|
The CEO and co-founder of Tesla Motors, Elon Musk, says no patent lawsuits will be initiated against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use their technology.
Elon Musk says the following on their company blog:
"At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales."
[source]
According to Wired Tesla Motor's spokesman Simon Sproule says:
"The mission of the company is to accelerate the widespread adoption of electric cars. If Tesla acts as the catalyst for other manufacturers … that will have been achieved."
Tesla Motor's not only build electric cars, but also have developed battery technology and electrical charging stations. A couple of months ago they built their 100th station.
I think this is pretty darn exciting. It's also probably a good strategy for a company such as Tesla to try and bring over more car owners to the electric market. But I believe it really is good for everyone. It is also inspiring with companies that has such progressive take on patents.
|
I approve of this message! Let's hope this helps the company so they've set an example to follow.
|
They enjoy being martyrs then eh.. lol.
|
Do they and can they forteit their right to sue though? If not, I don't think any company will take the risk that they suddenly change their mind.
|
On June 13 2014 19:53 calh wrote:
Do they and can they forteit their right to sue though? If not, I don't think any company will take the risk that they suddenly change their mind.
I think by basically announcing they won't sue, they would probably lose any standing in court to sue.
This isn't a case of not suing someone for a period and then 3 years later deciding "actually I will sue", it's saying "we are happy for you to use this and we won't sue". I doubt a sane judge would allow them to change their minds.
So in answer to your question, there is a risk, because you would need a sane judge.
|
Netherlands291 Posts
Takes some balls to do this. Kind of taking on the martyrship. Let's hope they honestly mean it and that it's not purely a publicity stunt! I thoroughly enjoy and respect companies/scientists that regard knowledge as something that everyone should be sharing and teaching (freely).
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House42474 Posts
Yay more electric car companies incoming......
;_;
|
I think this is a very calculated move.
Tesla's always gonna stay a niche product if electric cars and the infrastructure for it doesnt become standard. Or they will flat out die. By opening up, they hope to push the entire market and its infrastructure towards electric cars. Its way easier to establish now, you give up a little bit of your lead and share your technology but you make sure that your technology wins the war.
I think its minimizing the risk of failure for the entire company by giving up some market share in the long run.
|
Don't know much about Tesla but i hope they are a bright light in a very shaddy auto bussiness!
Good for the USA and the world if this gets more mainstream!
I aprove and aplaud!
|
On June 13 2014 20:21 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
I think this is a very calculated move.
Tesla's always gonna stay a niche product if electric cars and the infrastructure for it doesnt become standard. Or they will flat out die. By opening up, they hope to push the entire market and its infrastructure towards electric cars. Its way easier to establish now, you give up a little bit of your lead and share your technology but you make sure that your technology wins the war.
I think its minimizing the risk of failure for the entire company by giving up some market share in the long run.
The other thing that they are likely doing, in some way I can't conceive, is attempting to combat the resistance they have met with getting actual dealerships set up in various states. Recently they won back the ability, to sell cars in New Jersey.
They have faced an uphill battle in just about every way as the product has become more mainstream.
|
Cayman Islands16638 Posts
the nerds will save us all
|
Electric Cars are something that have been around for a while but nobody has been using. Personally, I think they are an excellent option and would love to see more of them because all of the good things they really do. This whole "give away the patents!" thing could really be the boot in the butt that car companies needed to start mass producing electric cars. I'm excited to see where this leads, but sadly I still think it won't create tons of new electric cars in the next 5 years. I think it'll take around 10-15 years to see the full effect of this.
|
On June 13 2014 20:21 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
I think this is a very calculated move.
Tesla's always gonna stay a niche product if electric cars and the infrastructure for it doesnt become standard. Or they will flat out die. By opening up, they hope to push the entire market and its infrastructure towards electric cars. Its way easier to establish now, you give up a little bit of your lead and share your technology but you make sure that your technology wins the war.
I think its minimizing the risk of failure for the entire company by giving up some market share in the long run.
Ha, that is actually a very interesting point.
But in any event, if the technology does spread, and mass adoption becomes a thing, then everybody wins, so I guess I don't really care that this is "calculated".
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA15736 Posts
Tesla is gambling on the fact that if people start to use these patents, they already have the infrastructure to mass produce them and thus will be the biggest seller of them, which makes them more money in the long run
|
Also infracstructure. You can only reasonably sell electrical cars if there are a lot of charging stations, and you can only economically build charging stations if there are electrical cars. This works better if you have more sellers on the market.
I highly doubt that this is some altruistic or martyr move. It is just a bold move that could pay off very well or could backfire hard for Tesla, but in any case is probably good for everyone.
|
On June 13 2014 19:53 calh wrote:
Do they and can they forteit their right to sue though? If not, I don't think any company will take the risk that they suddenly change their mind.
A lot of big companies already do this. Microsoft and IBM for example allow a lot of small scale firms work with their technologies (usually you just apply for a license, and they'll grant it) , again provided in good faith. General practice is that it's hardly worth it for them to sue anyway, since small firms can't pay up + not worth all the bad press it would bring.
This is where a distinction between patents and trade marks shows. For trade marks, you HAVE to sue, or you risk losing it. Enforcement of patents are completely optional.
|
On June 14 2014 00:34 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 19:53 calh wrote:
Do they and can they forteit their right to sue though? If not, I don't think any company will take the risk that they suddenly change their mind. A lot of big companies already do this. Microsoft and IBM for example allow a lot of small scale firms work with their technologies (usually you just apply for a license, and they'll grant it) , again provided in good faith. General practice is that it's hardly worth it for them to sue anyway, since small firms can't pay up + not worth all the bad press it would bring. This is where a distinction between patents and trade marks shows. For trade marks, you HAVE to sue, or you risk losing it. Enforcement of patents are completely optional.
License =/= Giving everyone permission to freely make use of technology protected by patent.
License is the primary tool to actually maintain ownership over your intellectual property while using that intellectual property to make money. By licensing you give the licensee permission to use products/tools/programs/trademarks or what have you, but the licensee doesn't actually own any of the intellectual property and the intellectual property holder can still sue for infringement. Generating income from intellectual property is usually done by granting a license to someone else.
Most computer games work like this, none of us own the intellectual property tied to i.e. Starcraft II, we're just granted a license to use it.
|
On June 13 2014 20:21 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
I think this is a very calculated move.
Tesla's always gonna stay a niche product if electric cars and the infrastructure for it doesnt become standard. Or they will flat out die. By opening up, they hope to push the entire market and its infrastructure towards electric cars. Its way easier to establish now, you give up a little bit of your lead and share your technology but you make sure that your technology wins the war.
I think its minimizing the risk of failure for the entire company by giving up some market share in the long run.
Also this. They may give up current patents, because they are not benefitting from locking up important tech on the market right now by not sharing their patents. Letting everyone else into the game will probably benefit them in the long run. Nothing says they wont patent technology in the future which might be key to maintain market access for other involved companies. Tesla will in return demand that they pay for this technology, Tesla wins.
|
On June 13 2014 22:26 amazingxkcd wrote:
Tesla is gambling on the fact that if people start to use these patents, they already have the infrastructure to mass produce them and thus will be the biggest seller of them, which makes them more money in the long run
Somewhat. There's a lot of forces at play. For one thing, Tesla does a lot of in-house manufacturing of the things that make their cars work. They have that giant battery factory being made now. If firms take the quick shortcut and use Tesla's technology, or even spin-off a lot of it, they're going to need those parts to some extent. Possibly even go to Tesla for consultation on getting the tech working correctly. Also, lets not forget that Tesla is facing a huge waiting line for their product, so they're super-saturated with demand they cannot serve themselves, and ramping up production would be a bad decision if demand isn't sustained.
At the same time, patents have proved far more detrimental to electronics and user-interactive technology in adoption. The simple process of bringing a first successful product to market is already a humongous lead, and unless you have a dream-team of developers and engineers that can transform the product into something everybody wants, you're going to have a stale product with only your diehard supporters. Think of all the smartphone patents right now, which are then ripped off and added to the next iteration OS or hardware. The lawsuits are simply expensive and they don't stop the product from being effectively copied, but that lead gained by the pioneer of the feature/product is enough to make it worth it.
|
I'm really interested to see how Tesla does in the near future. Over the last couple months I've seen more and more of them on the road around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
