Mid-Gate: Literal SUV with Bed Attached?

[commadorebob]

This is a slightly older Ford patent, but I wonder if it might point to an alternative to the classic mid-gate. I've attached the patent, but it appears to be a multi-position gate that could even serve as a workbench. It seems to function more like a hatchback than your usual mid-gate. It also explains why Ford pads the back of the cab: a full-size gate opening might be a dead giveaway if it were only wrapped.

Patent:

Quick Grok AI Maverick Version

 

[paneubert]

Imagine the drag coefficient of that when driving 60 on the freeway with some lumber strapped in the back. I bet the range estimate would drop at the same pace as a stopwatch ticking off the seconds in a minute. Haha.

 

[Flash]

Interesting.... Thanks for posting.

What would be the utility of this? Storage behind 2nd row? But you have to move stuff in the bed for it to open?

I can't see this being better than a midgate due to additional height and drag at speed.

 

[commadorebob]

I don't think it is intended to be driven fully erect.

 

[paneubert]

I don't think it is intended to be driven fully erect.

You know there is a segment of the population that is going to say "hold my beer....".

 

[Flash]

I don't think it is intended to be driven fully erect.

So I will ask again, what is the point? 2nd row storage behind the seat? Drive with it partially open but below the roof line? I just don't see one... Open to input...

 

[paneubert]

So I will ask again, what is the point? 2nd row storage behind the seat? Drive with it partially open but below the roof line? I just don't see one... Open to input...

I mean....if you are asking literally, the answer is that Ford (and most companies) patent every single little idea they have, just in case it comes in handy down the road, even if that road may be 10 or 20 years "long". Could even be that they never see themselves using it on a Ford vehicle, but license the tech/design to another company to use on their vehicles.

We have seen all sorts of interesting patents come out from the automakers. Doesn't mean they plan to use them. There was one a while back that would allow vehicles with any form of "self driving" to reposition themselves on command for repossession/towing easier when the owner doesn't pay their bills. The tow truck could literally pull up to your house and command your truck to drive itself out from your backyard and into the street for easy recovery.

Can you imagine the uproar if that was announced as a "feature"? But they patented the concept just in case. I think I also recall one where it would blast your radio at full blast if you were behind on your payments. And disable the heat and AC functionality. Annoy the living hell out of you until you paid your car loan.

Edit to add: For this "gull-wing" mid-gate thing in the patent, I could see it being a cool camping setup if you folded down the rear seats and used a custom tent to connect to the raised gate. Would give you a bit of a solid roof over your "tent" area. Could be cool.

 

[chl]

I mean....if you are asking literally, the answer is that Ford (and most companies) patent every single little idea they have, just in case it comes in handy down the road, even if that road may be 10 or 20 years "long". Could even be that they never see themselves using it on a Ford vehicle, but license the tech/design to another company to use on their vehicles.

We have seen all sorts of interesting patents come out from the automakers. Doesn't mean they plan to use them. There was one a while back that would allow vehicles with any form of "self driving" to reposition themselves on command for repossession/towing easier when the owner doesn't pay their bills. The tow truck could literally pull up to your house and command your truck to drive itself out from your backyard and into the street for easy recovery.

Can you imagine the uproar if that was announced as a "feature"? But they patented the concept just in case. I think I also recall one where it would blast your radio at full blast if you were behind on your payments. And disable the heat and AC functionality. Annoy the living hell out of you until you paid your car loan.

Edit to add: For this "gull-wing" mid-gate thing in the patent, I could see it being a cool camping setup if you folded down the rear seats and used a custom tent to connect to the raised gate. Would give you a bit of a solid roof over your "tent" area. Could be cool.

Patents can be used solely to prevent others from doing something even if the inventor/company assignee will never use it.

The patent right is the "right to exclude others" for a limited time, and the vast majority of patents are never implemented in a commercial product.

But even so, they still add to the body of knowledge and ideas in the "useful arts" and may inspire others to design around the patented subject matter and come up with something better that can be a commercial success.

Or they might steal it and use it without permission if it is a really good idea.

Take for example, the intermittent windshield wiper, a sad story in many ways.
The patent was filed in 1964 and the inventor, Robert Kearns, pitched the idea to several major automakers.

But he could not get Ford or other automobile manufacturers to license his patent.

But that didn't stop Ford and others from 'borrowing' it without permission, leading to decades of litigation.

Finally Ford settled in 1990 paying the inventor over $10 million, and in 1992 with Chrysler for over $18 million.

A corollary to the adage "no good deed goes unpunished" is "no good idea goes unstolen."

Alas.

 

[chl]

I can just picture myself hitting my head on that open hatch while standing up in the bed trying to get things out from the storage in the rear seat area...ouch!

 

[commadorebob]

Ford and many companies will patent ideas even if they think they are stupid ideas. If anything, it is used to prevent patent trolls. If Ford didn't patent this, some lawyer would and sue Ford for a cut of every truck it builds with that feature. Given that most major vehicle manufacturers have cross-licensing agreements, it would likely have little impact on competitors.

 

[chl]

Ford and many companies will patent ideas even if they think they are stupid ideas. If anything, it is used to prevent patent trolls. If Ford didn't patent this, some lawyer would and sue Ford for a cut of every truck it builds with that feature. Given that most major vehicle manufacturers have cross-licensing agreements, it would likely have little impact on competitors.

Sounds like you're saying they'd patent a stupid idea, or use a stupid feature in a vehicle, and then after they did, some lawyer would then patent it and sue?

Not really the way it works.

First of all, you have to be the FIRST in time to file a patent AND if someone else used, or published or sold the invention, or an obvious variation, before that time, you do not have 'novelty' or 'unobviousness' and cannot get a patent. You can publicly disclose it up to one year before you file in a 'grace period.' If you wait longer, out of luck.

Before any company implements any feature in any vehicle they plan on making and selling, they usually do a clearance search - they search to see if the feature has been patented or described in a publication, such as a patent application which is published 18 months after filing, or used in and open non-hidden way, or commercially or disclosed to anyone without an NDA before.

If not patented, described, used, etc., then they ask themselves, is it worth the cost of patenting it?
If it is, they file at least a provisional patent application to set a filing date.
If not worth the expense of obtaining a patent, they will likely publish the feature so no one else can patent it in a so called 'defensive publication.'

There is always the risk that someone may have invented it before they did, before it has been published, before it was used publicly by anyone, etc., and the clearance search did not find it. Maybe a patent application has been filed but not published yet for example.

In that case they may have to decide if it is worth licensing from the other inventor if one could be had, or could they design around the invention claimed by the other inventor, or could they invalidate the other inventor's patent?

So they might pay an outside lawyer, like, me, to do a a clearance study, or a validity study of the other claimed invention and related disclosure, and give them an opinion.

If they decide to design around the other invention, they will ask an attorney to evaluate what they come up with for effectiveness at avoiding an infringement suit.

And so on.

It all can get very expensive, but there is a lot of money at stake.

Patent trolls are a bit different. They buy up patents with the intention of using them to sue. Often the patents have questionable validity, but because patent litigation can be so complex and so expensive, the trolls often ask and get less expensive licensing fees from the companies - it is a bottom line cost analysis. Invalidating a patent can more expensive than licensing it.

But the troll must also decide if they do not get licenses easily should they incur the cost of litigation on a weak patent? Might they be held liable for attorney fees or even ethical consequences if they bring a case that might be held to have no merit?

In a case that is not held to be without any merit, you usually do not get the troll to pay your legal fees even if they lose in litigation.

It can a big problem for small inventors or small companies who don't have the money for a cadre of lawyers to advise them so they might settle when they shouldn't it.. Big companies usually just see it as a cost of doing business to license if the patent in question has any chance of success in a suit for infringement.

But as the Kearns case shows, big companies can also bully inventors with good ideas and strong patent by litigating for decades hoping they give up.

Yes I am a patent attorney and worked at the US Patent and Trademark Office for 4 years (1985-1989) while in law school, in private practice since then.

Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

The above information is for general knowledge, not personalized legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship or privilege.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

The above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

The above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation.

You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.