Red, Standard Cab, Stick Shift, Would Be Great For Parts Or Restoration. on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.

Man has surgery to remove T-Bird turn signal that's been in his arm for 51 years

In 1963, real estate agent Arthur Lampitt was driving a new Ford Thunderbird near East Peoria, Illinois on his way to an appointment when he collided head-on with a truck. A massive accident that was so bad that it was originally reported as a fatal crash, Lampitt suffered a broken hip and that became the focus of doctors' efforts. In fact, no one noticed the fact that the turn-signal stalk had been broken off the steering column and had lodged itself in Lampitt's arm. Fast-forward to around ten years ago, when Lampitt set off a courthouse metal detector because of a "slender object, about the size of a pencil" in his arm. Despite that unnerving discovery, the doctor who examined Lampitt said that since it didn't hurt, he needn't worry about it. This year, however, it did start hurting and the affected arm started to bulge. Lampitt decided to have the issue seen to, and suspected it might have something to do with his 1963 accident. When he looked through photos of the wreck taken by a friend, he noticed the turn-signal stalk of the Thunderbird missing and figured that was the culprit. After a 45-minute outpatient surgery, the surgeon verified it: a slim, slightly bent and corroded, seven-inch metal cylinder with a trumpeted end. The surgeon said a protective pocket had formed around it, which is why it could remain in Lampitt's arm so long, but it was still unusual - "We see all kinds of foreign objects like nails or pellets, but usually not this large." Lampitt, who is expected to make a full recovery, says he might make a keychain out of it, once he's done just holding it. News Source: St. Louis Post-DispatchImage Credit: Jesse Bogan, St. Louis Post-DispatchTip: Jon Auto News Ford Coupe accident wreck ford thunderbird turn signal

Defying Trump, major automakers finalize California emissions deal

WASHINGTON — The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and major automakers on Monday confirmed they had finalized binding agreements to cut vehicle emissions in the state, defying the Trump administration's push for weaker curbs on tailpipe pollution. The agreements with carmakers Ford Motor Co, Volkswagen AG, Honda Motor Co and BMW AG were first announced in July 2019 as voluntary measures prompting anger from U.S. President Donald Trump. A month later, the Justice Department opened an antitrust probe into the agreements. The government ended the investigation without action. The Trump administration in March finalized a rollback of U.S. vehicle emissions standards to require 1.5% annual increases in efficiency through 2026. That is far weaker than the 5% annual increases in the discarded rules adopted under President Barack Obama. The 50-page California agreements, which extend through 2026, are less onerous than the standards finalized by the Obama administration but tougher than the Trump administration standards. The automakers have also agreed to electric vehicle commitments. Volvo Cars, owned by China's Geely Holdings, said in March it planned to join the automakers agreeing to the California requirements. It has also finalized its agreement. The settlement agreements say California and automakers agreed to resolve "potential legal disputes concerning the authority of CARB" and other states that have adopted California's standards. In May, a group of 23 U.S. states led by California and some major cities, challenged the Trump vehicle emissions rule. Other major automakers like General Motors Co, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and Toyota Motor Corp did not join the California agreement. Those companies also sided with the Trump administration in a separate lawsuit over whether the federal government can strip California of the right to set zero emission vehicle requirements. Ford said the "final agreement will reduce emissions in our vehicles at a more stringent rate, support and incentivize the production of electrified products, and create regulatory certainty." BMW said "by setting these long-term, predictable, and achievable standards, we have the regulatory certainty that is necessary for long-term planning that will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but ultimately benefit consumers as well."