Technology Exploration Project – M591

Protecting Your Property: Locking the Door on Patents

A Look Into the Effectiveness of Two Vehicle Security Patents

---

Introduction

Vehicle security is currently one of the most highly debated issues in the automotive industry. In 2004, a vehicle was stolen every 26 seconds in the U.S. [1] and vehicle crime accounts for just under one-fifth of all crimes recorded by the police. [4] As you can see, vehicle crime and prevention is big business. With the help of evolving technology, vehicle crime however is on the decline. This article will look at two technological systems of reducing and preventing vehicle crime using authentication techniques. The two systems are Nissan Motor Companies keyless vehicle lock system, and Ford Motor Companies Sound, Vibration, and Motion alarm system. These aim to verify the rightful owners to their vehicles, deter potential thefts or breakages, and protect the vehicles whilst they are unoccupied by their owners.

The article will look into how these systems work and what they do to achieve this, but mainly focus on how these systems have been developed and eventually implemented via the use of patents and patent law. Patents are considered essential for protecting the rights to technology but what effect does patenting have on the technology itself? This article shall discover what technologies have been patented, and just how effective these patents have been at protecting the technology. It will also look at how any weaknesses or attacks in these systems may have been affected by patenting and also what impact does patenting have on personal privacy and indeed the commercial strategy of selling these systems.

Finally, this article will aim to show that in security systems such as these, patents may not be such a wise idea to implement at all. It will explore the risks that patents can pose to potential ideas, known affects on security and privacy that can be exposed by patents and why the patent itself may not be such a credible asset as once thought.

The Patents and What They Mean

Patenting has long been considered a necessary step to protect a novel idea or technology from plagiarism in the open market. Although this is very advantageous to any inventor or developer yearning to make fame or fortune, patenting can also have its drawbacks on any particular product. To discover more about the advantages and disadvantages of a patent, we must first define what a patent is.

A patent, as described by the U.S. patent office is “the grant of a property right to the inventor of an invention”[12], and the owner of a said patent is also described as “the inventor, as the owner of the patent, has the right to exclude any other person from making, using, or selling the invention covered by the patent anywhere in the United States for 17 years from the date the patent was issued”. Patents also have to be through and include how a system works, what technology is being used, and how to make use of it.

It is also important to note, that it is not just the inventor who may benefit from a patent. They also, as the inventor of the product, have the ability to sell the rights to their patent to someone else who may believe they will benefit from them. In fact, although difficult to assess just from the patent information, the inventors of these two vehicle security systems may not have actually worked for Ford or Nissan, but simply sold their idea on.

To determine the effectiveness of each these systems’ patent, we must discover what they actually achieve and how they work. To do this, it was necessary to explore the patents themselves and many of the following explanations about the systems are indeed taken from or derived by the abstracts included in the patents.

Keyless Lock System

Nissan’s keyless lock system allows the owner of the vehicle (with the use of a transmitter card) to enter and exit the car at his will, without having to use a key to lock or unlock the vehicle. The system operates by using a smart card, or transmitter card, that transmits a radio signal (microwaves) at a predetermined frequency to communicate with the vehicle. Using an onboard antenna, the vehicle can receive this signal and then using a control unit can translate the signal into an instruction to either lock or unlock the vehicle dependant on the existence or nonexistence of the card in a predetermined area near the antenna. [1] In other words, if the card is in the car or very near the car (positioned close to the antenna), the door will be unlocked but if the card is a predetermined distance away from the antenna, or indeed out of range, the door will be locked.



Anti Theft System

Ford’s Anti-Theft alarm system works on three modes: sound, vibration and motion. All three are sensed within a locked vehicle to detect any unauthorized intrusion into the interior or passenger compartment of the vehicle. Sound and vibration sensing are used to detect possible glass breakage whereas motion detection uses radar and microwaves to determine any movement or recurrent intrusion. [8] The Ford system also includes a mode where only the motion sensor is used (useful for when the glass may already be smashed, and the alarm has been switched off). Numerical values are assigned to specific physical sounds and vibrations and then using an onboard computer, the resulting totals are then compared to a threshold value. If the results are greater than the threshold, then the level of noise or vibration is deemed to high, and the alarm is set off (i.e. the glass may have been smashed).

Authentication Technology

From we can gather from the patents, the technology used in these systems is not ground breaking or new in any way. The technology has always been there it is just the way that is used that makes these systems novel and worth patenting to begin with. With Ford’s system, they have taken three different sensors, and linked them together to create one, more secure system. It is more an expansion on previous ideas; that is, the invention of a vibration sensor may have many uses other than that of a car alarm system, but here Ford have revised this idea, along with the use of other ideas, to incorporate this technology into a system that they desire. As far as using this technology as an authentication system, the alarm is either on (unauthorized access) or off (authenticated). The alarm is always armed, or is known as ‘passive’, because whenever the car is locked and unoccupied the alarm is turned on.

The way in which the alarm is deactivated is in fact the method of determining authentication. A key in a lock that is turned to unlock the door or the click of a remote button that matches the frequency expected by the vehicle deactivates the alarm. For these reasons, the alarm system is in reality authenticating against a rightful useful, for it is in this instance and this instance alone that the alarm shall not sound.

This rings true in many other systems, including Nissan’s keyless entry. Microwaves are not a new technology and have been used as a method of communication before; in fact they have been around for years and years. Similarly though, Nissan were able to patent their keyless entry system on the grounds that such technologies used together, create a substantial new invention.

To authenticate a user in this instance, the user must be carrying the correct smart card, and similarly to the alarm, the door will always be locked unless this smart card is within range. If the smart card were to be stolen, the car would still unlock as the card is the only method the car uses to determine the correct user is present. If we imagine that the presence of the card also authenticates against the alarm, any user carrying the key can gain access. Confidence therefore, of correct authentication over the standard key in the lock technique is no greater, and in fact this technology as far as authentication is concerned, is not actually a step forward.

Such theory can be applied in all kinds of authentication scenarios including that of encryption and cryptography in computing environments. The key to the car, or the smart card relates to that of the private key in a communication. Similarly if the key is in any user’s possession the system assumes that the key holder is legitimate and grants access, whether it be entering the vehicle, or decrypting a message. The problem lies in the fact that the whole system of authentication is based upon the fact that the key is within the possession of an authorized user, and not that of a potential thief.



The graph above shows that for cars registered after 1997, keys were used in 85% of all incidents where the method of theft was known. [7]

Known Attacks

As far as being secure, both of these authentication techniques offer minimal confidence. For both authenticate offer one dimension only, and that is that they assume the correct user is carrying the key. This is an age old problem within security across the board. So someone who steals a key, can unlock the car, disable the alarm, disable the immobilizer, and drive away. These methods offer no solutions to this problem, and nor do they try to.

Ford’s alarm system is designed to offer piece of mind when you leave your car on a back street in South East London, whereas Nissan’s system offers convenience to the user, in that they don’t have to search about for which pocket their key is in, as long as they have the smart card on them, the door’s will open. Neither system offers any sympathy for the person’s personal security; if you are mugged and your key is stolen, you’re still in the same trouble you always have been.

Other known attacks that these systems maybe susceptible too include the copying or fraud. For instance, if the correct microwave signal can be reproduced the possibility to fool the car into thinking that the smart card is present, may mean the system is compromised. Another technique could be to disable power to the battery of the car and hence cutting off power to the alarm. No power, no sensor, no onboard computer.

However, its not all doom and gloom as these methods do increase car security if one assumes your key is safe and sound. The keyless entry means the door has no locks, and hence the method of using an ‘improvised key’ is useless, as would be a screwdriver in the ignition barrel, if the car possesses a start button. It also eliminates the possibility of a spare key or a copied key being used without the user’s knowledge. The alarm system would deter most methods of break in, including the some what primitive ‘smash the window and in’ method, as well some more complex methods commonly used by car thieves.

The Known Affects on Privacy

The Problems of Patenting

The above systems have been patented in order to give the inventor and the companies (in this case, Ford and Nissan) protection against their competitors in the marketplace. However, at what cost? The act of patenting itself may have inadvertently caused the amount of protection provided by each system to be altered. Patenting itself cannot cause the product to change, but it does mean that the information and technology used in the product is available to the general public. With this in mind, any potential weaknesses or comprises that may be evident within the system, are now disclosed to everyone and anyone who wishes to take interest.

This in turn brings up issues as to whether inventors and businesses interested in security and security products should even patent their ideas at all. The obvious up side is the protection their ideas should obtain, although the patent process can often be a longwinded and costly process. Many experts in the field consider the U.S. patent system to be in disarray. An increasing number of individual inventors believe that the patent system works against them rather than for them, while the companies who deal in patented innovations increasingly see patents as being fraught with risk and danger. [10] Some of the problems stem from the difference in opinion from patent examiners, not only from country to country but domestically as well. This can lead to further delays to process than can already take in excess of four years to complete.

From Judge Fysh, patent examiner: “Patents used to be seen by businesses as a mechanism for securing new profits through exclusive licensing. But today, patents are seen either as a mechanism for scaring competitors, or as a liability, because of the possibility that they might be infringed and cost a lot in subsequent litigation”.

Further problems of patenting include the idea that more and more ideas and ‘innovations’ are being patented every day. Growth in the 'intensity of patenting' without corresponding growth in innovation leads to the problem of patent dilution - patents become less valuable, in both social and economic terms. The patent commission offered these statistics:

“In the USA, and to a lesser extent worldwide, the number of patents granted has been rapidly rising. Between 1981 and 2000, the number of patents granted in the USA has increased from 71,000 to over 184,000, an increase of 159 percent. In the last five years the rise has accelerated, the number of patents granted has increased by over 50 percent, compared to an increase of fewer than 14 percent in the previous five years. This increase appears to reflect growth in the intensity of patenting...rather than a 50 percent increase in the number of inventions.” [2]

It is widely thought that the solution to this problem lies in reforming the U.S. patent system, but even if there is a legitimate case to be made for greater stringency in granting patents, the problem may actually lie in the idea of the patent itself, with more and more companies offering up negligent changes to current methods as innovative ideas.

When considering a security product, this has its obvious downsides. Clearly, a security product is concerned on being secure, and the patent exposes the inventions technologies, methods, and flaws to the public. With the current worries surrounding the integrity of patenting, a company could improve on the innovation, iron out the flaws, and apply for their own patent concerning their new improved security product based on your idea. It is clear to see, and from the research conducted compiling this article, that there are a flood of patents for very similar ideas. Nissan’s keyless entry system is a patented product, but Mercedes-Benz, Renault, BMW, Peugeot all have such systems, along with their valid patents.

The Physical Effects

If we consider the known attacks on each system, and in turn consider that either system was compromised, it is important to evaluate the consequences on privacy for the owner of the vehicle. Both of these systems physically protect the interior of the car, and indeed the opportunity to drive the vehicle away. For these reasons we must consider what may be left in a vehicle for someone to wrongly gain access to. It is common to keep a whole host of valuables in vehicles, but not only this, but insurance details, and other items relating to the individual are often stowed away in glove boxes or seat pockets. Information about the individual which in turn can lead to further future problems can quite easily be compromised. Potentially then, the identity of the individual themselves could be put at risk.

It is no wonder the crime prevention agencies urge individuals not to keep valuables in their car or on show. This simple method can deter car theft and crime as the potential thieve can see no real gain in breaking in. However, what if the thief has the capability to steal the entire car? Nissan’s keyless system is employed mainly as an extra on their executive 4x4’s and pickup trucks. The cheaper and perhaps more common cars that Nissan provide may not include such benefits. In turn then, it is likely that the vehicle will be worth a fair amount of money, and it is obvious that a more executive car is far more desirable to steal in the first place. Unfortunately, it may just be an added price one pays for driving a nice car.
Commercial Strategy: How is Each System Marketed and Sold?

In this case, both systems are sold as part of a more complete vehicle setup. Nissan’s keyless system is fairly new to the range, and it is important to note that keyless systems are a fairly new technology in general. That said, the patent used to describe the system in this article, was filed in 1991 and issued in 1994. In contrast, alarm sensor systems as used by Ford have been around for some time longer, and there are many variants available on the market today. With that said the patent used to describe Ford’s sensor system was filed in 1993 and issued in 1996.

Currently, Nissan’s keyless entry system comes as standard on their bigger 4x4’s such as the top of the range Patrol vehicle and on their top of the range sports car, the 350z. However, on their lower spec passenger models such as the Micra or the Note, the system is not available, not even as an extra priced option. Their strategy consists of the idea that if you wanted such a system as keyless entry, you would also want a higher spec vehicle than that of the more common passenger car variants. To buy a keyless system brand new from a Nissan dealer, an individual would have to pay £24,395 for the Patrol, that being the cheapest vehicle the system is installed on. [9]

In contrast, Ford’s sensor system is now integrated as part of their top of the range Powercode that uses an impact system (noise, vibration and sound) alarm, which is also used in connection with Ford’s very own keyless entry system. It is likely that the technology is used across the board in many models of Ford across the U.S. and Europe. As for using the alarm as a selling point, the technology has been around for a while however, and car alarms are not particularly new or inventive idea to a potential customer nowadays.

These issues also have a big impact in advertising campaigns. Security and safety are a massive selling point to many potential customers. As the keyless entry system is a new technology to be implemented, advertising on this is big, with not only Nissan pushing these systems, but also the likes of Mercedes Benz, showing their system off as the pinnacle of security in passenger cars today. The alarm system and alarm system in general are not so pushed in advertising campaigns but are still included in specs and grades on nearly all car manufacturers’ websites.

Patents also play their part in this department as well. Patents allow a company to advertise such a system as their own, and therefore anyone else who might attempt to try this, is likely to be sued. With that said, other vehicle manufacturers advertise their own systems which to the mind of the average consumer look no different what so ever.

Conclusion

From what we have explored in this article it is clear that these systems are definitely innovative ideas in vehicle security. Despite the level of confidence that is offered with these systems not being particularly reassuring and neither of them addressing the problem of a stolen key, it is fair to say they are fit for purpose. The keyless entry system is merely a means of connivance to the user, and not an improvement in authentication terms of anything that has been before. The standard key from a 1980s Ford Capri offers the same level of authentication. Ford’s alarm system is suspect to similar problems, but does offer a level of protection to a car that is unattended, and both systems to offer their rightful owner that piece of mind.

Surely however, piece of mind is not enough. If even state of the art vehicle security still relies on private key authentication then why has it not been improved? It all comes down to striking a compromise between security and convenience for the user, and cost for the manufacturer. If a manufacturer were to implement multi dimensional authentication (i.e. a key to get in, followed by a fingerprint to disengage the immobiliser, and 4 bit code to start the engine), level of confidence in authentication would be improved no-end but at a great inconvenience to the user. Going through several stages of authentication just to start your car is simply not viable, not to mention driving the price of the car up, as the manufacturer looks to make money back on their investment.

Even so, it is not clear that any of these innovative ideas are protected like they should be by the use of patenting and patent law. If indeed these systems were individual and new inventions, then surely the patents should aim to protect these ideas from being copied or being marketed by someone else. Research for this article suggests that this may not be the case, and as described earlier, the idea of the dilution of patents and what the patent actually stands for in this day and age, poses a problem to the credibility of a patent, even one from 1991.

Therefore to conclude, it may be better to keep a security innovation idea close to your chest until production is nearly underway. That way, any technology that is being used to define the invention is kept away from public disclosure and any prying eyes from your competitors. It may save you a fair amount of money as well, and you may avoid a four year ordeal to obtain one. It may be wise to consider other methods of protecting ideas such as copyright or trade secrets. These may offer limited protection when compared directly to a patent, but also exclude the common problems patents can provide.

---

References

[1] Auto Theft (2002) Auto-theft Key Statistics Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.auto-theft.info/Statistics.htm
[2] Barton, J (2002) Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf
[3] Google Patent Search (2007) Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.google.com/patents
[4] Home Office (2002) Car Theft Index 2002 Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cti/cti2002.htm
[5] Kuruzo et al. (1991) United States Patent No. 5,293,160 Retrieved November 2007 from http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5293160.PN.&OS=PN/5293160&RS=PN/5293160
[6] Lessing, L (2000) Patent Problems Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,8999,00.html
[7] Levesley, T et al. (2004) Emerging Methods of Car Theft - Theft Of Keys Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/vehiclecrime/vehiclecrime44.htm
[8] Madau, A (1993) United States Patent Number 5,510,765 Retrieved November 2007 from http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5510765.PN.&OS=PN/5510765&RS=PN/5510765
[9] Nissan Motor Company (2007) Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.nissan.co.uk
[10] Starr, S (2002) Patent Problems Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DAE8.htm
[11] Stone, B (2004) Can U.S. Patent System Be Fixed? Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6241971/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
[12] U.S. Patent Office (2004) What Are Patents? Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.html

---

Appendix A

Questionnaire completed by 15 individuals.
All were briefed on each of the systems before answering the questions.
Employment status: (7 students, 7 in full time employment, and one retiree)*
Nine Male, Six Female.

1) Which system do you think would offer you greater security?

A) Keyless Entry (8)
B) Ford Anti Theft (7)

2) Do you currently use a keyless entry system on your vehicle?

A) Yes (2)
B) No(13)

3) Do you currently alarm your car when you leave it unattended?

A) Yes (13)
B) No (1)
C) My car has no alarm (1)

4) Would you consider keyless entry on your next vehicle?

A) Yes (14)
B) No (1)

*Two of which have worked in the automotive industry.