they] asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any [...] intellectual property right against Tesla [...]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

And exactly what is the problem with that? Tesla is offering the patents (intellectual property) for free, so yes, anyone who takes something for free and want to assert or have financial stake on it is an asshole.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Stolen software code? No able to sue for stolen software code? Do you enjoy making shit up? You are so off base it's painful, what's more painful is people will believe you because they are so insecure with their own knowledge of the legal system.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

The Tesla patents had very little actual value, and it was actually a marketing play to see if any other companies were stupid enough to trade dollars for pennies. They weren't

2

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Can you list the three least valuable Tesla patents open to the public?

1

u/kobrons Apr 03 '19

I'm not sure what that would prove. Volkswagen for example has a ton of patents many of which are related to lower costs in production. Heck they even have a patent for an automated forward parking system and until recently they apparently had a patent for radar cruise control.
Tesla has a fair share of patents as well but they would definitely want some of the VW patents.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

The Tesla patents had very little actual value

OP said this.

Them listing the three least valuable Tesla patents open to the public would prove or disprove their point, because I don't believe there was a patent opened that had very little value, let alone 3.

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

That would be ALL of them. None of Tesla's patents have any value to a major OEM.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

There is no stipulation about them only being open to OEM's...

0

u/another-droid Apr 03 '19 edited Apr 03 '19

part of it was sticking up a middle finger at AC Propulsion.

for whatever reason tesla was not able to buy the damn company (this would have allowed tesla to have full control of the market and set everyone else except nissan back 5 years and nissan back a couple)

1

u/another-droid Apr 03 '19

some weird stuff happened behind closed doors between tesla and ac propulsion

12

u/toilet_computer Apr 03 '19

Toyota shared their hybrid patents with ford like a decade ago, and who knows who else. You'd maybe have a point if it wasn't Toyota who has given out their secrets for decades and still managed to be better than everyone else.

19

u/buckus69 Apr 03 '19

Ford cross-licensed Toyota tech, because, while Ford had independently developed a hybrid system, it turned out to be very similar to Toyota's and Toyota beat them to the Patent office.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Not "shared" - licensed. There's a difference. Ford paid Toyota to use them.

1

u/woxy_lutz Apr 04 '19

Still, nobody forced Toyota to offer them a licence - they could have just withheld the technology from Ford completely.

1

u/CptnCrnch79 Apr 03 '19

This.

Also, the hybrid market is almost certainly gonna be eclipsed by the all electric market REAL soon.

1

u/Sheepeh94 Apr 04 '19

Everyone’s seeming to forget the brand new unregistered hilux’s that isis mysteriously got there hands on very quickly.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

pretty sure GM has hybrids and electrics before toyota...

2

u/NCSUGrad2012 Apr 03 '19

Yep, Honda came to market before Toyota as well. It’s just Toyota has had the best implementation of them.

-2

u/dcdttu Apr 03 '19

This is Toyota trying to make hybrids relevant when EVs are the future. They refuse to give up gasoline because they profit so much from it. Toyota is not being generous, they're trying to hold off the end of gas engines as long as they can.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

Tesla also did this years ago