James Malackowski penned an editorial in today’s Detroit News, improbably arguing that “much of the privately funded green and energy innovation in the United States will stall or likely never come to fruition if the domestic automobile industry fails.” Malackowski reaches this conclusion by comparing the Detroit 3’s patent portfolio in four areas (emission control, hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid/electric tech, and “emerging related technologies developed by these same firms including solar, wind and other green inventions”) with those of 15 other large automakers. His conclusions, presented without sourcing, are that “GM has higher average quality and newer green technology and patents than the other 14 automakers combined”; “Ford and GM together hold approximately a third of all green technology patents and the related value”; “GM has 70 percent of the patents in the emerging technology category. This domestic share increases to 85 percent if Ford is added”; and “Ford owns 30 percent of all patents with a similar related value measure in emission control innovation.” Unfortunately for Malackowski’s argument, comparing the number of held patents is meaningless considering that these innovations are simply not reflected in these firms’ products.
There’s no need to hammer home the mediocrity of Detroit’s technological offerings; Chevy’s mild hybrids, the Escape hybrid’s japanese-sourced transmission, the dismal failure of the two-mode hybrids, Chrysler, the absence of viable hydrogen vehicles, the PNGV dead-end and much more tell the real story. Malackowski simply counts the number of patents held, without analyzing their value or application in consumer products. As we reported back in March, Detroit’s patent filings are on the rise, but not because the amount and quality of new technology innovation is on the rise. OEMs and suppliers are simply filing more lawsuits than ever before, making intellectual property a new and attractive revenue source. Until this technology filters into consumer products, Malackowski’s patent-counting is just patently misleading.
The patent system in the US is broken. Amazon patented “one click shopping.” The number of patents is completely meaningless. They exist for the sole purpose of suing other companies. Look at Microsoft backed SCO’s attempts to blackmail businesses into not adopting Linux.
“[m]uch of the privately funded green and energy innovation in the United States will stall or likely never come to fruition if the domestic automobile industry fails.”
Patents do not disappear. They are recorded. If anything trade secrets might disappear, but not patents. This argument is pathetic Detroit desperation.
1) GM has no money to bring their technology to market. Even if they get bailed out it will only be enough to keep their doors open with their overpaid UAW workers churning out current product so their 8 brands can sell it, while GM attempts in vain to pay of $50 Billion in debt.
GM can’t even decide what channel to put the vaporware Volt in if is ever produced. Chapter 11 re-org without UAW liabilities and the expense of filling and marketing 8 brands would put GM in a much better position to develop for market any viable technology that it does have.
2) Even if they liquidate the patents will still exist, and someone will use them. GM is horrible at bringing innovative products to market, i.e. the Corvair, the Fiero, the EV1 debacle.
If the US wants to develop green technology I would advocate granting, with heavy oversight and patent sharing agreements (one of Bob Dole’s legacies – we give you the money you give us a stake in the patent), $34 Billion to US research universities.
Interesting how were are already talking about them in the past tense.
Unfair slam of the Escape. It’s good technology; even Toyota admits it.
This highlights the problems with the 2.8 quite well. Having good technology is useless if you can’t turn it into a viable business.
Mr. Malackowski should do a study to see how many of those green tech patents from GM are actually incorporated into a vehicle you can buy. I think he would see his favorable numbers go down a bit, no matter the statistical massage performed.
GM had no hybrid because they thought it was a “fad” I believe. Oops. Then they take what appears to me to be a very good hybrid drivetrain from a technical point of view and put it in a….Escalade. GM Ford or Chrysler has yet to build an actual passenger car with a real purpose-built hybrid drivetrain. When the Volt comes out (if) in 2010 (again, if) Toyota will be on the third generation of their hybrid flagship and will have been selling their hybrid flagship for something like six years straight. Ironically, the Volt will be released on the 15th anniversary of the doomed EV1. ‘Nuff said.
CarnotCycle :
I agree with your post but the Prius has been on sale since 1997 (in Japan) so it’ll be 13 years on the market in 2010.
Bancho:
I didn’t realize it was such an “old” car already. Sadly, it reinforces the point even more.
From Mr. Malackowski’s office:
Please read the full white paper which the Detroit News op-ed was based upon:
http://www.oceantomo.com/PDFs/It's_Not_the_Car_JEM_Dec08.pdf
Also unfair slam of the two-mode technology. It’s a great tech which is scaleable from city busses all the way down to small cars.
As long as GM continues to develop the technology and take out cost, it will be a good powertrain option.
Also since the two-mode has only been on sale for one year how can it be called a “dismal failure”?
@ Detroit-Iron:
Are you familiar with the Rambus saga? Some of their actions are a textbook case of how the US Patent system has become a farce to be exploited by the parasitic legal industry.
It’s a great tech which is scaleable from city busses all the way down to small cars.
Really? Then why haven’t they released a hybrid CAR that isn’t a complete joke? Not even talking about a small car here. The Malibu’s system makes a mockery of the term ‘mild’, and it’s a mid-sized car. Where’s the two-mode version?
It’s not like lack of greenness is what actually got Detroit into the hole in the first place. Lack of flexibility, profitability, and efficiency (which is different from greenness) are. Nobody in Congress, and fewer people elsewhere, is actually saying “Why can’t you be more like Toyota?”, but that does need to be asked in terms of figuring out how to do things right.
Of course GM got rid of it’s patent on NiMh batteries within a year after it terminated it’s EV-1 program. And what do you know: to an oil company (Chevron). It should come as no surprise that the good people of Chevron made very sure no big NiMh batteries ever came available for BEV’s.(hybrids are a different story. Since they are only marginally more efficient than ICE cars they have no real impact on oil consumption)
Just goes to show how patents pervert the industry. Many are shelved by companies who seek to eliminate competition for their own product that way. Patent law should be revised so that patent holders rights are limited to compensation when other parties want to use them. The right to block other parties from using tchnology that’s potentially beneficial for humanity is perverse and should be eliminated.
Patents are an inaccurate yardstick here.
When I was an impressionable undergraduate student a girlfriend’s father, who was very highly placed in Sr. management among the then Big 3 told me that it wasn’t so much patents that matter.
Patents – he said – tell the world what you are doing and smart guys can engineer around them. Happens every week in the medical technology world I have since learned.
What matters is trade secrets. Things you know how to do that others don’t.
Besides, those patents are assets that should be sold. Or should, through the beneficence of B. Frank, I become part-owner of the now Big 2.8, I want those patents sold and I want royalties. Now.
Hmmmm, when it’s Ford’s hybrid system, they are accused of ‘using Toyota’s technology’ (rather than independently developing their own technology and paying license fees to avoid expensive litigation), but when it’s Detroit’s patents that are involved we hear about how worthless the patent system is in general and how mediocre Detroit’s technical abilities are in particular. You can say what you will about the managers and executives, but the engineers in Warren, Auburn Hills and Dearborn are world class.
It would be interesting to see GM’s two-mode hybrid system in action on a car instead of a truck. They should have one now. Too bad the morons currently pretending to run GM don’t make the connection between hybrid technology and the market that cares it if’s hybrid or not. You can tell what they were thinking:
“Hybrid” is the fad-buzzword of the day according to market-research pie charts. We need a hybrid system!
What’s our most profitable vehicle? Ladder frame trucks. Well then, put the buzzword on the most profitable thing we sell and they’ll fly off the lots!
We need to put the buzzword on our cars too, but keep it cheap. With a bigger alternator, washing machine motor on an axle, and a couple more Die-Hards, we can sell “hybrid” cars to the masses and not get sued for false advertising…the suckers will never know the difference!
Toyota is obviously “plugged in” to the hybrid scene but they are not anxiously prepping a Synergy Drive Sequoia because they know Sequoia buyers don’t care and they understand who they are trying to sell what to. GM’s management just flies blind by pie charts.
Ronnie, I defended Ford in this very thread.
Ford’s hybrid technology appears to be very good – and their Fusion Hybrid’s numbers appear to be ready to kick ass.
My cynical gut tells me that those patents are used to suppress development of competitive products rather than to advance the development of the better car technology.
I’ll give you an example. Back when Mr. Dyson invented the bagless cyclone vacuum cleaner, he shopped the idea around to the big vacuum cleaner makers, such as hoover. They all passed because they all made money selling bags. Why would they cut off that source of revenue?
So Mr. Dyson decided to make and sell his own cleaner using his idea. The rest, as they say, is history.
It has since been revealed that Hoover did take a serious look at licensing his idea. But they did so with the intent of suppressing it, not developing it. Thankfully, they didn’t buy it.
I would like to see a “use-it or loose-it” clause put in to patent law. There are so many good ideas that are suppressed by those with investments in old business models.
How does a guy get smart enough to research and report on all these patents without learning that the number of patents is pretty much meaningless? The hole in his logic is big enough to drive Hummer through. Is there NO quality control at these papers anymore?
M1EK: Do you really think they’re not working on that?
CarnotCycle: Toyota can’t put the Synergy Drive system into a truck or Sequoia. It’s as large as it can be in the RX400h and Highlander.
Landcrusher, as the woman from Malackowski’s office told us, he bases his views on a white paper from Ocean Tomo. They are a company trying to build a business brokering patents. Although they have some success doing so, I don’t take their views on this seriously.
As others have pointed out in their comments, patents are not products. The patents Detroit has will not keep green cars from getting on the roads.
As a patent attorney for almost twenty years, and as someone who has been heavily involved in green car technology since 2002, I can state fairly confidentally that car patents will not be a key factor. They will play a role in small companies getting financing, but they will not be key.
Even though a patent attorney, I agree with patent law critics. The patent system has long been abused more than used.
Still, those who say that Chevron used the Ovshinsky patents to keep nickel metal hydride batteries from revolutionizing the electric car industry need to check their facts. That’s a myth.
Anyone see this in Freep today?
http://tinyurl.com/5u7cmb
bmmr : anyone see this in Freep today?
http://tinyurl.com/5u7cmb
Um, no.
And I still can’t see it.
What’s the deal with tinyurl.com? I don’t think I’ve ever clicked on a tinyurl.com link and had it work.
Ever.
American patents are all about making the description as vague as possible and suing anyone who remotely appears to infringe on it. They are more scam than protection.
WE can be thankful that old Henry Ford fought the Selden Patent until he won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selden_patent