tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post112661794599434834..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Two-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-40295156865068710992008-01-07T13:32:00.000-06:002008-01-07T13:32:00.000-06:00some more patents of toyota:http://www.mycar.net/t...some more patents of toyota:<BR/><BR/>http://www.mycar.net/toyota1.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1140347224790605432006-02-19T05:07:00.000-06:002006-02-19T05:07:00.000-06:00the patent looks very cryptic, but it appears that...the patent looks very cryptic, but it appears that it is trying to be that way on purpose.<BR/><BR/>what it seems to try to do, is to patent how a differential or a planet gear system works, which intuitively is like trying to patent the wheel. I see that as too broad, and the patent might invalidate itself with respect to this law suit, and to me, that is Solomon's biggest risk.<BR/><BR/>also, a differential by it's very nature is a split power device. the entire patent claims to employ either a diff or a set of planet gears, but not both at one time. reads to be an either or approach.<BR/><BR/>what the patent does attempt to do is to imply that electric motor componets are "rigidly" attached to certain elements of the diff, or of the planet gears. to me, all systems are somehow "rigidly" attached to gears. for instance, A car windshield is rigidly attached the frame, which is rigidly attached to the motor...you get the picture. simply being attached means that the motor is attached to the tranny, which is attached to the driveshaft, etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>to me, the weakness of the patent is not that it does not have merits, but that it's claims are too broad, and fail to corral the whole concept of gearing arrangements that have been around for a very long time. remember, in patent law, all portions of a patent that try to claim previous inventions, existing, or expired inventions invalidate those portions of the patent that are claiming a new invention. even tho the USPTO granted that patent, it doesn't mean that any claims within the patent have a valid merit as new inventions. and because none of their art work appears to resemble any prius component, I don't think the law suit lacks merit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1137161430495511222006-01-13T08:10:00.000-06:002006-01-13T08:10:00.000-06:00May want to read here:http://www.solomontechnologi...May want to read here:<BR/>http://www.solomontechnologies.com/Solomon%20new/installations.html<BR/><BR/>The product IS deployed, just not somewhere YOU can access it. We'll see how far this gets I guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1137158810599703332006-01-13T07:26:00.000-06:002006-01-13T07:26:00.000-06:00Sounds like people who don't make a product are in...Sounds like people who <B>don't</B> make a product are interfering with those who do.<BR/><BR/>I can buy a Toyota Prius to get around town. I can't buy "Solomon's Electric Wheel" so they'll take me nowhere,<BR/><BR/>Its Research In Motion and the Blackberry all over again.<BR/><BR/>Why don't these people have to produce a product? The world could use more products and more competition. <BR/><BR/>Its the capitalist way. Having a bunch of lawyers sitting on a portfolio of patents is anti-capitalistic.<BR/><BR/>It should be illegal to squat non-productively on patente in this manner.Charles-A. Rovirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16533985064280992874noreply@blogger.com