vesmir

Низкий Шанс Запрета ITC решил проблему? Paice только представил их жалобу ITC в прошлом месяце. Шанс, что гибриды Тойоты запретить? Если Вы задаете вопрос как этот, ответ должен быть да. Шанс? Есть сильный шанс? Нет. Но запрет тех гибридов не хорош для Paice … Это не право. Пэйс хочет их запрещенный — и действительно термин здесь исключен. Как только Пэйс выигрывает заказ исключения от ITC, Тойоты в проблеме. Не имеет значения, что Тойота может обратиться то решение. И не имеет значения, что Тойоте можно было бы в конечном счете опрокинуть то решение. Для некоторого неопределенного промежутка времени, возможно месяцы, Тойота застревает без любой способности принести эти новые транспортные средства в Соединенные Штаты и продать им. Думайте о стоимости. Тойота потеряла бы миллионы долларов. Я не могу вообразить Тойоту, позволяющую, которые случаются. Если это действительно случится, то Тойота будет бежать к Paice и договариваться о лицензии. И это не будет на благоприятных сроках Тойоте. Таким образом Paice действительно хочет заказ исключения, потому что это будет пунктом Пэйса рычагов, чтобы обеспечить намного более прибыльное лицензионное соглашение с Тойотой, чем это вышло из 2005 судебных процедур. --------------------------- Узнай первым о новых переводчиках PROMT 9.0 на http://www.promt.ru

Expert Explains Toyota’s Hybrid Patent Problems Published October 5, 2009 P aice LLC, a small Florida-based hybrid car technology company that won a patent infringement case against Toyota in 2005, has now brought a related case to the International Trade Commission, which has the power to ban all Toyota hybrids from the United States. What's at stake for Toyota if its hybrids were banned from the US? In 2008, Alex Severinksy was inducted in the University of Maryland’s Clark School of Engineering “Innovation Hall of Fame,” for his pioneering work in hybrid drivetrain systems. Paice LLC, Severinky's company, continues to fight Toyota for greater leverage over its hybrid patents. "It doesn’t matter that Toyota might eventually have that decision overturned...Toyota would lose millions of dollars," Michael Murphy, a N.C.-based intellectual property lawyer and former electrical engineer, told HybridCars.com. Murphy has a deep understanding of both patent law and hybrid electrical systems. The case won't be decided for another year and a half, but even the slight prospect of losing the case represents another pothole for Toyota, just one year after overtaking General Motors as the world’s largest car company. In recent months, the Japanese company reported its first corporate losses (to the tune of billions), a growing problem with quality, its biggest recall in history, and the decision to close its first factory in the United States. Murphy explained that Paice’s intellectual property holdings consist primarily of patents originated by inventor Dr. Alex Severinsky, a Russian immigrant who is an electrical engineer by training. Severinsky began work on hybrid drivetrain concepts, by his statements, as early as the 1980s. When the US district court in Marshall, Tex.—well-known as a favorable environment for patent holders—ruled that Toyota did indeed infringe upon Paice’s hybrid patent, the court forced the company to pay a “compulsory license” to Paice of about $100 per hybrid car. HybridCars.com spoke with Murphy to learn more about the twists and turns in the story of Toyota's hybrid patent saga. Court Definition of Terms HybridCars.com: What specifically is the innovation that Paice owns? Michael Murphy: At its heart, it’s the cooperative dual management of the internal combustion and the electric motor. Either one is a candidate at any time for providing some of the torque or all of the torque needed to spin the drive wheels. What Paice says is its real innovation is in the fusing of the two, the seamless management of torque from either or both drive inputs. It sounds like Paice made claim to the special sauce that makes a hybrid what it is—the key ability to switch back and forth from electric to internal combustion. If all you were doing was switching from an electric mode to a gas mode, you wouldn’t have infringement. In other words, you wouldn’t have infringement if you made a crude hybrid system that said we’re either running on batteries or we’re running on the gas engine, but never both. Michael Murphy The real point of [Paice’s claimed] sophistication is where you get torque. It may be, under certain conditions, it’s more efficient to get torque from the electric motor. Under other conditions, it’s more efficient to get that from the gas engine. And under other conditions, you want to seamlessly blend torque from both sources. So, it’s in the reading of what’s required based on the needs of the driver and other conditions, and the delivery of torque to satisfy that requirement. Paice would probably describe it a little different. They say their microprocessor-based controller looks at engine speed, motor speed, battery voltage, battery charge, ambient temperature, acceleration, direction, deceleration—all of those things—to make a decision about how much of the torque should be supplied by the engine versus the electric motor. That’s the heart of it. If it was an either-or system, Toyota wouldn’t be in court. Also, it wouldn’t be a very efficient hybrid system.