After 4 weeks - Ron's '13 SR5 vs '04 Discovery

[Antman]

Are you at the library?

Beat me to it. DAMN YOU! HAHA!!

 

[thebwlife]

No cell phone, cable tv or internet here either. Loving life without all the distractions.:banana:

You borrowed a pen and napkin from a bus stop wrote this out and mailed it in to the forum.

 

[philsey]

I need one for work......

Hmmm. Work. Work? Work? WORK?

Yeah, I'm tryin' to visualize it, but I'm not getting anything...

:cheers:

 

[Jetboy]

Because they have the concept (utility is the proper name but I think in terms of concept) patent and that trumps a design patent. When that happens you "license" the concept, retain the patents and collect the money. The other guy that purchased the "license" can now use it according to the licensing agreement, which when dealing with components and assemblies, usually means they can modify and change for their own use. The concept is key though because you have to substantially change a key parameter(s) in order to have a new concept. Changing the wiring, sensors or such things to improve reliability or even operation does not change the concept.

So you're licensing the technology protected by the patent? Isn't that exactly what I said? Once the patent term expires, there is nothing of value to license. Doesn't matter whether it's a design or utility. It's public domain. Or you modify it in such a way that it's no longer covered by the claims in the patent. Without either a patent (or other IP - could be copyrighted code?), or some type of trade secret, licensing doesn't serve any purpose.

FWIW a quick search found patents with priority as early as the 80's (so obviously expired) for ABS based traction control. My guess is that Land Rover and Toyota have both been licensing Bosch's IP resulting from US6253142. To say that Toyota is using Land Rover's system is kinda misleading. They probably share some IP both ways between Toyota, Ford, and Tata and use the same basic concept, but are likely very different in both design and function. I'm not sure Toyota's traction control is any closer to Land Rover than it is to Jeep or Subaru. I some ways Land Rover's system might be better.

 

[1engineer]

So you're licensing the technology protected by the patent? Isn't that exactly what I said? Once the patent term expires, there is nothing of value to license. It's public domain. Or you modify it in such a way that it's no longer covered by the claims in the patent. Without either a patent (or other IP - could be copyrighted code?), or some type of trade secret, licensing doesn't serve any purpose.

FWIW a quick search found patents with priority as early as the 80's (so obviously expired) for ABS based traction control. My guess is that Land Rover and Toyota have both been licensing Bosch's IP resulting from US6253142. To say that Toyota is using Land Rover's system is kinda misleading. They probably share some IP, but are likely very different in both design and function.

dude...
What if it started out with a license, patents expired but both still used it anyway? Then it would still be LR concept even though everything has ran out? Who knows?

 

[Jetboy]

dude...
What if it started out with a license, patents expired but both still used it anyway? Then it would still be LR concept even though everything has ran out? Who knows?

I think the implication was that Toyota is using an adaptation of LR's traction control system. While they certainly share similarities inherent in the use of abs based traction control, I would think Toyota would rely more on affiliates like Subaru. That's why I was curious as to why Toyota would license LR's system rather than develop its own and what was unique to LR as compared to Subaru, Jeep, Nissan, etc. who all have their own versions. I think it's pretty undeniable that LR's system works pretty well considering how capable it makes a unibody suv with big low profile street tires off road.

 

[NoDak]

its just like any other system in a vehicle same concept just different name.

VSC - toyota
VDC - Subaru
ESC - MB, BMW
StabiliTrak - GM
ICCS - Cadillac
AdvanceTrac - ford
ESP - audi

they are all the same implementation of the same concept of stability control on a vehicle.

 

[Ron4RNevada]

In a nutshell that's why I owned my 97 DI but ended up in Toyotas. Loved the truck, but didn't like the nagging sensation of imminent mechanical doom every time I hopped in it. To be fair, it was basically reliable, but lots of small issues. I miss it frequently--time cures all:

Good thing you're staying off the internet:biggrin2:

Nice Disco jcoleman.