9 ms·

Excellent. I was hoping technological progress in this area would be oppressed. The USPTO did not disappoint!

by reader5000 15y ago

cq 15y ago
Ironic that you think that a technology patent is the antithesis of oppression.
- cbr 15y ago
  I think you misread him.
derefr 15y ago
Car models aren't like software—people aren't constantly producing new, accidentally-infringing works. I'm pretty sure this is one of those patents that will get licensed by all the other big companies, rather than sued over.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Well, there are clear prior art examples for driverless cars, but that's beside the point. The real issue here is that a driverless car manufacturer is going to absorb all liability for all accidents while with a driver, the driver absorbs that liability. I seriously doubt Google will monetize this patent before it expires.
  - randallsquared 15y ago
    I seriously doubt Google will monetize this patent before it expires. How does this opinion square with their lobbying efforts to legalize driverless vehicles (e.g., in Nevada)?
    - damoncali 15y ago
      Do you really think there will be commercial driverless cars on the road in a volume that is financially meaningful to Google before this patent expires? A lot of things have to happen first - and the liability issue is just one of them. The auto insurance markets and laws have to adapt and change, and who knows who will object to this. Consumers have rethink the very meaning of car. Safety needs to be worked out. Someone has to pay for all this. This is decades away at best. If/when this happens, it's more likely that Google doesn't exist than Google profiting from driverless cars.
      - randallsquared 15y ago
        I think that there will be a significant number of driverless cars operating on the road by 2020. I would be very surprised if they're banned, but only mildly surprised if by 2020 there's a mandate or serious talk of a mandate for driverless technology on all cars sold, like emissions legislation now.
        libraryatnight 15y ago
        Is it just a hunch you have? Why specifically 2020? No snark, just wondering if you've read something that indicates they're coming sooner than later. I mean, I want my driverless car in my lifetime :)
        jberryman 15y ago
        consumer cars being sold today already partially drive themselves (can stop for you, swerve to avoid debris, parallel park). Autonomous cars have been under test for decades and google has already solved the problem of creating a car that can drive itself safely in traffic. Everything I've been hearing indicates they are coming sooner than later, and that it's a revolution not many people are that aware of.
        randallsquared 15y ago
        The technology is already available, and merely allowing it would have enormous savings in time and money for virtually everyone who isn't being paid to drive. Further, the savings can be captured by the person making the decision to put it on, so as soon as it's allowed, I expect to see widespread adoption, retrofitting, etc. Again, as soon as the statistics come in about accidents with driverless systems, I expect a push for mandating that all ordinary vehicles have them, because putting them on every car would likely save almost 30K lives a year in the US alone: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx . Interesting sidenote: why did vehicular deaths decline by 25% between 2007 and 2009, without any real decrease in miles traveled? Odd.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Is that actually the case? In Germany you are always liable for all damage your car does, no matter whether it is caused by your own mistakes or because of a technical failure. This might not seem fair but the second piece to this puzzle is that you are also forced to have insurance. Making it clear and unmistakable who is liable makes sure that it is always clear who has to pay for the damage done by cars. The insurance makes sure that whoever is liable can also actually pay. That way the victims don’t get left with the costs (no matter how much money the liable person has) and for the liable person accidents don’t turn into life-destroying events. This is a working system and I see no reason why it wouldn’t work with driverless cars. (Even if you want to change it and switch liability from the owner to the manufacturer, that’s not really an insurmountable problem. The solution is – as always – called insurance. Google would just have to insure every car they sell. That’s no big deal, seeing as cars are already pretty much all insured. The cars would get more expensive but the cost of ownership would decrease since it wouldn’t be necessary any longer to pay for insurance. Such a change would be pretty pointless, though. It would only serve to switch around who pays. In the end, though, the owner still has to bear the costs.)
    - dmooney1 15y ago
      I agree the manufacturer would not necessarily take on the bulk of the risk. However, there is supposed to be less risk once this technology is perfected. If the technology is indeed superior to human drivers, auto insurers will offer discounts to self-driving car owners. Furthermore, autonomous cars make more sense economically if they are part of a fleet service like a robotic taxi service. The future subscription-based Zipcar or ad-based Google Cars service would carry the insurance. The human is just a passenger no more responsible for an accident than a human-driven-taxi passenger.
      - JabavuAdams 15y ago
        > auto insurers will offer discounts to self-driving car owners No, the market doesn't work like that. Auto insurers will raise the price for human-driven car owners.
        15y ago
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - roel_v 15y ago
    "The real issue here is that a driverless car manufacturer is going to absorb all liability for all accidents while with a driver, the driver absorbs that liability." Says who? That's far from a decided matter.
    - damoncali 15y ago
      True. I think the point, however, is that the enormous amounts of money at stake will ensure that this decision process will take quite some time to work out.
  - nt_mark 15y ago
    1. Google is NEVER going into the auto business, but they'll licence or even donate their software to run on any auto manufacturers car. 2. The auto manufacturers will only tepidly roll this out very with tons of regulatory and legal tiptoeing. 3. The end user will have to sign away any legal rights to recourse and/or the government(s) will have to amend statutory rights accordingly before the first cars hit the road. 4. It will happen, eventually. It will save hundreds of thousands of lives/year.
    - Kadrith 15y ago
      I wonder if the use of this patent, and any associated software, would be tied to Android or other Google services.
    - ScottBurson 15y ago
      they'll licence or even donate their software to run on any auto manufacturers car Of course, as you're riding down the road in your Google-powered driverless car, there will be ads on the dashboard monitor, paid for by the businesses you pass by on your route.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      3. The end user will have to sign away any legal rights to recourse and/or the government(s) will have to amend statutory rights accordingly before the first cars hit the road. Since the end user will probably not be the plaintiff "The care you made owned by my neighbor ran over my son!" it will have to be a statutory fix IMO. Question: How do you get "hundreds of thousands of lives per year?" How much safer do you expect these to be and where do you expect them to be driven?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
    Not all driverless vehicles will carry passengers. e.g., I can see this patent being applied to automated forklifts in a warehouse, robotic supply carriers in hospitals (a la HelpMate robots), etc.
hessenwolf 15y ago
If they don't patent it, somebody else would and would drag them to court. (gosh, I'm defending a multinational - I really hope they don't misbehave with this)

Excellent. I was hoping technological progress in this area would be oppressed. The USPTO did not disappoint!

cq 15y ago

Ironic that you think that a technology patent is the antithesis of oppression.

cbr 15y ago
I think you misread him.

derefr 15y ago

Car models aren't like software—people aren't constantly producing new, accidentally-infringing works. I'm pretty sure this is one of those patents that will get licensed by all the other big companies, rather than sued over.

einhverfr 15y ago
Well, there are clear prior art examples for driverless cars, but that's beside the point. The real issue here is that a driverless car manufacturer is going to absorb all liability for all accidents while with a driver, the driver absorbs that liability. I seriously doubt Google will monetize this patent before it expires.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  I seriously doubt Google will monetize this patent before it expires. How does this opinion square with their lobbying efforts to legalize driverless vehicles (e.g., in Nevada)?
  - damoncali 15y ago
    Do you really think there will be commercial driverless cars on the road in a volume that is financially meaningful to Google before this patent expires? A lot of things have to happen first - and the liability issue is just one of them. The auto insurance markets and laws have to adapt and change, and who knows who will object to this. Consumers have rethink the very meaning of car. Safety needs to be worked out. Someone has to pay for all this. This is decades away at best. If/when this happens, it's more likely that Google doesn't exist than Google profiting from driverless cars.
    - randallsquared 15y ago
      I think that there will be a significant number of driverless cars operating on the road by 2020. I would be very surprised if they're banned, but only mildly surprised if by 2020 there's a mandate or serious talk of a mandate for driverless technology on all cars sold, like emissions legislation now.
      - libraryatnight 15y ago
        Is it just a hunch you have? Why specifically 2020? No snark, just wondering if you've read something that indicates they're coming sooner than later. I mean, I want my driverless car in my lifetime :)
        jberryman 15y ago
        consumer cars being sold today already partially drive themselves (can stop for you, swerve to avoid debris, parallel park). Autonomous cars have been under test for decades and google has already solved the problem of creating a car that can drive itself safely in traffic. Everything I've been hearing indicates they are coming sooner than later, and that it's a revolution not many people are that aware of.
        randallsquared 15y ago
        The technology is already available, and merely allowing it would have enormous savings in time and money for virtually everyone who isn't being paid to drive. Further, the savings can be captured by the person making the decision to put it on, so as soon as it's allowed, I expect to see widespread adoption, retrofitting, etc. Again, as soon as the statistics come in about accidents with driverless systems, I expect a push for mandating that all ordinary vehicles have them, because putting them on every car would likely save almost 30K lives a year in the US alone: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx . Interesting sidenote: why did vehicular deaths decline by 25% between 2007 and 2009, without any real decrease in miles traveled? Odd.
- ugh 15y ago
  Is that actually the case? In Germany you are always liable for all damage your car does, no matter whether it is caused by your own mistakes or because of a technical failure. This might not seem fair but the second piece to this puzzle is that you are also forced to have insurance. Making it clear and unmistakable who is liable makes sure that it is always clear who has to pay for the damage done by cars. The insurance makes sure that whoever is liable can also actually pay. That way the victims don’t get left with the costs (no matter how much money the liable person has) and for the liable person accidents don’t turn into life-destroying events. This is a working system and I see no reason why it wouldn’t work with driverless cars. (Even if you want to change it and switch liability from the owner to the manufacturer, that’s not really an insurmountable problem. The solution is – as always – called insurance. Google would just have to insure every car they sell. That’s no big deal, seeing as cars are already pretty much all insured. The cars would get more expensive but the cost of ownership would decrease since it wouldn’t be necessary any longer to pay for insurance. Such a change would be pretty pointless, though. It would only serve to switch around who pays. In the end, though, the owner still has to bear the costs.)
  - dmooney1 15y ago
    I agree the manufacturer would not necessarily take on the bulk of the risk. However, there is supposed to be less risk once this technology is perfected. If the technology is indeed superior to human drivers, auto insurers will offer discounts to self-driving car owners. Furthermore, autonomous cars make more sense economically if they are part of a fleet service like a robotic taxi service. The future subscription-based Zipcar or ad-based Google Cars service would carry the insurance. The human is just a passenger no more responsible for an accident than a human-driven-taxi passenger.
    - JabavuAdams 15y ago
      > auto insurers will offer discounts to self-driving car owners No, the market doesn't work like that. Auto insurers will raise the price for human-driven car owners.
      - 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- roel_v 15y ago
  "The real issue here is that a driverless car manufacturer is going to absorb all liability for all accidents while with a driver, the driver absorbs that liability." Says who? That's far from a decided matter.
  - damoncali 15y ago
    True. I think the point, however, is that the enormous amounts of money at stake will ensure that this decision process will take quite some time to work out.
- nt_mark 15y ago
  1. Google is NEVER going into the auto business, but they'll licence or even donate their software to run on any auto manufacturers car. 2. The auto manufacturers will only tepidly roll this out very with tons of regulatory and legal tiptoeing. 3. The end user will have to sign away any legal rights to recourse and/or the government(s) will have to amend statutory rights accordingly before the first cars hit the road. 4. It will happen, eventually. It will save hundreds of thousands of lives/year.
  - Kadrith 15y ago
    I wonder if the use of this patent, and any associated software, would be tied to Android or other Google services.
  - ScottBurson 15y ago
    they'll licence or even donate their software to run on any auto manufacturers car Of course, as you're riding down the road in your Google-powered driverless car, there will be ads on the dashboard monitor, paid for by the businesses you pass by on your route.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    3. The end user will have to sign away any legal rights to recourse and/or the government(s) will have to amend statutory rights accordingly before the first cars hit the road. Since the end user will probably not be the plaintiff "The care you made owned by my neighbor ran over my son!" it will have to be a statutory fix IMO. Question: How do you get "hundreds of thousands of lives per year?" How much safer do you expect these to be and where do you expect them to be driven?
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
  Not all driverless vehicles will carry passengers. e.g., I can see this patent being applied to automated forklifts in a warehouse, robotic supply carriers in hospitals (a la HelpMate robots), etc.

hessenwolf 15y ago

If they don't patent it, somebody else would and would drag them to court. (gosh, I'm defending a multinational - I really hope they don't misbehave with this)