
Ford Stole Tech for Best-Selling Trucks from MIT, Professors Say - sndean
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-02/best-selling-trucks-use-tech-mit-says-ford-stole-from-professors
======
Animats
The patents (8,069,839, 9,255,519, 9,810,166, and 10,138,826) are strange.
Each describes a system where both gasoline and ethanol are available in
separate tanks and the mixing is controlled to minimize knock. That's a dead
end as a commercial product. The claims, though, were drafted to cover a
system where the fuel enters the cylinder through both a port and direct
injection, allowing some tweaking. It's a stretch to claim these patents cover
a single-fuel engine.

Ford can probably argue that the claims are not supported by the
specification.

------
hn_throwaway_99
I wish journalists would stop using the "theft" metaphor for patent
infringement. It's misleading and wrong, especially when there are other forms
of IP malfeasance (e.g. theft of trade secrets) that are much more
appropriately called "theft".

------
rootusrootus
So they say they own a patent for dual port- and direct-injection? It will be
interesting to see how it plays out; Ford is hardly the only company using the
technique on their DI engines. I also wonder if it will pass a sniff test --
is using traditional port injection on a DI engine novel enough to be
patented? I guess I can see where it might be, but what a low bar for
innovation we have.

~~~
codinger
I wouldn't think it's novel enough. Toyota and Subaru have been using it for
years. I had no idea Ford was doing this as well. It's a good idea. The port
injection prevents carbon buildup on the valves and ports.

~~~
jhallenworld
I have a DI engine (Volkswagen 2.0 TSI), the carbon build-up is very annoying
/ expensive. I think they still have not fixed it, but not entirely sure:

[https://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6984506-What-
Happ...](https://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6984506-What-Happened-To-
The-Dual-Injected-EA888)

~~~
codinger
Oh yeah, I used to have a used BMW with an N54 engine with the same issue. I
ended up buying a media blaster, crushed walnut shells and cleaned up the
ports preemptively.

~~~
justtopost
CRC intake cleaner seems to work the OK for a homegamer solution. Make sure to
follow directions, as they are not obvious. Best used every 20k or so on GDI
engines.

------
jkqwzsoo
I’m confused as to who actually owns the patents. The title says “Ford stole
tech [...] from MIT, professors say”, but the lawsuit is “Ethanol Boosting
Systems LLC v. Ford Motor Co.”.

I’m not certain how IP rights works at MIT, but if the patents are owned by
MIT, wouldn’t MIT be the party that needs to sue? If so, why is it instead
“Ethanol Boosting Systems”? Does _MIT_ feel that MIT IP was stolen?

~~~
wapoamspomw
From the article:

>The professors transferred ownership of their creations to MIT, one of the
premier U.S. research universities, which then granted exclusive patent-
licensing rights to a small company the three men founded, Ethanol Boosting
Systems LLC. EBS offered to license patents on the enhancements to Ford in
2014, but the company declined.

If EBS doesn't get paid, then MIT doesn't get paid.

~~~
jaak
I'm curious as to who funded the research in the first place.

~~~
jtd514
MIT. MIT is not a university, it is a private corporation which monetizes the
research it discovers.

~~~
gotocake
MIT is _also_ a university; the two elements of their existence are
orthogonal, not mutually exclusive.

------
phasetransition
Since the article is not helpful on details:

A Delaware docket search indicates the patents in question are US 8,069,839 B2
;US 9,255,519 B2 ;US 9,810,166 B2 ;US 10,138,826 B2

The 826 issued end of November, 2018. Independent claims 12, 21, and 31 are
for dual injection system engines.

Given that Bloomberg indicate only infringement of one patent, I speculate
that is the 826 patent issued in late 2018. Now that 826 is issued, they are
able to pursue.

826 is a continuation filing in the family that starts with 7,314,033. I
haven't looked at the family, nor tried to make any appraisal of merit.

~~~
phasetransition
Having now looked at the 826 patent, I'm inclined to agree with Animats'
comment elsewhere in this thread regarding the claims vs. the specification,
which plainly shows two separate fuel systems that hold two different fuel
types.

------
gotocake
“Greedy inventors”

Said the car company exec... Jesus what balls. Still, MIT isn’t exactly small
and lacking funding, so I’d expect this to drag on until an inevitable
undisclosed settlement.

------
jhallenworld
Aside from this patent dispute, it's interesting to see if there are any
innovations left for ICEs. I know one idea is camless:

[https://hackaday.com/2016/02/16/where-are-all-the-camless-
en...](https://hackaday.com/2016/02/16/where-are-all-the-camless-engines/)

------
greglindahl
There doesn't appear to be any claim that Ford directly incorporated any MIT
research into their engines? Simultaneous invention happens, and broad patent
claims make it even more likely.

------
eggy
The Ford-MIT Alliance began in 1998. I wonder how much, if any, of Ford's
money paid for the research by the MIT professors[1]claiming patent on their
research.

I would be surprised if MIT-Ford didn't have a lot of legalese set down for
just such an occurrence. MIT has been closely tied to industry for good and
bad.

[1] [http://ssrc.mit.edu/programs/ford-mit-
alliance](http://ssrc.mit.edu/programs/ford-mit-alliance)

------
Hongwei
Curious to see how this goes. IANAL, but wondering why it's taken 3-4 years
for this claim to surface? Is there a statute of limitations on IP
infringement?

If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting
a new technology in every single vehicle I make. So I'm just guessing that
there was some original arrangement which now looks inadequate for the
inventors. That or Ford's lawyers messed up in a big way. Just speculating of
course.

~~~
kposehn
It can take a long time for a lawsuit to actually happen. There's a lot of
ways to drag out negotiations over a patent and it can be a while before both
parties can't come to an agreement, resulting in a suit being filed.

~~~
ceejayoz
Yup. One of the best examples of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns)

A clearly novel invention (intermittent windshield wipers) that took decades
and more than $10M legal fees to get paid for.

~~~
CamperBob2
If I live to be a thousand years old, I'll never understand how that was
considered "novel." But that's just me.

~~~
ceejayoz
Lots of inventions like this seem obvious in _hindsight_.

~~~
yholio
Clearly, without this _invention_ , wipers to this day would still work on a
sigle speed, calibrated for heavy rain. Millions of tons of wasted rubber and
plastic, etc.

~~~
ceejayoz
The specific mechanism was quite clever.

"Someone would've eventually invented this" can be said about everything we
use. Someone would've figured out the Internet, internal combustion, flying,
etc. That doesn't mean it's not a notable accomplishment to do so.

~~~
CamperBob2
But does every "notable accomplishment" require a 20-year monopoly?

Anytime there's a foot race to the patent office, we, the consumers, are the
inevitable loser.

------
watergatorman
I am not taking sides, because today's Ford Co is not saddled with Henry
Ford's controversies, and both MIT and Ford are large organizations. I don't
know who is right, a jury might decide.

There is an interesting movie, "Flash of Genius," about Robert Kearns, an
inventor and his interactions with Ford over the "delayed windshield wiper."

I won't reveal any details over the movie plot but there is a short scene
where Kearns is lecturing his engineering students about engineering ethics,
which reminds me of a documentary by PBS: "NOVA: Holocaust on Trial" (2000)

I cannot find this last movie anywhere, but <youtube> has it available. Should
be mandatory viewing for engineers, but it is difficult to watch or listen to
the details.

~~~
tabtab
The delayed windshield wiper case is not cut and dry (no pun intended). With
solid-state electronics (SSE), a delay circuit using capacitors is relatively
easy to create. Patents are supposed to be "non-obvious". SSE's were
relatively new in the early 60's, but once people got practical experience
with them, a delay circuit is obvious to practitioner in that line of work,
which in theory should make it non-patentable.

It's kind of like "doing X on the Web" patents where X itself is common and/or
unpatentable. Adding web-ness shouldn't change the patentability of X, but for
some odd reason it has. When new parts and tools come along, they make the
mundane possibly seem innovative for a while until people or judges understand
that the new tools are not magic.

The web-based-auction patents are an example. They simply automated manual
auctions; any programmer/analyst with industry experience can do that. Running
it in a browser didn't make it special, but that apparently bedazzled patent
reviewers. (Copyrights can cover look and feel, but I'm talking about
functionality.)

The patent office simply does not take seriously, "must be non-obvious to
persons having ordinary skill in the art". If 90% of experienced
programmer/analysts can code up a web auction system, it's not obvious.

------
exabrial
MIT patented a method and device to make the most useless interior electronics
package and noisy experience for passengers?

------
goldenkey
Just another patent troll, MIT isnt immune or righteous - look what they did
to Aaron Schwartz.

The patent in question describes a two tank system with separate gasoline and
ethanol. Afaik, Ford is not doing anything like that.

