Jetta hybrid . . . who died

The Jetta isn't a diesel hybrid.

 

But Toyota was NOT involved with suing Ford, or vice/versa, which is what was claimed.

(Why would there BE new news about an old event?)

 

The cross-licensing agreement between Toyota and Ford has been referred to as a "settlement" in various articles I've read over the years. Why would there be a "settlement" or any agreement about cross-licensing of patents but to settle (or avoid) patent infringement litigation? Perhaps I've held onto an incorrect concept across the years that Toyota sued Ford (or vice versa) on hybrid tech patent infringement. Regardless, the two companies settled either existing or pending threatened claims in this manner.

This was a particularly contentious situation as Ford was unveiling their Escape Hybrid concept.

I don't follow. The "new" news on the patent front has to do with the settling of Severinsky's old company's claims against Toyota and Ford. (I think I heard his original patents expired this September.)

 

They didn't settle anything, they made a cross licensing agreement. It happens all the time when companies discover similar, but slightly different things. Both based their work on older work.

The patents were from 1994, I don't know when they expire, or when the settlement with toyota expires.

 

Darn I thought it was you who whined that my articles were old news, when in fact they were true news.

If you are a large multinational who has developed a new widget and when researching getting patents discovers another large multinational already holds the patents you were about to claim, you would settle quickly so your product would not be slowed to market. This has always been Ford's stance.

I am unclear HOW Toyota could know Ford was about to infringe (industrial espionage?) so if the agreement predates the introduction of the Ford Hybrid Escape, it would have to be as Ford claims.

You have tried "I recall", and "IF", and other FUD. Can you find any news (any age) that details this lawsuit that you have in your mind? None of the news sources I found had any Toyota vs Ford lawsuit information, one possible reason why, is there never was such a suit.

I documented Toyota offering licensing terms with Ford, Nissan, and Mazda (Toyota owns some portion of Fuji Heavy Industries who builds Mazdas, so that one is almost a given) Where are your documents?

 

Of course they settled something, or the parties would not have given away licenses to their valued patents. It happens when companies wish to avoid costly and time-consuming patent infringement litigation, and it doesn't happen lightly. The patents have real value as intellectual property. Some of the same patents Toyota shared with Ford in the cross-licensing agreement were licensed to Nissan -- for a fee.

 

There was no lawsuit. There was no settlement or disagreements.

Ford and Toyota agreed that the toyota hybrid patents were a little more valuable and ford included some diesel technology. Toyota got a press release and other things it wanted. Ford and Toyota often cross license technology to each other. There are grey areas in the law, and toyota and ford could be playing lawyer ball instead of making cars.

The deal with nissan was quite different. They sold nissan hybrid parts that used the patents. These parts also used technology that Toyota patented after the agreement, that ford is not licensed for. The cross licensing agreement allows toyota and/or ford to do these things.

 

OK. Now I don't know where this is going. If this is headed the way of name-calling and shows of pride, count me out. I've seen enough of it on PriusChat lately.

So I have thought all along Ford sued Toyota or Toyota sued Ford. I looked today to find info on such a suit and haven't found it. I have found plenty of old articles about the cross-licensing agreement, including ones attributing the act to Ford's fear/concern about being sued by Toyota for infringement. It is clear to me that a lawsuit happened or was imminent, and this is what prompted the parties to reach the cross-licensing agreement. If I'm wrong . . . I don't know -- sue me?

We've gotten pretty far afield from the topic at hand, so I'll try to wrap up what I was trying to get across in the first place.

You posted:

This prompted me to go back to the claims by Ford and Toyota. Ford claimed it developed its own way and that the statements it was licensing HSD from Toyota were simply unfounded rumors. The fact is, they had developed their own ways of taking the TRW and Severinsky concepts and designs to actual market.

Toyota has more hybrid patents worldwide than anyone else, and they seek to protect their rights. They licensed to Ford only after forcing Ford to give up its rights in certain patented technology. The Nissan deal was much simpler -- they came to an agreement on dollars. As you have suggested, Toyota could have held its patents and not sold licenses to Nissan. Whether they could have done the same with Ford is the reason for our discussion, I take it. My guess is you believe Toyota was willing to do it for a price (just as in the Nissan deal), while I feel Toyota would have preferred not to do this and be in a position to get the Highlander Hybrid to market as the first SUV hybrid.

I hoped by injecting my posts in this thread to make the point that Ford had real and valuable intellectual property and wasn't simply buying it from Toyota. Further, Ford was able to succeed in getting its cars to market without facing long-term costs to Toyota. Instead, it has had to pay Severinsky for infringement -- just as Toyota has been forced to do.

 

It is hard to know the 'mindset' of Toyota at the time it cross licensed with Ford. The Mazda document appears to imply their current mindset is very open.

I welcome that, even if it was not the policy in 2004.

 

Toyota didn't have much of a choice with Ford. They would not have had much standing in the court, and would likely have lost, just wasting money on lawyers. Ford would have done a slightly different hybrid in there escape to not infringe. This is what is called a win win agreement. Both companies saved money on lawyers. Toyota was able to claim they had superior hybrid technology. Toyota at the time would have loved to license to other companies for a fee.

GM on the volt was slow to turn on direct connection hybrid mode for fears of patent infringement lawsuits from toyota and ford. There lawyers decided that the lawsuits would not happen.

That sounds about right.

 

I think an interesting sidelight on the patent infringement question relating to hybrid technology is that the first real designers of torque distribution/power split device that eventually became the Hybrid Synergy Drive appear to be some engineers at TRW in Livonia, Michigan.

Their rights appear to have disappeared through the fog of time, but their genius was further developed and refined a generation later by engineers around the world.

 

I hope I have the dates right ..

Toyota brought Prius to market in 1997 in Japan. SEVEN years later Ford brought it's hybrid to market in the US, an SUV called Escape that featured a different ICE, but drivetrain identical to Toyota, using Panasonic battery and a host of licensed patents from Toyota.

I think the only interesting question is why it took Ford 7 years to copy the Prius.

 

Since we're NOT talking about the jetta hybrid, has anyone been watching Dexter this season? Deb really has her hands full!

 

I think I read that the first expires soon or has expired but there's a series of patents going until 2019.

 

Patent swaps are also done when a company wants the rights to another's patents. As you said, they have value, and have been used in place of cash for agreements.

As AG said, the Ford and Toyota agreement was to avoid bringing lawyers and the courts into it. I think the disagreement over using settlement is because no hostile motions where filed with a court. Settlement implies there was a disagreement before hand. There wasn't in this case. Both sides reached an agreement before any ugliness could happen.

Ford was working on a hybrid since the Next Generation... and Supercar projects. The drivetrain isn't identical to Toyota's. They were able to mate it to the existing AWD system on the ICE Escape. Toyota couldn't do that with the Highlander despite the developement and manufacturing costs it could of saved.

Why did it take so long to come to market? I don't know. Corporate culture. Perhaps is was just the cheap gas available then. Japan does have gas prices around the same as Europe's, so there was already a market for fuel misers there. It did take them 3 to 4 years to bring the Prius stateside. Even then, it wasn't a success until the next generation in 2004.

The arrival of the Insight and the Prius may have goaded Ford into doing something with the technology they developed. They payed the price for sitting on it by having to cross license the hybrid patents from Toyota(only 21 of over a hundred). Toyota could have been the ones looking for an agreement.

 

Back to the Jetta.
The hybrid system is more like Hyundai's than Honda's in that it uses clutches to disengage elements.
Depending on the feature comparison, the SE is priced right for the Prius and C-max market.

 

From Wikipedia

 

Using the same supplier does mean the same part is made. Aisin supplies transmissions and other parts to 13 other manufacturers, too. Some going back to the '80s.

The Escape used a different layout with the M/G.

 

OK, I'm game. Show me a link

 

Well, if you mean about Aisin, they are in your link or quote.

Their other customers:
Aisin AI: DaimlerChrysler , Isuzu, Mazda Motor Company, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Motors, General Motors, Daihatsu, Hino Motors, FIAT, Volvo, Jeep, and Porsche
Aisin USA: Honda, General Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, and Nissan

From the Escape page, the line after your quote:

Ford's normal suppliers for transmission parts may not of had the ability of making the PSD gears to the tighter tolerances, or simply would have taken too long to get production up. Perhaps using Aisin was part of the agreement with Toyota. Whatever, Aisin also supplied Ford for the Fusion, which didn't have patent overlap. Until manufacturing was moved in house for their latest hybrids.




The first image is Toyota's HSD. The M/G2 is linked directly to the PSD.
The second is Ford's system. The M/G2 links in on an intermediate shaft. It gives a little bit a flexability in laying out the drivetrain for the vehicle. As opposed to having everything under the hood.

AutoSpeed - Prius Progression
2006 Ford Escape Reviews, Expert Car Reviews on AOL Autos