IBM's Patent-Pending Traffic Lights Stop Car Engines 423
theodp writes "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't let your engine idle. The USPTO has just published IBM's patent application for a 'System and Method for Controlling Vehicle Engine Running State at Busy Intersections for Increased Fuel Consumption Efficiency.' Here's how Big Blue explains the invention: 'The present disclosure is directed to a method for managing engines in response to a traffic signal. The method may comprise establishing communications with participating vehicles; responding to a stop status indicated by the traffic signal, further comprising: receiving a position data from each participating vehicles; determining a queue of participating vehicles stopped at the traffic signal; determining a remaining duration of the stop status; sending a stop-engine notification to the list of participating vehicles stopped at the traffic signal when the remaining duration is greater than a threshold of time; responding to a proceed status indicated by the traffic signal, further comprising: sending a start-engine notification to a first vehicle in the queue; calculating an optimal time for an engine of a second vehicle in the queue to start; and sending the start-engine notification to the second vehicle at the optimal time.' IBM notes that 'traffic signals may include, but are not limited to, traffic lights at intersections, railway crossing signals, or other devices for indicating correct moments to stop and to proceed.'"
IBM favors patent quantity over quality (Score:5, Informative)
...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."
I agree that that this isn't really a fully-disclosed invention. Generally, IBM is more interested in patenting as much as possible just to create patent thickets and later shut out or tax real innovators with bullying tactics [blogspot.com]. The blog post I just linked to also mentions IBM's claim (made in early 2009) to have a number of patents "larger than those from Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, EMC, Accenture, and Google combined." The blog post [blogspot.com] also mentions research that shows the average commercial value of an IBM patent is fairly low as compared to the portfolios of such competitors as Microsoft. The patent that gave rise to this slashdot article may be another example.
IBM has also been a long-standing aggressive force in pushing the envelope concerning the scope of patentable subject matter in the field of software. Courts can't be lobbied the way politicians are lobbied (which is something at which IBM is also extremely aggressive) but companies can try to bring up court case after court case pushing the envelope with new arguments in order to find loopholes to extend the range of what's patentable. The recent landmark decision in Germany [blogspot.com], effectively lowering the bar for software patentability in the largest EU member state, was related to a Siemens patent, but other landmark cases in the US as well as in Europe (at the level of the European Patent Office as well as in individual European countries such as Germany) related to legal recourse sought by IBM in order to obtain patents on "inventions" of an ever lower standard.
At the lobbying front, the FFII (a European non-governmental organization fighting software patents and pushing for open standards) listed IBM as one of the four IT companies [blogspot.com] pushing hard for an overall patent and patent court reform in Europe aiming to strengthen the rights of patent holders and the legal basis for software patents.
This doesn't mean to say that IBM is the only company doing it, let alone the only one with an interest in this, but others entered the game relatively late and IBM has a history of decades of pursuing that agenda of an ever broader scope of patentable subject matter.
Not necessarily forced (Score:3, Informative)
Upon receiving the stop-engine notification, the vehicles may automatically switch off the engine, or display an alert informing drivers to manually switch off the engines. A vehicle may optionally notify the service once its engine is switched off.
For all of you concerned about not having complete control.
The summary doesn't effectively explain when this would be useful. At most lights, it won't matter. The example the patent gives is a 2 minute light, for which it is inefficient to restart the engine state. It suggests "waiting for 10 minutes for a railway to clear" as a case where this would be useful.
The patent seems very vague. It talks about processing information about the movement about other cars, doesn't comment on what should be looked for, how that information is to be determined, or how wait-time should be estimated. It basically seems to be a patent for the idea of signaling the car when a long wait is anticipated.
Re:Yes, novel, non-obvious and useful... (Score:3, Informative)
They weren't. The standard UPC was adopted in the 70s, but it took many years before it became ubiquitous. I still remember working at JCPenney in the 90s and either wanding JPC's self-created tag or manually typing in the numbers by hand. The UPC was completely ignored because the store simply didn't have the necessary equipment.
So it took about a quarter-century between adoption of the UPC and the ability for all stores to read them.
Re:Networking? Bad idea... (Score:2, Informative)
Keep in mind that a number of automakers are developing "stop-start" systems for their future models. Cars equipped with these systems will shut off the engine automatically after a period of stationary idling and restart the engine automatically when the driver steps on the gas. Unlike most current vehicles, where the driver must stop the engine manually, these systems only stop the engine when it is expected to save fuel. Further, the power-train is designed to restart immediately once the driver presses the gas pedal (either with a starter-alternator or by stopping the engine with one cylinder compressed and ready-to-fire).
Traffic signals that inform the vehicle of the amount of time before the next green phase can make these systems more efficient since it will allow the vehicle to determine whether it is likely to be stationary for long enough to save fuel by stopping the engine.
Also, I'd like to draw your attention to a post detailing just what can happen if we introduce networking into cars. And this is even made easier by the forced standards needed for this project to work...
IMHO...there are three problems noted in the paper: A challenge-response mechanism that is easily brute-forced, CAN nodes which fail to properly implement the challenge-response security mechanism, and CAN nodes which fail to do proper sanity checking before accepting commands via the debugging protocol. None of these issues are made worse by installing a traffic-light receiver.
Re:Networking? Bad idea... (Score:2, Informative)
None of the problems, but the risk is still there: the receiver needs to talk to the ECU to start/stop the engine, meaning it must be on the CAN-bus. This provides an entry point for data other than the ODB-II connector under the steering wheel. It only takes a single vulnerability in the receiver to have it turned into a gateway through which malicious data can be injected into the bus, at which point, attacks like those mentioned in the paper become possible.
Re:Patent-PENDING (Score:2, Informative)
pending adj (postpositive) 1. not yet decided, confirmed, or finished
While it is true that the patent system is completely broken, you really should cut the USPTO some slack here. The patent was only applied for on Thursday. It hasn't even been looked at yet!
Published Thursday. Filed November 14, 2008. But still probably not examined.
Re:Yes, novel, non-obvious and useful... (Score:4, Informative)
to add a few points to your list
There are a lot of collector/hobby cars on the road, from the 40's-80's. My car is from 1994, i'm sure that it does not have the necessary bits in it to make this system work, nor am I likely to pay out of pocket for it. If you could even get to 90% of cars on the road, in less than 50 years I would be shocked. Thats assuming that A, B, and C all went off without a hitch.
A few problems with turning the engine off at a stoplight (brought to you by the "whatcouldgowrong dept.):
just a few things off the top of my head, that could be technical problems with the idea.
Re:Railway crossing? (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm, a computer at a railway crossing that can remotely disable a car's engine. To use the parlance of our times "What could possibly go wrong?"
Besides the possibilities of "what could possibly go wrong?" the simple fact is, I am hoping IBM has done their research on this.
Some car manufacturers claim that stopping and restarting the engine will use more gas, and cause increased wear on the starter. Others claim it will save as much as 10% in gas and not cause wear on the starter. I wonder where the truth really lies? Jeep recommends (for some of their vehicles) at least 1 minute of idle time expected before one turns off the engine to save gas. The government says (basically) "do it every time" - but the government also says that modern cars only need 20 seconds to warm up to a usable temperature in the winter. For those of you who have an actual temperature gauge in your car, you know that is not true... so I am not sure how accurate the rest of the government's data/speculation is (or quite simply, they did not test enough cars).
That aside, there are other problems I have not seen mentioned, for instance dead batteries. If you are a city driver, and barely get over engine idle rpm during your drive, constantly stopping and restarting your engine can drain your battery. There are times I've had to drive in NYC and been on a two way main street going against the flow of traffic lights, meaning I've gotten stuck at a bunch of traffic lights during my trip. As anyone who has had engine (or lack of fuel) problems has noticed, if one repeatedly tries to start their engine, the battery will eventually get below "restart power levels" - meaning a bunch of people stuck at a traffic light without enough power to restart their engine. Add a cold winter day into the mix and this definitely should apply. As it is, I have experienced "uber cold" days on my visits to upstate New York where it sounded like if I had two or three attempts to start my engine, I would be lucky. Fortunately, my car only requires one. But driving a few hundred feet, shutting it off and trying again, then repeating that 5-10 times in under a mile would probably run me into problems as the car wouldnt have been running long enough at high enough RPM (1800?) to (a) recharge the battery enough for another start at those temperatures and/or (b) heat the battery enough for it to be able to deliver more starts.
Also, unless starter technology has changed recently, the starter has a cool-down period between start attempts. Something mentioned in only a few car manuals simply because one starts the car, drives it, then shuts it off - usually exceeding the cooldown period. If you are needing to stop at a traffic light every city block, and restart your engine, then chances are, you aren't reaching the end of the cooldown cycle. The more the starter is turned on without reaching it, the hotter it gets. Anyone who has played with an electric motor knows what happens if they overheat.
And as for the engine wear part of the equation, as anyone who knows a little physics can tell you, starting an engine does wear it more than normal driving... something to do with overcoming inertia (ie: the massive flywheel, and the internal inertia of the engine itself). Yes, above-normal driving (and to a much lesser extent, normal driving) still has similar factors to overcome, but there are other differences involved, namely that the flywheel is before the torque converter or clutch and the torque converter/clutch "absorbs" some of the "stand-still" force being overcome in driving/accelerating (ie: not as jarring to the engine - in comparison to "wrenching" a standing still flywheel into motion).
And of course, all of the above could entirely be speculation... but that's not really the point that matters... the point that matters is, it's all based off one or more combinations of vehicle manufacturer information, various studies on the matter, and various real world applications of the situation (cold s
Re:NWM -- 'negros' with microprocessers (Score:2, Informative)
Detroit was killed by the UAW, not by anything that has anything remotely to do with the race of the citizens.
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Informative)
Let's see...
"suddenly having to run the light to avoid getting rear-ended by someone coming up behind you completely oblivious to the light?"
Now I've certainly seen rear end collisions at traffic controlled junctions. But the evasion manoeuvre described requires all of the following:
1) That as you are approaching a junction you are watching the rear view mirror.
2) That you are the first vehicle that would otherwise be stopped by the traffic lights. (You can't outpace a collision from behind if there is a stationary car in front of you.)
3) i) That you are in motion as a speed that you COULD reasonably stop, and yet know that the car behind you is at a speed that it could not stop.
Or ii) That your car has dragster like acceleration to get you moving from stationary and across the junction fast enough to avoid both collisions from behind, and potential collisions from the side.
* 3i does not seem to be relevant, since the idea is a mechanism to save fuel and emissions whilst a car is stationary, not an idea to slow a car to a halt by stopping the engine whilst the car is still moving.
All in all there is very little chance this has happened to either of you. Rather what we have here is the perfect demonstration of the tendency of the male of the species to talk absolute bollocks when it comes to the topic of driving experiences.
The experience that I do believe you have had is that you've run a red light yourself, thought you cut it a bit fine, and then noticed that another car behind you has also jumped the red light. Easy enough for the self justifying driver to kid himself about the reality of that situation.
Re:Railway crossing? (Score:3, Informative)
Drivers who do switch off their engines may do so inefficiently. For example, a driver may switch off the engine, only to start it up a short time later. In such cases, more fuel may be consumed in restarting the engine.
So it seems like they're at least aware of the intricacies involved in maximizing fuel efficiency. Their idea seems to be that, if the signal is on a timer, they can use that information (which is unavailable to the driver) to maximize efficiency.
Re:Railway crossing? (Score:1, Informative)
Did I miss the bit in TFA about this being universal & mandatory, without the possibility of override? Or are y'all kneejerk scaremongers.
Re:Railway crossing? (Score:5, Informative)
On top of that, some cars already do what IBM wants, albeit without actually checking if you're at a stop light, and without potentially giving control of your engine to a remote computer.
My Civic Hybrid will shut off the engine if you're stopped on level-ish ground for more than a few seconds, as long as you're holding the brakes - as soon as you let go of the brakes, the engine kicks back on. It seems to me that this is a cheaper and more general solution to the problem IBM is trying to solve, since IBM's solution doesn't save any gas if you're sitting at a regular old stop sign for ten minutes waiting for traffic to clear up.
Re:Railway crossing? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm assuming this would only be used for vehicles that already have some version of this feature already implemented. Mazda plans on rolling out a tech that causes the engine to stop at the peak of compression. This way, when the vehicle is ready to go again, all it does is spark and it's instantly running again. Obviously, hybrids will have no issues at all with this.
As for safety, they could easily only have the engine shut-down if at the lights IF the break is being pressed. If the gas is pressed or the break is released for x seconds, it could automatically start back up. Essentially, it's not saying the car HAS to turn off, it's just suggesting and the car decides.
Drivers, traffic lights, and sensors (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO the biggest problem with traffic lights isn't synchronization; it's the behavior of the drivers. At least in my area the lights are attached to inductive sensors placed in the tarmac, and the way they're supposed to work is that they sense the presence of the car approaching the light and, after a suitable period of wait time hysteresis (which starts from the last time the light switched, and so may already be expired), switch the signals and allow the car to pass.
Unfortunately, drivers (again, at least in my area) aren't very clueful about the presence of the sensors, and will stop way, way back of the stop bar, before they get to the sensor, or pass over it and stop halfway into the intersection. The sensors are huge, roughly 2m by 8m, so it's not like you have to be precise to hit them, and they are visible as grooved loops in the tarmac just behind the stop bar, but I can't count the number of times I've been stuck behind a long line of cars at a light, with the first car stopped before it got to the sensor. As far as the light can tell, there's nobody stopped at the light, so we wait and wait.
I've driven with people who have stopped before the sensor and then complained about how poorly the lights are "synchronized." Apparently, traffic light sensors are not common knowledge.
Re:It is a bad idea. (Score:3, Informative)
Why would you need to shut off your car when making a delivery? It only takes a minute to hand the pizza, take the money, and go back to your car. Every pizza guy I've had leaves the car running.
Though I dont know about the OP, I have delivered pizzas in areas, that though not "slums" or "crime ridden" it still would be a bad idea to leave a car running while running into a townhouse/small apartment complex to deliver a pizza; if only for the simple fact that some delinquent may decide to take it for a joy ride.
Places like the Baltimore suburbs (and increasingly Long Island) have a lot of 2 story, townhouse-looking apartments that a pizza delivery to requires going up a set of stairs or into an enclosed vestibule where your car is out of your sight.
Re:IBM favors patent quantity over quality (Score:3, Informative)
There is a counter-threat. Troll sues Gizmo Inc. Nazgûl goes knocking on Gizmo Inc's door : "If you pay the patent troll, we will sue you with our own patent on which you also infringe. Don't pay the troll."
Contrary to being an actual defense strategy that would make any sense in the world of business, this is the case only in a few people's wild imagination.
If trolls have to sue IBM to get any money, they lose big time.
Trolls go after big players all the time, as is shown by statistics like these [patentfreedom.com]. Not only do they sue a lot but also do they walk away with large payments in a number of cases.
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Informative)
Ride a motorcycle for a few years before you question the scenario. Any long term motorcycle rider will tell you that he's spot on. You either learn how to "check your six" at stoplights and be prepared for evasive maneuvers at maximum speed or one day you _will_ have an automobile up your ass, literally.
At stoplights I commonly am watching the rear view mirrors and I'm sitting with the clutch pulled in and the bike in gear so if I see something all I have to do is loosen the grip with my left hand and roll the throttle with my right.
Would you care to guess how many times that's saved me from being rear-ended at a stop sign / light?
Re:Railway crossing? (Score:4, Informative)
Your explanation doesn't fully communicate the ingenuity of the automatic engine stop/start system. If the engine just stopped, the additional load on the alternator to recharge the battery after starting could conceivably negate any benefit from the short stops that it would mostly be used for.
Modern stop/start systems actually use the ECU to halt the engine in a configuration where one or more of the cylinders have a primed and compressed fuel/air mix sitting right there ready to be ignited. All the engine needs to do to start again is give those cylinders spark. No starter motor needed, no energy wasted, and the engine starts almost instantly. It's incredibly smart, one of the few environmental car things which is an improvement in every objectively measurable way. There's no reason not to have it on any car, and that's a rare thing.
This patent is retarded.