Ford Snitching to the Cops

[Jtbob3]

Yeah, it might not be that expensive if a law enforcement vehicle already has the necessary hardware. The patent only specify the use of radar and LIDAR for determination of speed and cameras are only used to identify the vehicle.

I admit I don’t know much about radar and LIDAR systems, but I think the systems used by police for catching speeders have a longer range and narrower field of view than the systems used for ADAS and some autonomous driving features that are designed for mapping the environment and object motion detection? I could be wrong. But to be legally admissible evidence, the system would need to be calibrated and certified regularly, which doesn’t fit the suggestion that this system could be added to consumer vehicles.

Last point, the patent specifically claims the vehicle with this system (item 105) is a “law-enforcement vehicle”, and the driver of that vehicle (item 110) is a “law-enforcement officer”. This patent simply does not claim nor suggest nor covers adding this kind of system to consumer vehicles. The Blaze article is fearmongering.

Unfortunately it covers non-police cars.
In the description it prefers law enforcement but the claims are what matter. Nothing in the description is legally binding for IP ownership. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims which for the basis of the patent. None mention law enforcement. That means they own the IP to put it in any vehicle. Claims 2, 9, and 16 add law enforcement to the mix.

The same independent claims just say speed detection and don’t mention the method so they could you radar, lidar, optical cameras, sonar, etc.

If it only goes in cop cars I am not too worried. If terms of service allow my speed to be shared to the cops by other cars, that is a problem.

Sponsored

 

[OuterBanks]

Good grief. Some just wants to stir things. Do you know how many of these patents that don’t get made? After grandma sued McDonalds cause of coffee burns, and smokers sued, the victims sued gun manufacturing companie. I’m just surprised nobody has sued car companies for allowing vehicles go over reasonable speed limits.

 

[DarthLincoln]

Unfortunately it covers non-police cars.
In the description it prefers law enforcement but the claims are what matter. Nothing in the description is legally binding for IP ownership. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims which for the basis of the patent. None mention law enforcement. That means they own the IP to put it in any vehicle. Claims 2, 9, and 16 add law enforcement to the mix.

The same independent claims just say speed detection and don’t mention the method so they could you radar, lidar, optical cameras, sonar, etc.

If it only goes in cop cars I am not too worried. If terms of service allow my speed to be shared to the cops by other cars, that is a problem.

I don't see any reason to be worried. I agree claims 1, 8, and 15 do not mention law-enforcement, but those claims are strictly about the first vehicle detecting that a second vehicle is speeding and generating a record that is stored on the first vehicle. That information doesn’t go anywhere under claims 1, 8, and 15. Generating an alert that an infraction has occurred and transmitting that data to law-enforcement is only covered in claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 which all say that the first vehicle is a law-enforcement vehicle.

So under claims 1, 8, and 15 only, law-enforcement is not alerted that an infraction has occurred or that a record exists, and the record is not shared with them.

And the problem still remains, law-enforcement would have to be able to prove that the system on the first vehicle was making accurate measurements at the time of the infraction for the record to hold up as evidence in court. Periodic certification of law-enforcement equipment is typical. Periodic certification of a system installed on a consumer vehicle is not.

 

[JakeL]

Thanks for getting me access to the article Mike...!!!
I still need more proof.
All patents are accessible with the exception of military patents... I would like to see this patent and some actual proof if this is or will be occurring.

The reason I am skeptical, when the vehicle "blackboxes" (EDR's) started becoming public knowledge, many like publication authors claimed that the EDR kept continuous track of speed and location; they even we so far as to claim the EDR was recording conversations inside the vehicle.
None of that was true.

I'll wait until more facts arrive before I believe it.

If it is true............... Holy Sh!t...!!!!!!

Your skepticism is warranted, even if this patent exactly describes the data-sharing fears expressed by others in this thread. The only thing a patent does is give the owner the exclusive right for 20 years to practice (make, buy, sell, import) the invention. Holding a patent does not require practicing the invention, nor does the patent office determine whether it would be a good idea (or even legal) to do so. Perhaps Ford developed this concept for entire defensive purposes, i.e. to prevent other automotive companies from gathering and sharing data in this way for the next 20 years.

 

[JeffL.]

Exactly, and what’s in it for Ford to do such a thing.

 

[dpAtlanta]

Exactly, and what’s in it for Ford to do such a thing.

Good question... here is my thought.
If Ford holds the patent to interact with Police vehicles exclusively, which manufacture are the Police Departments going to buy vehicles from?
Just my guess.

 

[Valhalla]

Who thinks the Blaze is a reputable news source?

Sponsored