Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user. If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
It would be very easy(and cheap) for toyota to pen a Cease and Desist letter and send it to him if they believe thier patents or IP has been infringed.
This guy claims hes been working on this for 20 years, if he has documentation to prove that, then he could mount a challenge to Toyota, but hes not going to have the 100's of thousands of dollars to throw at a case that toyota do.
although, i think all toyota's lawyers are busy atm
Shadow wrote:It would be very easy(and cheap) for toyota to pen a Cease and Desist letter and send it to him if they believe thier patents or IP has been infringed.
This guy claims hes been working on this for 20 years, if he has documentation to prove that, then he could mount a challenge to Toyota, but hes not going to have the 100's of thousands of dollars to throw at a case that toyota do.
although, i think all toyota's lawyers are busy atm
Until he tries to put that in a hybrid car, he hasn't gone anywhere near toyota's patents.
Planetary gearboxes have been know for about a thousand years, that concept can't be patented. This is simply a planetary gearbox which at this stage has nothing which can be patented and enforced. You could claim copyright to prevent exact copies, but that's it.
Patents have to be specific to be enforcable and can't cover multiple uses. Mountainbike patents don't apply to motorbikes and vice/versa. Industrial transmissions don't apply to car transmissions and vice/versa.
Shadow wrote:It would be very easy(and cheap) for toyota to pen a Cease and Desist letter and send it to him if they believe thier patents or IP has been infringed.
This guy claims hes been working on this for 20 years, if he has documentation to prove that, then he could mount a challenge to Toyota, but hes not going to have the 100's of thousands of dollars to throw at a case that toyota do.
although, i think all toyota's lawyers are busy atm
Until he tries to put that in a hybrid car, he hasn't gone anywhere near toyota's patents.
Planetary gearboxes have been know for about a thousand years, that concept can't be patented. This is simply a planetary gearbox which at this stage has nothing which can be patented and enforced. You could claim copyright to prevent exact copies, but that's it.
Patents have to be specific to be enforcable and can't cover multiple uses. Mountainbike patents don't apply to motorbikes and vice/versa. Industrial transmissions don't apply to car transmissions and vice/versa.
I would have thought its the use of an electric motor to control the ring gear speed thereby affecting the final ratio that would be the specific point of contention that any attempted legal action would focus on.
PCRman wrote:I would have thought its the use of an electric motor to control the ring gear speed thereby affecting the final ratio that would be the specific point of contention that any attempted legal action would focus on.
KiwiBacon wrote:
Wow, he's filing for worldwide protection. I'll be his patent attorneys are chuckling over this one.
I just read further in. The written opinion seems to say that claims 1-18 were not novel or inventive. Only claim 19 was upheld. Opps, that was issued on the 28th of March 2010 and nothing has been added since.
Inventing stuff, Its harder than it sounds
Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life
'02 NM GLS 3.2DID ARB bar Bushskinz steps Rhino bars front air locker OME susp 265/75R16 AT's
Got to love the legalese requirement for one continuous sentence with minimal punctuation. (Big breath in and here we go...)
"A transmission system having an input shaft for receiving/imparting rotation into the transmission system and an output shaft for delivering rotation from the transmission system, a flywheel component which has a ring gear portion and planet gear portion, wherein rotation of the input shaft causes rotation of the flywheel component, a first transmission shaft and a first transmission component, wherein rotation and/or orbital motion of the flywheel component is affected by the rotation or non-rotation of the first transmission shaft and by the rotation or non-rotation of the first transmission component, a second transmission shaft, wherein the first transmission component rotates if the second transmission shaft rotates, a second transmission component which rotates if the second transmission shaft rotates, wherein rotation or non-rotation of the second transmission component and rotation or non-rotation of the first transmission shaft affect the overall/net output shaft rotation, at least one modulator shaft the rotation or non-rotation of which is linked with the rotation or non-rotation of one of the transmission shafts, wherein a continuously variable accelerating or retarding torque can be applied to the modulator to accelerate or retard the rotation of the transmission shaft with which the modulator is linked, whereby this continuously variable acceleration or retarding of the rotation of the transmission shaft enables continuous variation of the speed and/or direction of the output rotation relative to the input rotation."
Perfectly clear now......
George Carlin, an American Comedian said; "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise that half of them are stupider than that".
KiwiBacon wrote:
Wow, he's filing for worldwide protection. I'll be his patent attorneys are chuckling over this one.
I just read further in. The written opinion seems to say that claims 1-18 were not novel or inventive. Only claim 19 was upheld. Opps, that was issued on the 28th of March 2010 and nothing has been added since.
Inventing stuff, Its harder than it sounds
I haven't read any of the links in this thread, but I was asked by a previous employer to look over a "response" to a patent filing.
One of the company's claims was denied based on the "not novel or inventive" angle, with four examples of previous patents provided as evidence of "prior art" (if that's the appropriate term).
I looked up each of the four examples, and they had nothing to do with our claim, other than the general industry and one or two key words (like "vessel"). Nothing in the four examples came close to negating our claims of novelty or inventiveness.
Having claims 1-18 rejected doesn't necessarily mean they weren't novel or inventive - just that some over-priced, over-educated, inexperienced ignorant muppet had to justify his/her job.
KiwiBacon wrote:
Wow, he's filing for worldwide protection. I'll be his patent attorneys are chuckling over this one.
I just read further in. The written opinion seems to say that claims 1-18 were not novel or inventive. Only claim 19 was upheld. Opps, that was issued on the 28th of March 2010 and nothing has been added since.
Inventing stuff, Its harder than it sounds
I haven't read any of the links in this thread, but I was asked by a previous employer to look over a "response" to a patent filing.
One of the company's claims was denied based on the "not novel or inventive" angle, with four examples of previous patents provided as evidence of "prior art" (if that's the appropriate term).
I looked up each of the four examples, and they had nothing to do with our claim, other than the general industry and one or two key words (like "vessel"). Nothing in the four examples came close to negating our claims of novelty or inventiveness.
Having claims 1-18 rejected doesn't necessarily mean they weren't novel or inventive - just that some over-priced, over-educated, inexperienced ignorant muppet had to justify his/her job.
-Scott- wrote:Having claims 1-18 rejected doesn't necessarily mean they weren't novel or inventive - just that some over-priced, over-educated, inexperienced ignorant muppet had to justify his/her job.
Maybe not in your case, but this one truely offers nothing novel or inventive.
