Tesla Releases Electric Car Patents To the Public

mknewman (557587) writes with a welcome followup to the broad hints that Tesla might release some of its patents for others to use patents that it has amassed. Now, Elon Musk writes on the company's blog: Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology. Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

Comments

Trust but verify

[cunniff]

If I were personally going to use one of Tesla's patents in my business, I'd want a signed zero-cost GPL-like license agreement with Tesla. For example, Musk's good will is nice, but what if someone else were to acquire Tesla's IP?

Re:Trust but verify

[Lumpio-]

Then you'd need a clause in the contract that binds Tesla to come up with a way to hold up their promise even in the case that they decide to sell.

Re:Trust but verify

[thaylin]

Well the blog post is really all they need now. he is the CEO of the company, which means what he writes there is what it is. If they sue now there will be some massive fees for them..

The question I would have though is what it means to be in good faith...

Re:Trust but verify

[jeffmeden]

If I were personally going to use one of Tesla's patents in my business, I'd want a signed zero-cost GPL-like license agreement with Tesla. For example, Musk's good will is nice, but what if someone else were to acquire Tesla's IP?

To that end, "good faith" doesn't have a history in patent law; he could take anyone who was using the patents to seriously compete or encroach on Tesla's existing market share as lacking it, and there would be no recourse.

Re:Trust but verify

[TWX]

The question I would have though is what it means to be in good faith...

Bingo.

If I had any real forward momentum with an electric car design that might use something patented by Tesla, I'd approach them to get a formal agreement, even if it's just a rubber-stamp formality. The tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer costs to ensure that millions of dollars in lawsuits are avoided would be worthwhile.

It is worthy to note that automakers have released patents before. Volvo invented the three-point seatbelt that has become the ubiquitous seatbelt today, and they felt that it was so important that they released their patent early specifically so that other automakers could make their cars safer.

I kind of also expect that Tesla has something new, so these patents aren't all that important to protect their business, as their new thing will probably blow the doors off of the current stuff.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

If I were personally going to use one of Tesla's patents in my business, I'd want a signed zero-cost GPL-like license agreement with Tesla. For example, Musk's good will is nice, but what if someone else were to acquire Tesla's IP?

It wouldn't matter, I don't think. A clearer statement than "we took our plaques off our wall" is needed, but assuming there is a clear statement from Tesla that they will only use these patents defensively, anyone who takes them at their word should be safe.

Why? There's a legal concept called "promissory estoppel". In a nutshell, it means that if I make you a promise and you, in good faith, depend upon that promise and build your business on it, and I knew or should have known that you were going to do so, then I can't later change my mind, withdraw my promise and sue you for doing what I said you could do.

Re:Trust but verify

[gstoddart]

Well the blog post is really all they need now. he is the CEO of the company, which means what he writes there is what it is.

No, the problem happens if someone comes in and buys Tesla out from under him.

The ownership of those patents is now the people who own Tesla. They may see things differently.

So, Musk can say all this all he wants, and it amounts to "while I'm CEO". But unless there is something which is legally binding, someone else could change their mind.

This sounds like a nice promise, and a well intentioned one, but in reality, I'm not sure it's legally binding against Tesla, or anybody in the future who comes to own these patents.

So would you base your business on using patents which you have been told, in a non-binding way, you may use? Or would you have to realize that things could change if he's ousted from the board, dies, or the company is sold?

I should think somewhere there are lawyers going "I don't think that really covers us enough".

Re:Trust but verify

[thaylin]

Well that is one of the things that SCO failed on in court so I am fairly certain you are incorrect. This gives the other company an affirmative defense.

Re:Trust but verify

[nine-times]

For example, Musk's good will is nice, but what if someone else were to acquire Tesla's IP?

IANAL, but I believe that if you have a license to use intellectual property, and the owner of the IP is acquired, the license would still be valid. For example, if you hold the copyright to a song and I pay you $10k to license that song in a movie, and then you sold the copyright to that song, the new owner can't turn around sue me for using the song in my movie. I believe the same thing holds for patents.

So the question is, can Tesla's promise not to sue be construed as a "license". I believe that if it's not a license and he's just saying, "I probably won't sue," then he could legally change his mind even if he didn't sell the company.

Re:Trust but verify

[gstoddart]

Well that is one of the things that SCO failed on in court so I am fairly certain you are incorrect.

I certainly hope so, but the tinfoil hat certainly skews my perceptions a little. ;-)

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you'd need a clause in the contract that binds Tesla to come up with a way to hold up their promise even in the case that they decide to sell.

Maybe I'm naive, but doesn't a way already exist? I mean, why would a company be able to purchase patents without the accompanying contracts that other companies have regarding use of those patents? If that were the case, Tesla could just sell the patents to a shell corporation and sue all the companies they'd previously signed contracts with.

Re:Trust but verify

[BasilBrush]

I kind of also expect that Tesla has something new, so these patents aren't all that important to protect their business, as their new thing will probably blow the doors off of the current stuff.

It rather reads as a new policy with regard to all patents, existing and future. So your expectation doesn't seem likely.

Re:Trust but verify

[steelfood]

To avoid lawsuits, big companies will probably still want a contract signed before using the patented technology on purpose. The smaller players won't be able to ask for something signed, but they also will be less likely to worry about lawsuits, and they are sufficiently covered by Musk's public official blog post.

No good deed will go unpunished though. Saying "no strings attached" is practically asking for people to look for the strings, and then make imaginary ones up when they can't be found.

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. The term 'good faith' has a *lot* of history in business and contract law.

Tesla has just publicly released a verbal contract granting a public license to use the patents in question. Suing someone over the use of such *without* evidence of bad faith would be an act of bad faith on Tesla's part.

Re:Trust but verify

[vux984]

For example, if you hold the copyright to a song and I pay you $10k to license that song in a movie, and then you sold the copyright to that song, the new owner can't turn around sue me for using the song in my movie.

All true. However, you might not be able to continue to sell copies of that movie.

It recently happened on GoG and Steam just recently for example; they each had a licenses to sell Fallout; Bethesda got rights to all the Fallout IP from Interplay, and Steam and GoG had to remove the games from the catalog; at least until they get a new licensing deal from Bethesda (which may or may not happen).

You'll also see it with movies etc where it gets REALLY stupid, where the company that holds the rights to the movie can't make a DVD release because they only have the rights to soundtrack/music for VHS. (Which is one reason you'll sometimes see a DVD release with an altered soundtrack)

Re:Trust but verify

[tooslickvan]

A clearer statement than "we took our plaques off our wall" is needed, but assuming there is a clear statement from Tesla that they will only use these patents defensively, anyone who takes them at their word should be safe.

Telsa should have the CEO publicly post such a statement where Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use their technology. This will be quickly picked up by tech blogs and linked to the statement.

Re:Trust but verify

[Monkey-Man2000]

This is a very good point and excellent support for your point is the experience Google had with Sun Microsystems and now Oracle regarding the Android/Java technology. Last I heard Oracle had won the argument that an API is copyrightable in front of a judge and that Google owes them money; it must be in appeal because I didn't recall hearing that Google actually paid out yet. A key difference, of course, is that this is patents and Oracle was mostly arguing copyright I believe. And I believe Google's main defense was that the last CEO at Sun supported their usage (notwithstanding the fact that an API should NOT be copyrightable to begin with!).

Re:Trust but verify

[riverat1]

Maybe you need to cut some eye holes in it. ;-)

Re:Trust but verify

[gstoddart]

But then they will be able to directly read my thoughts from my eyes, man, and their retinal scanners will be able to track my movements.

Don't you know anything? ;-)

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't matter, but not in the way you meant. The reason it doesn't matter is that in present day America, the side with the most money always wins legal battles. So it's pointless to speculate and debate the actual legal technicalities, because the highest paid lawyers are better at it than you.

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to all the people who based their software off of Java, who used the API in good faith.

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. That didn't stop Rambus.

Re:Trust but verify

[TheCarp]

IANAL but this was always how I understood contracts and verbal ones. A verbal agreement is still an agreement and the reason they are generally not considered "much good" is that they are, in the general case, notoriously hard to prove exist and to prove the exact terms of.... but that doesn't make them any less real in cases where those issues are not the case.

Here we have public and fairly explicit statements from an officer of the company who is authorized to speak to the public. I think that unless they can prove some bad faith, they are going to have a hard time weaseling out of those statements.

And forget the courts, can you imagine the PR nightmare of suing someone for doing something you publicly issued a permission to do?

Re:Trust but verify

[Charliemopps]

Well the blog post is really all they need now. he is the CEO of the company, which means what he writes there is what it is. If they sue now there will be some massive fees for them..

The question I would have though is what it means to be in good faith...

And when your company builds its entire product line on Tesla patents... it'll be 5 to 10 years until you have a product. Tesla cars end up causing cancer or something so they go bankrupt and Apple buys up their patents as part of their bankruptcy... You wont even have to wait for the Apple lawsuit. Your stock will tank and you'll be out of business long before that.

Re:Trust but verify

[Hentai]

You know, I watched my wife work all day gettin' thirty tinfoil sheets together for you ungrateful sons of bitches, and all I hear is criticize, criticize, criticize!

Re:Trust but verify

[nine-times]

All true. However, you might not be able to continue to sell copies of that movie.

It recently happened on GoG and Steam just recently for example; they each had a licenses to sell Fallout; Bethesda got rights to all the Fallout IP from Interplay, and Steam and GoG had to remove the games from the catalog; at least until they get a new licensing deal from Bethesda (which may or may not happen).

You're confusing different things. GOG and Steam are stores. If I make a movie, and then I sell the copyright to that movie, the new copyright holder can pull copies of that movie from store shelves, depending on the distribution deals they have with the stores that carry it. However, if I've sold a license to HBO to show that movie for the next year, the new copyright holder can't simply pull the movie from HBO.

You'll also see it with movies etc where it gets REALLY stupid, where the company that holds the rights to the movie can't make a DVD release because they only have the rights to soundtrack/music for VHS. (Which is one reason you'll sometimes see a DVD release with an altered soundtrack)

But that's not because the company that holds the rights to the music was allowed to revoke the license to have that music in the show. It's because the original license didn't cover DVD distribution, so the show's producer would need to acquire an additional license for that.

Bottom line: AFAIK, licensing isn't invalidated by sale of the IP.

Re:Trust but verify

[SlaveToTheGrind]

You're fully correct about the legal doctrine, but in reality there's a non-zero chance that it will cost you a very large number of dollars to defend a patent lawsuit filed by a future assignee who convinces the judge that even the "clearer statement" (1) wasn't so clear and/or (2) didn't apply to your particular use.

There's actually a simple way that Tesla could make this binding -- formally disclaim the rest of the term of the patents at the Patent Office.

37 C.F.R. 1.321 Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.
(a) A patentee owning the whole or any sectional interest in a patent may disclaim any complete claim or claims in a patent. In like manner any patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns. A notice of the disclaimer is published in the Official Gazette and attached to the printed copies of the specification.

It will be interesting to see if they actually go that far.

Re:Trust but verify

[Bengie]

A change in ownership doesn't change the fact that the "company" stated they won't sue over certain patents. I can't invite you over, then bet you with a baseball bat, claiming self defense against a trespasser.

Re:Trust but verify

[MightyYar]

That would defeat their ability to use the patents defensively. For example, Toyota coming after them for violating some Prius patent.

Re:Trust but verify

[SlaveToTheGrind]

True enough, but if they're going to keep the patents in force then in my opinion this amounts to little more than a publicity stunt. If and when I can get from them on demand a fully-paid-up license to their entire portfolio for $1 so I have actual, legal, freedom to operate, I'll take this more seriously.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

There is a middle ground. They could issue a zero-cost, binding, globally-applicable patent license with an exception that withdraws the license from anyone who sues them. This is actually pretty common, and I think it would be a much better choice than placing the patents in the public domain.

I expect something like that will be forthcoming. So far all we have is a blog post; I imagine the more substantive version from the legal department is in progress.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

I don't recall Rambus ever committing not to sue.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

Tell that to all the people who based their software off of Java, who used the API in good faith.

None of whom have been successfully sued. Oracle tried to sue Google, not based on using the API, but on re-implementing Java. And they lost.

Re: Trust but verify

[dgatwood]

But what about a change in ownership of the patents? Company A goes bankrupt, company B buys the patent portfolio from the bankruptcy liquidation sale. To what extent is company A's agreement binding upon company B?

Re:Trust but verify

[SlaveToTheGrind]

If you know of any examples of such a pledge being tested and enforced by a court, I'd appreciate seeing them. My understanding is that while the practice is somewhat in vogue recently, it's still very much a no-man's-land in terms of future certainty. For example, does the promise only apply to the initial promisor, or is the patent itself permanently impaired and future assignees take subject to that impairment? The last few years of litigation in the somewhat parallel area of licensing commitments to standard-setting organizations suggests that a lot of time and money will be spent trying to answer such questions.

Re:Trust but verify

[DM9290]

Well the blog post is really all they need now. he is the CEO of the company, which means what he writes there is what it is. If they sue now there will be some massive fees for them..

The question I would have though is what it means to be in good faith...

'good faith' is a legal term that is understood by courts. It is no more vague than "causing a public nuisance".

good faith: building and selling your own standards compliant electric cars for profit.
good faith: trying to build or design an improved version of the electric car based on tesla's technology.
good faith: making a standards compliant legal cell phone with a longer battery life.

not good faith : using the patents to operate a mobile meth lab.
not good faith: building substandard cars that have a 50% chance of bursting into flames and immolating the driver.
not good faith: building electric vehicles to smuggle weapons of mass distruction.
not good faith: building illegal bombs for criminals (as opposed to building legal bombs for a national government that is part of NATO).
not good faith: building fake tesla cars in order to dupe the public into buying your vehicle when they think they are buying a brand name Tesla vehicle.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

I don't know of any challenges, but the principle in question seems nearly identical to the copyleft notion underlying the GPL -- a notion that went untested in court for a very long time because, basically, every attorney that looked at it decided it wasn't worth fighting. As for whether an assignee is obligated to honor the license, I can't see how they could possibly avoid it, particularly if the license states that it's irrevocable (excepting its exceptions). I'm not aware of any purchaser of a patent who has successfully argued that they can revoke a licensing commitment to a standards body, either. It seems to me that the precedent is rather firmly established.

Re:Trust but verify

[Meyaht]

I'm goin home! And dont bother askin me or mine fur nothin anymore!

Re:Trust but verify

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I don't know of any challenges, but the principle in question seems nearly identical to the copyleft notion underlying the GPL -- a notion that went untested in court for a very long time because, basically, every attorney that looked at it decided it wasn't worth fighting.

At least some manufacturers of electric cars presumably will have more money splashing around than open-source software developers, and thus will be more attractive targets. Beyond that, I'd be careful analogizing very much at all between copyrights and patents -- they're two entirely separate bodies of law.

I'm not aware of any purchaser of a patent who has successfully argued that they can revoke a licensing commitment to a standards body, either. It seems to me that the precedent is rather firmly established.

It all depends on what you mean by "successfully argued." The real-world question is not whether an argument will ultimately carry the day at trial, but how much money you're going to spend either (1) fighting the case to get to trial, or (2) settling the case so you don't have to spend the money fighting and have the legal uncertainty hanging over your company's head. Those amounts tend to run in the millions of dollars for all but the true bottom-feeders, who may walk away for low-mid-six figures. Though it's a bit dated, here's a fairly good overview of the last several years of significant litigation over commitments to standards bodies. There have been a number of smaller cases as well.

Re:Trust but verify

[DerekLyons]

Why? There's a legal concept called "promissory estoppel". In a nutshell, it means that if I make you a promise and you, in good faith, depend upon that promise and build your business on it, and I knew or should have known that you were going to do so, then I can't later change my mind, withdraw my promise and sue you for doing what I said you could do.

Disclaimer: IANAL
 
Yes, it appears that "promissory estoppel" can create an implied contract, but it's not at all clear to me that a press release meets the standard. More to the point, "promissory estoppel" appears to be situational - not absolute. And you can bet Tesla's lawyers know that - hence the weaseling "in good faith" and "in the spirit of open source" (without actually specifying what that means or which license applies).

In the end, I suspect the OP is correct - without a signed and sealed contract or other appropriate and valid legal instrument... nobody with any sense and/or a half decent lawyer will depend on a press release and Tesla/Musk's continued good intentions as a legal defense against infringement. Particularly this applies to the big automakers or any real money investing in a smaller automaker. This is an impressive publicity stunt, and it will impress the impressionable and the fanboys, but without the proper legal backing that's all it is. The fanboys will use this press release to bitch and complain about the Big Automakers - and will never clearly understand how neatly they've been played. (To my mind, given that Tesla and SpaceX are still both essentially startups skating on thin financial ice, it's an open question as to Musk's acumen as a businessman. But one thing there's no question about to me, in the last few years Musk has emerged as a master manipulator of public opinion.)

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. If you get (usually buy) a license from a company for a patent, that license stays in force even if the company you bought it from is acquired. If contracts didn't work this way, companies could just continually change ownership and demand new license fees.

Of course what Elon Musk is offering here is not a license or a promise, but a vaguely worded statement:

It's a trap.

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

And forget the courts, can you imagine the PR nightmare of suing someone for doing something you publicly issued a permission to do?

Or don't forget the courts. The word you're looking for is "estoppel".

Re:Trust but verify

[jo_ham]

A clearer statement than "we took our plaques off our wall" is needed, but assuming there is a clear statement from Tesla that they will only use these patents defensively, anyone who takes them at their word should be safe.

Telsa should have the CEO publicly post such a statement where Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use their technology. This will be quickly picked up by tech blogs and linked to the statement.

You should read the whole statement on the website. It's much clearer than the small, random part of it quoted in the slashdot summary.

Re:Trust but verify

[The Snowman]

Of course what Elon Musk is offering here is not a license or a promise, but a vaguely worded statement:

It's a trap.

Not really. It is a blanket contract with the public at large. This was a public statement made in a public forum, and it carries with it the full force of contract law. If he tries to sue anyone who acted "in good faith" this statement could be used as evidence against him in a court of law.

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but public domain quashes all that. If he openly creates a press release to public domain saying "all our patents belong to you" it is in fact nullifying them.

Very ballsy if you ask me. He should of said free licence to use our patents, list the specific patents in question and create a licence as you've said. Instead he said everything we own we no longer own, I'm the director and I don't care.

what if someone else were to acquire Tesla's IP

It would be worthless. In fact this move has already devalued it.

Re:Trust but verify

[sillybilly]

Patents are all bullshit. I recommend going back to a completely patent free trade secret world. If someone reverse engineers your stuff, so be it. Patents are yet another limit on the freedom of do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt the children. It's like somebody is gonna patent having a job.

Re:Trust but verify

[DamnOregonian]

"good faith", or in legalese, bona fide, actually has a huge part to play in all civil law.
Judges have also traditionally been pretty unsympathetic to people acting in a non bona fide fashion, whether it's specifically in the contract or not.

Re:Trust but verify

[Dahamma]

They don't really need something "new", because what they already have is a completely new mindset for a car company. They are so far ahead of the established old-thought auto makers in so many areas that it would take the rest of them a complete overhaul of their entire executive staff, middle management, engineer and design teams, factories, etc, to get close.

Not to mention they are profitable and make an $80k+ niche car that has been backordered since well before it was ever released. At some level it's like Ferrari saying "ok, we are releasing the patents behind our $1M supercar" - the market is so specialized it wouldn't matter, and Ferrari's demand so outstrips their supply you basically have to get permission from Ferrari to even buy one.

Re:Trust but verify

[Dahamma]

Telsa should have the CEO publicly post such a statement where Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use their technology. This will be quickly picked up by tech blogs and linked to the statement.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not... because it's EXACTLY WHAT THE LINKED BLOG POST IS. And in fact, that's exactly what Slashdot just did...

Re: Trust but verify

[Dahamma]

If there was a written agreement/contract or patent license (which I assume there will be, and it will also include very specific clauses about indemnifying Tesla against any lawsuits of the licensee) then it doesn't matter.

And despite the casual tone of Musk's post, Tesla is a large public company and still beholden to shareholders, etc. They will undoubtedly get the lawyers involved to make sure things go as planned. This isn't the first time a company has done this (or similarly, multiple companies have pooled their defensive patents), so it's not like there aren't established practices already...

Re:Trust but verify

[riverat1]

Sorry, my bad. ;-)

Re:Trust but verify

[Dahamma]

And most importantly...

not good faith: using our patents and then trying to sue us for infringing yours.

They aren't going to give up their defensive position, they are basically just promising not to sue if they are not sued.

Re:Trust but verify

[Dahamma]

In fact, RTFA and not just the two sentence quoted in the summary, and said clearer statement is already there :)

Re:Trust but verify

[vux984]

You're confusing different things. GOG and Steam are stores. If I make a movie, and then I sell the copyright to that movie, the new copyright holder can pull copies of that movie from store shelves, depending on the distribution deals they have with the stores that carry it

Actually no, odds are you can't pull something physical from shelves. The store will be able to sell that stock. All you can do is prevent any additional copies from being made.

Which is why nothing GoG/Steam did until the loss of the right to distribute was illegal, but they were unable to continue to distribute (make new copies) available for sale.

That was my point with respect to patents. If you licensed a patent, and the patent was sold, your use of the patent to that point is safe they can't go back after what you did with it in the past, but gong forward you may not be able to keep using the patent.

So if you used Tesla patents and produced some cars, those cars would be fine. But if Tesla then sold the patents, and your permission to use them is terminated, those original cars are still fine. But you may not be able to use the patents to build any new cars.

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course what Elon Musk is offering here is not a license or a promise, but a vaguely worded statement:

It's a trap.

Not really. It is a blanket contract with the public at large. This was a public statement made in a public forum, and it carries with it the full force of contract law. If he tries to sue anyone who acted "in good faith" this statement could be used as evidence against him in a court of law.

No it doesn't. Under contract law, something must be exchanged. One person's promise by itself does NOT constitute a contract, whether written or verbal. A promise is legally worthless, unless some SPECIFIC other person is in a position to be able to claim to have relied detrimentally upon the promise, and be damaged by the same. There is, LEGALLY, no such thing as the "public at large" in contract law. An actual person or enterprise of some kind would need to be specified.

So... it IS a trap. No one should rely upon this, this is just an invitation to get sued for violating IP rights. Consider this before you start writing back to argue with me these legal points: WHAT DOES "GOOD FAITH" mean? Who determines what is in "good faith?" Does Musk mean he's okay with me using his patents as long as I don't become richer than he is in the process? How can I know he won't sue me for damages if I build a car using his patents, and the results are such that no one buys Tesla's anymore? Think he won't sue when his little electric sports car company goes under because someone figures out how to make a reliable, attractive electric vehicle for a reasonable price?

Oh, and while we're on the subject, what happens to someone who relies on this 'promise' not to sue, and the patent turns out to breach someone else' patents? Does Musk promise to defend any claims by third parties of infringement, or for damages from the same? Who is liable if you use one of his patents, and a flaw in the design causes some to blow up and kill everyone in the car? Is he accepting unlimited liability for that?

Re:Trust but verify

[DexterIsADog]

Patents are all bullshit. I recommend going back to a completely patent free trade secret world. If someone reverse engineers your stuff, so be it. Patents are yet another limit on the freedom of do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt the children. It's like somebody is gonna patent having a job.

I imagine there are no patents in your name. Well, feel free to continue not patenting anything you invent. The rest of us will continue to use a flawed system that still provides some promise that if we invent something, we'll get a chance to profit from it.

Re:Trust but verify

[Aighearach]

Verbal means made of words. Perhaps you meant "oral contract." If you don't know if it exists, you certainly don't know what it says, so it can't be verbal.

The reason a "verbal contract" would suck is because most people who write a contract on a napkin, write an awful contract that doesn't clearly spell out the terms, or doesn't have legal terms. So it is made of words, it is "verbal," but it still isn't clear.

In this case, the blog post is a very good verbal contract, because it is clearly written and uses phrases like, "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

Meh. I still think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

I did RTFA, and I didn't see a really clear statement. A clear statement would describe exactly what they're doing... releasing the patents to the public domain, issuing a general license, etc.

Re:Trust but verify

[Aighearach]

It isn't that GPL isn't "worth" fighting, it is that you can't fight it, you can't challenge it.

You can't sue to harm yourself, you have to sue to get something. You also can't sue unless you're involved or harmed by something. So in the case of copyright, you have to either be a copyright holder or a user of a copyrighted work in order to even have a chance at standing.

In the case of the GPL, if you dislike the terms, what can you ask for? You can't ask for new terms, courts don't write contracts. If you had paid money, or traded goods or services, for access to a work then you might indeed sue to get your money back. But GPL is free. The only terms are restrictions that are symmetrical to the rights granted. If you had paid something and then found the terms to be misleading or unfair, you might sue to have them declared unenforceable. But when something is free, it becomes very hard to claim you're harmed by accepting it; especially when it is electronic information! It is not like it can fall over on you and cause an injury, or something like that. And the requirement to share your own code can't be challenged as unfair, because the penalty is only the loss of the license; since there is no financial penalty, even if you accidentally based your proprietary product on a GPL product, you can just rewrite the parts the you weren't allowed to use. You're not forced by your mistake to ever release any source code if you don't want to. So even the "penalty" for violating the license terms is neutral, and so not really challenge-able.

So all you could ask for would be to have your right to use the work removed by canceling your contract. But that would harm you, it wouldn't gain you anything, so you can't sue for that. And indeed, you can unilaterally just stop using it without the court's permission.

Re:Trust but verify

[Aighearach]

Official corporate blogs might have a much more formal role than you realize. This isn't just a "press release," it is an official company communication to the public, that uses a bunch of legal phrases.

Re:Trust but verify

[Dahamma]

Eh, I think "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology" was pretty clear. Of course they are going to bring the lawyers in and codify it all, etc. I'm sure it will be the pretty standard "you don't sue us we won't sue you kind of thing" plenty of other companies have already done. This was a blog post, not a legal document...

Re:Trust but verify

[mr_zorg]

You know he did both of those things, right? RTFM

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course licenses aren't changed by a transfer of IP. Nobody is worried that Microsoft will get bought and the new company can start shaking people down for and extra $20 per windows license or they'll sue to have them uninstall the software they licensed. A license would be worthless if it was no longer valid after a transfer of the IP. All you would have to do to revoke any rights given in the license is have a different company buy the IP. If you happen to own both companies that wouldn't really matter.

Re:Trust but verify

[DerekLyons]

It's a press release no matter how many legal sounding phrases it contains. It doesn't actually contain any legal phrases (though it's cleverly worded to appear like it does) and it's emphatically not a legally binding instrument (though it could be used to establish intent, it's still not binding).

And no shit it's an "official corporate communication" - that's very fucking definition of a press release you moron.

Re:Trust but verify

[sillybilly]

Or get steamrolled by a legal team in a court in a whose pockets are deeper to stay in the game, irregardless of who's right or wrong? A world without any patents is just so much simpler. Like, these days there is an Australian patent on the wheel. It probably would not stand up in court, but to simply prove that, you may run out of funds before you get to prove it, and lose the case that way. Do you have deep pockets to be such a fan of patents? Cuz that's all they are, bullshit, and extortion games. They used to have something to do with inventions long time ago, but that's no longer the case. They are all pure raw bullshit. You can barely read them from beginning to end and make sense out of them anymore, unlike, say patents from 1960's or even 80's the latest, but by the 90's the shit hit the fan, and almost all patents are mile long nonsenses.

Re:Trust but verify

[Barsteward]

mercedes refused, for the benefit of everyone, to patent anti-lock brakes and it didn't do them any harm. not everything is for profit, sad life if it is.

Re:Trust but verify

[James McGuigan]

I think we can safely divide the potentual innovators in electric car design into two categories:

1. Start-ups and lone individuals who lack any significant patent portfolio of their own
2. The small number of big auto-giants (General Motors, Ford, Chrysler)

The promise was simply not to "initiate" any patent lawsuits as long as people where acting in "good faith". This is effectively the offer of a patent non-aggression pact, if you don't sue us, we won't sue you.

Startups can tweak and reinvent the technology, but they then can't sue Tesla if they borrow their ideas back. The promise avoids the barrier to entry of hiring a patent laywer before you can even start tinkering.

The big auto-giants would probably seek a more formally written agreement, but as Tesla Motors was first to properly research high end electric cars, so they probably hold many core and fundamental patents. Big auto will probably be infringing on something in their own electric cars. And big auto could probably find some technicality of their own mountain of patients to stick on Tesla Motors.

A long patent lawsuit might be costly for big auto, but could push Tesla Motors out of business completely.

Re:Trust but verify

[TheCarp]

Ahh legal Jargon is so fun. The majority of English speakers I have ever interacted with would take "verbal" and "oral" as meaning the exact same thing. In fact, your post may be the first time I have, in my entire life, seen "verbal" used to refer to something written down.

I am sure you have the correct technical definition as used by people in the legal profession, but, its not the definition everyone else is working off of.

Re:Trust but verify

[nine-times]

Actually no, odds are you can't pull something physical from shelves

Well as I said, depending on the distribution deal you have with the stores that carry it. The point is that stores tend to have specific deals relating to distribution, which is a bit different from other copyright/patent licensing.

That was my point with respect to patents. If you licensed a patent, and the patent was sold, your use of the patent to that point is safe they can't go back after what you did with it in the past, but gong forward you may not be able to keep using the patent.

It depends on the license, which was my point with respect to patents. If I have a license to use the patent for 5 years, then I have those 5 years. The new owner can choose not to renew the license at the end of 5 years, but they can't just tell me to stop using it immediately. Likewise, if I have a perpetual license, then the new content owner can't stop me from using the patent in the future.

But if Tesla then sold the patents, and your permission to use them is terminated

Again, it depends on the legal interpretation of what's happening here. Is Tesla only saying, "We don't plan on suing you, assuming we feel like you're acting in good faith"? Then Tesla themselves could still suddenly tell you to stop using the license. Or are they offering everyone a blanket perpetual license to use the patents? In that case, a new owner wouldn't be able tell you to stop using that technology, because they need to honor the existing license.

Re:Trust but verify

[m.ducharme]

For what it's worth, I've never heard that definition of "verbal" contract at all, either in law school or in my practice. As far as I'm concerned, a verbal and an oral contract are the same thing. You might be able to quibble and say that a contract made in American Sign Language is verbal but not oral, I guess.

Re:Trust but verify

[m.ducharme]

Yeah, I'm not familiar with the distinction you're drawing. Verbal and oral are basically the same thing, both terms mean a contract spoken but not written down (at least, that was the case when I went to law school, and I've never encountered anything in practice that says otherwise), and Musk's blog post is not verbal or oral. It's written, but it's not a contract. There is only one party, it's not a meeting of the minds. Essentially it's a gift.

Re:Trust but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Mercedes didn't invent the anti-lock braking system. Therefore, they were never in a position to patent it. The first use of anti-lock (anti-skid) systems was all the way back in the 20's on aircraft. Later on, motorcycles adopted a similar approach. The first car to be equipped with an electronic unit was in the early 70's by Chrysler. Mercedes didn't introduce their first units until the late 70's.

My '72 Imperial has electronic four wheel anti-lock braking... the earliest reference I see from Mercedes is '78.

Here's an article that talks about the exact thing: http://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/Articles/2013/04/09/Antilock-Brakes

Bill

Re:Trust but verify

[david_thornley]

A contract has consideration for both sides. What does Tesla get out of this that's sufficiently tangible? Musk may not be CEO forever (if nothing else, he's almost certain to die sometime), and the courts would have to rule how this binds Tesla. There are legal protections for people depending on such promises ('laches", if reading Groklaw wasn't an entire waste), but they aren't absolute.

Moreover, suppose Tesla goes bankrupt (I don't expect it to, but it wouldn't be too incredibly surprising)? Then the assets, including the patents, get auctioned off to other people and companies, and they haven't agreed to any sort of no-sue contract. Actual contract licenses are binding, but I don't think the courts will consider this a license.

Re:Trust but verify

[david_thornley]

Latest judgment was that Google did violate Oracle's copyrights by re-implementing the API. I really, really hope the Supreme Court hears this and rules intelligently, because that's the last hope after the Circuit Court.

Re:Trust but verify

[david_thornley]

IANAL, but IIRC the courts have generally viewed the GPL as a license, not a contract. Therefore, if you write and GPL some code, and I use it in violation of the GPL, I don't owe you anything for GPL violation. On the other hand, I'm violating your copyright, and you have the right to sue on that basis. The RIAA and MPAA have pushed for harsh statutory damages in the US, so the copyright holder has a chance at some serious damages if the copyright is actually registered. If nothing else, the court will order the copyright violation to end until I get a license from you that allows what I'm doing.

In almost all cases, GPL violators have backed down without going to court, since it was very clear that they were going to lose. A few have tried novel interpretations, and AFAIK none have succeeded.

Re:Trust but verify

[david_thornley]

If you get a license to Tesla's patents, then you can continue to use them no matter what. How does a promise to not sue work? Who does it bind? If Tesla were to go bankrupt, would it bind whoever bought the patents at auction? IANAL, but if I intended to use the Tesla patents I'd talk to one, and almost certainly try to work out a license deal.

Re:Trust but verify

[cusco]

not everything is for profit, sad life if it is.
 
I'm surprised the Libertarians didn't climb all over each other to crucify you for your heresy . . .

Re:Trust but verify

[LMariachi]

Promissory Estoppel
In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present.

Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.

Re:Trust but verify

[Barsteward]

the point i was making was that they didn't patent the system they developed nor did the others you referenced (well, i couldn't find any evidence of it) and this worked out for the benefit of the industry and consumers. patents are used too often to stifle genuine progress

Re:Trust but verify

[Aighearach]

No, actually, a typical press release is understood to be a marketing document, part of a PR program, and is really not in the same category. You seem to think nobody knows about BS press releases, and that corporate governance can't distinguish statements intended to inform relevant parties about corporate policy from PR.

"What a maroon."

Re:Trust but verify

[DexterIsADog]

...says the person with no patents to his name.

Hey, I get it. I don't personally write songs or perform them, so I naturally think no one should get any exclusive right to profit from music. You write it, it belongs to the world.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

This was a blog post, not a legal document...

Agreed. I'm sure the legal document will be forthcoming.

Re:Trust but verify

[swillden]

It isn't that GPL isn't "worth" fighting, it is that you can't fight it, you can't challenge it.

Right. And that's the same situation that would hold with the patent license I'm guessing Tesla might issue. If you manage to get the license invalidated, you merely harm yourself since you now have no license to use the patents.

does Elon Musk's infamy know no bounds?!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy really is the most devious and evil of all of Ian Flemming's villains.

Re:does Elon Musk's infamy know no bounds?!!!

[Issarlk]

A complete hack. Posing as a good guy, but what did he achieve, really? I think he's even more evil than Google at that point.

what about the battery patents or chargers?

[alen]

did they release those as well? if not then they are looking to make the cars a commodity and extort money from people selling batteries and electricity along the roads

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Nygmus]

What's more likely is, they're wanting to expand the number of EVs on the road, because with the new "gigafactory' they're building they're poised to be one of the world's biggest suppliers of EV-grade lithium batteries. If Tesla never makes another car but every car on the road uses Tesla batteries for power storage, they still come out ahead.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[horza]

The blog clearly says all. Though I'm not sure how you would propose to make an electric car a commodity without a way to power it or to supply energy to it.

Phillip.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Batteries are nothing but a commodity. Especially if Tesla wants to sell electric cars to normal people.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[compro01]

He says "Our technology" and "All our patent", so presumably they're meaning every single one of the 169 patents they currently hold, except maybe the 8 design patents.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Extort? A company making money is not "extortion".

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[alen]

the car part will be open source or freely licensed patents or whatever
but since those cover the charging and the specs for the charger there is a good chance it will require tesla brand batteries and charging stations. if the patents for those weren't released then we just figured out how they will make their money

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[savuporo]

Most likely is that they want a few of their ideas to become standard - like Supercharger infrastructure. If they manage to get even one major OEM to cooperate and add supercharger receptables, that is a massive win for Tesla.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you must be an American *ducks*

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[bluefoxlucid]

No. Extortion is the use of coercion to make you pay.

Let's say you need to get to a job interview, and your car runs out of fuel. You have AAA, and can call for a tow or fuel, enough to get to the next gas station 5 miles away, free; it'll take over an hour, and you don't have time. If the gas station right across the street charges $3.50/gal, but the owner sees you require fuel RIGHT NOW for the security of your livelihood and so jacks up the price, that's extortion: he sees your situation allows him to coerce you into paying above his normal fare, so demands additional money using that leverage.

If the price is raised generically--if the gas station owner raises his fixed price to $15/gal because he's the only station within reasonable distance and so expects people will pay it to avoid a long detour--that's price gouging. Any situation where a good is unreasonably priced in its general sale is price gouging.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here let me fix that for you:

I don't like Teslas, and perhaps have an ideological issue with electric cars in general, so if they do something good I will try to find any way to make it seem evil cause I am a classic internet troll

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Twinbee]

There's "ahead", and then there's "leaving the rest in their wake". As a shareholder, I'm more than a little disappointed.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here let me fix that for you: I love Teslas, and perhaps have an ideological issue with electric cars in general, so if they do something, anything, I will try to find any way to make it seem good cause I am a classic internet shill

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Aighearach]

No, that isn't extortion at all. Extortion would be if the gas station owner comes over and tells you that you have to buy $10/g gas or he'll call his cousin the tow truck driver to have you towed and impounded if you try to wait for AAA.

Just raising the price is exploitative opportunism, but not extortion. And lacking a monopoly, generally legal in the US.

In China I think it is punishable by the death penalty.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[bluefoxlucid]

Just raising the price is price gouging, or "exploitative opportunism" as you say.

Raising the price because you see a person is in great need for a good you are selling and is under duress by that need is extortion. This specific individual's need makes them highly reliant on your immediate service, allowing for coercion. The typical terms of your service are not extortion; but modifying those terms in response to an individual's sudden reliance on you is.

You don't have a cell phone and your wife is in labor? And the car's out of gas? Wow, sure would be a shame if you couldn't use my 25 cent payphone to call the hospital. Actually, it's a $25 payphone today. There's not another station for five miles down the road. Sure is a shame.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[david_thornley]

Price gouging without a monopoly is going to lose fast due to competition. It doesn't have to be illegal.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Aighearach]

Price gouging without a monopoly is going to lose fast due to competition. It doesn't have to be illegal.

Probably why it is legal! Also, probably why we have monopoly restrictions. We wouldn't need them if we followed everybody around and made sure they play nice. But we don't.

Re:what about the battery patents or chargers?

[Aighearach]

The key thing you miss is where is the duress coming from? In extortion, the person extorting the money is, or is believed to be, in control of the duress. "This is a dangerous neighborhood, you don't want bad things to happen, you should buy protection from us." In this example, it is understood that the person extorting the money is implicitly in control of who the "bad things" happen to.

You just list cases where it is morally repugnant to overcharge. But extortion isn't the only type of immorality related to business.

Open Source RULES Innovation Advances Civilization

[ramorim]

This is called the real source of innovation: open source, open knowledge. Comparatively speaking: If the C programming language were closed source, companies like Apple would never be what it is today. Or even the actual jump in technology our society leaped. Maybe, with this action, Tesla can not only open a path for innovation, standardization, but most important (for them) they will be able to grow faster and faster technologically and in the market.

Wow

[meta-monkey]

Now, I don't wanna do anything gay or nothin', but I kinda wanna make love to this man.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Book yourself in for a sex-change operation, then it won't be gay. ;)

Re:Wow

[angelbar]

Now, I don't wanna do anything gay or nothin', but I kinda wanna make love to this man.

The important thing is... Its Musk gay or bisexual?... we wont judge you, you will take one for the team!

Re:Wow

[felixrising]

If I was a woman, I'd have his babies! In the spirit of open source, here, here's my wife!

Thanks

[Prien715]

Thank you Elon Musk.

If only every other CEO had the same courage. Also, if he's willing to do this for SpaceX, I have no problems with a private company doign space exporation.

Re:Thanks

[rogoshen1]

If only I had mod points :(

Re:Thanks

[Ravaldy]

I don't think it has anything to do with courage. Businesses have to be able to leverage the patent to repay R&D cost. I know not all patents fall under this category but many do.

Tesla is niche enough that they can afford to do it because it won't prevent them from recovering their R&D cost. But not all products or business models allow for easy return on R&D investments.

Re: Thanks

[Guspaz]

SpaceX doesn't have any patents to give away (or at least not many). This was intentional, because the entities most likely to violate the patents wouldn't be bound by them (certain countries). Getting a patent requires publishing the details, and all that does for a country that ignores patents is make it easier to copy.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty certain he's stated that SpaceX doesn't pursue patents at all. He believes the Chinese would use them as blueprints for competition down the road.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the constant hunger for more profits for the share holders causes them to cut corners and people die.
Sorry space is expensive for a reason with our level of tech, you want cheap and safe travel? Lobby your congress critter with as much cash as you have on hand to mandate NASA spending the next decade building the infrastructure from here to the moon.

Re:Thanks

[cbhacking]

Tesla and SpaceX are currently in very, very different markets. Tesla is selling luxury consumer products, and trying to get the economies of scale + technical innovation to start selling non-luxury consumer products, where the real market is. They are also competing against an entrenched, widely-deployed technology that has been in widespread use for longer than 99.9% of the human race has been alive. They need their product to become more than a niche, and they need to have viable competition if for no other reason than for the legitimacy that competition brings.

SpaceX sells cheap, high-tech rocket launches, where cheap means something like what a "cheap" computer in the 50s would mean: governments and really big organizations can afford to buy them, and nobody else is even going to consider it. In a way, they're the opposite of Tesla: rather than being a luxury brand trying to get cheaper, they're aiming to be the cheap alternative to the existing competition.

Unlike Tesla, SpaceX is not publicly traded and does not file for patents. Patents provide no meaningful protection against the Chinese or Russian governments, which are the organizations SpaceX is most interested in competing with. SpaceX patenting their stuff would allow those entities to undercut SpaceX for the small number of customers that even exist in such a space, because they could use the disclosed technology without needing to recoup R&D investments or pay California salaries and regulatory costs.

The problem is that SpaceX is the only organization in the world currently demonstrating great success in disrupting the entrenched space launch market, and they need to (and do) re-invest their profits from those launches into producing still-better (cheaper) launchers if the want to achieve their stated goals of making space access cheap enough that actual human beings can afford it. They can't afford to be undercut, because there just aren't enough customers right now for them to afford to do other than fight for every purchase they can get. Tesla can totally afford to be undercut; it will help grow their market (electric car owners) and meanwhile there will always be people who will buy their cars just because the market is big enough.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Please shut up.

Re:Thanks

[CastrTroy]

start selling non-luxury consumer products, where the real market is

You should tell that to Apple. Maybe they'll start selling low end devices. It's working out so great for HP, Samsung, HTC, Dell, and all the other device manufacturers. Oh. wait, it isn't. Apple is raking in tons of profits selling only high end devices, while all the other device manufacturers are fighting for the bottom of the market trying to figure out how to make a buck off people who don't want to spend money.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge difference between the "luxury" phone (which for practical purposes costs consumers ~$200 more than a free lower-end model) and a luxury car (which costs a good $50,000+ more than a cheap car). That's why the markets aren't even comparable; only ~10% of cars sold in the US are luxury cars, but a far higher percentage (close to 40%) of cellphones sold in the US (including dumbphones) are high-end models (ie current-gen iPhones and Samsungs). That isn't to say there isn't money to be made in the luxury car market, but the "sell a few expensive products vs a lot of cheap products" equation is different in different markets so it is stupid to directly equate high-end cars with high-end electronics.

Re:Thanks

[Meyaht]

In this context I personally would hesitate to call Apple (luxury in your case) vs Samsung (non-luxury) a viable retort to a Tesla vs say a last year's Honda Civic. (I have a galaxy s4 mini, which I would easily compare to last year's civic.) Pretty much any high school grad auto mechanic can have an iPhone. Pretty much anyone *but* a top earner or someone in their 50's can afford the Tesla. Thoughts?

Re:Thanks

[fnj]

Unless I am mistaken, the cost of an iPhone 5S and a Samsung Galaxy S 5 are very comparable. Why is one a luxury product and the other non-luxury?

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh .... " Pretty much anyone *but* a top earner or someone in their 50's can afford the Tesla." - you mean s/anyone/nobody/, right?

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Apple's advertising campaign worked and these guys bought it hook, line and sinker.

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you have a problem with a private company doing space exploration at all?

Re:Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX patenting their stuff would allow those entities to undercut SpaceX

Wait a minute, SpaceX COTS rates are $133 million per flight, which are MORE than what the Russians are charging, and the Russians deliver more payload per flight.
Patent or not, SpaceX is currently NOT a worthy competition for the Russians, nevermind the Chinese.

SpaceX is the only organization in the world currently demonstrating great success in disrupting the entrenched space launch market

Not if they don't lower their fees soon, as the Russians are eating SpaceX lunch right now.

there will always be people who will buy their cars just because the market is big enough.

Nobody on slashdot seems to own one...Even that fake owner/Tesla shill "AaronW" isn't bothering to chime in this time.

Re: Thanks

[James McGuigan]

The opposite of a patent is a trade secret

A share-alike clause?

[Bradmont]

It would be amazing if he added a share-alike clause to licensing these patents. That is to say, make it free to use any of Tesla's patents, under the condition that you provide the same free access, under the same conditions, to any technology your company develops as a derivitave.

Re:A share-alike clause?

[Immerman]

I'm not sure that would be aligned with his stated goals - to encourage the production of electric vehicles. Auto companies aren't exactly bastions of open source, and look how long it took tech companies to start getting on board with share-alike licenses. Musk strikes me as the sort who dreams big - and whether his goal is to combat climate change or drum up business for his automotive battery gigafactory, a BSD-style license is likely more productive.

That said, I don't believe using the patents "in good faith" is exactly a well-defined legal concept, so he no doubt has considerable wiggle room to interpret that as a share-alike license if anyone gets too exploitative of his generosity, and that's assuming his public declaration is even considered legally binding in the first place.

Re:A share-alike clause?

[Anonymous Coward]

AGPL seeks to do this very thing. Derivative works vary too much in nature for this general rule to apply to products that have yet to be created. In some ways this could stifle innovation because monetary gain and trade secrets are the primary life blood of the product. Put simply, many things can benefit from BSD-Style or GPL licenses but not all services/products are sustainable under those same restrictions.

Re:A share-alike clause?

[Immerman]

Did you reply to the right comment?
How is adding the requirement that source code available even for non-distributed server-based applications relevant to hardware patents?

I quite agree that it seems not all products can necessarily thrive under an open source philosophy, but BSD-style licensing is essentially public domain, what restrictions do you see it imposing?

Briliant move

[Trachman]

The easy way for Tesla to reaffirm their commitment to open source and innovation is to, specifically, allow those patents in question lapse by not to paying renewal fee. So how exactly shareholders will react? Old fashioned approach is that more competition is not good for the entity. However, Tesla realizes that freedom and liberty to create is so much more powerful, that additional entrants to the electric car industry will expand the infrastructure required to charge the cars, and, eventually, Tesla will win not by competing with others but by working and partnering with others. Remover restrictions, think outside the box and let others do the same, share success and support others and very soon you will see that everyone around you, including yourself, are incredibly successful and prosperous.

Re:Briliant move

[James McGuigan]

Tesla realizes that a major patent war with one of the big auto companies could potentially put it out of business. Their business model is not threatened by startups and tinkerers (who may be a source of borrowable ideas).

What about the shareholders?

[CRCulver]

Tesla is a publicly-owned company. Couldn't the shareholders bring a suit against the company's directors for basically giving asssets away for free? The claim "I did it to create an ecosystem that might bring profit in the future" might not go over in court.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[bluefoxlucid]

The directors are the shareholders. Common stock owners are irrelevant.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[jratcliffe]

You could, but it would be a VERY tough suit to win. Boards get a lot of discretion under the business judgment rule.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[markkezner]

If such were the case, Google surely would have been sued to the brink by its shareholders by now.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[Salgat]

It'd be trivial to argue that doing this would promote more adoption of electric cars, easing Tesla's entry into the automobile market.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your rant pegs you as a communist, that is to say, as someone who hates the act of job creation (and loves slavery). So let's just clarify: Musk is a shareholder. Presumably such a momentous decision was made in consultation with the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders.

The millions of stock option recipients throughout Silicon Valley history are all essentially shareholders. That is to say, the prospect of being a shareholder is what attracts talented people to work for start-up businesses, and thereby create cool and interesting things that the people find useful.

Have a look at Venezuela nowadays. Rumor is, even if someone has currency, it's increasingly difficult to purchase basic staples. Communist tyrants like Chavez and Maduro always hurt everybody, and benefit only themselves.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[AlanObject]

The plaintiffs would have to demonstrate how the company lost value by them doing that. If Tesla somehow lost significant value and a lawsuit against management were initiated for some other reason, this issue might be appended to the lawsuit to try to build the case for mismanagement. The defense would counter that since the shareholders did not vote as a majority to replace the BoD with one that would appoint officers (not Musk) that would not do such things, the BoD was simply following the will of the majority of the shareholders in their own best judgement. There used to be a lot of law firms around that would try it, but while the company's stock value is up there simply is no way to claim damages.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[ccb621]

Sergey, Larry, and Eric own most of the voting shares of Google. Most of the shares floating on the market either have few votes or none at all.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[organgtool]

As a shareholder, I fully welcome this move. This shows that Tesla is so confident that they will continue to dominate the electric car industry that they don't even have to stop others from trying. That kind of confidence goes a long way to securing business deals with companies who might otherwise hesitate to jump into bed with a company that is still relatively new in a market that is only just starting to emerge.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[swillden]

The plaintiffs would have to demonstrate how the company lost value by them doing that.

Also, if the articles of incorporation or the IPO documentation includes a statement indicating that increasing the use of electric vehicles is a corporate goal, alongside of, or even more important than, making money, then this move could be perfectly aligned with the stated corporate goals which the investors bought into, even if it can be proven that this move decreased share value.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[riverat1]

How much of that stock is owned by Musk himself?

Re:What about the shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't disagree with everything you're saying, I do take a few issues. One, I think it's difficult to equate communism to slavery. I'm not saying I'm a proponent of communism, merely that your catagorization is inaccurate.

Also, while communistic ideals may be a part of the issues in places like Venezuela, there is also the fact that the largest economic power in the worlds and greatest source of wealth (the US) is unfriendly with Chavez (for lots of reasons, some reasonable, some greedy. All subject and not necessary relevant for the point) - and as such takes active steps to hurt their economy as a way of coercing more cooperation. I'm not defending or demonizing such actions, its far too complex a situation to speak of in broad generalities too terribly much, but it is worth noting that economic warfare is a part of the reason that many of these countries are having some of the difficulties they are having (not all of the problem, but ignoring this factor would be disingenuous).

Re:What about the shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chavez/Maduro pretty much seized anything of value. Now despite considerable oil wealth, that country is a mess. Interestingly, Wikipedia's map of proven oil reserves appears to indicate that Venezuela has more oil than the United States. I know, it's "far too complex." Say, has the Chavez family vacated the presidential compound yet?

As if food shortages somehow "ideal". But that's what happens when the government forbids basic commercial activity.

Re:What about the shareholders?

[Splab]

Also, what most slashdotters seems to have missed, this is a good business decision - Elon knows that he is going to face competition from the major players in the car market - by opening up his patents on charging, he is gaming that the next batch of cars will support the system *his* cars are using.

By being the defacto standard, he can ensure his customers will have access to charging stations, when the big guns starts putting them up around the world - if a competing standard is chosen, the Tesla might face difficulties selling in the future.

A very interesting thing to do - however.

[queazocotal]

Don't patents have a 'must defend' clause in them for them to continue to be valid?
By doing this, instead of (say) licencing them at a dollar per, haven't they invalidated their own patents and made them able to be used
by anyone - including those not in good faith?

Re:A very interesting thing to do - however.

[gQuigs]

I believe you are thinking of Trademarks.

Re:A very interesting thing to do - however.

[mr_mischief]

They absolutely do not. Trademarks do.

Re:A very interesting thing to do - however.

[aitikin]

You're thinking trademark. Pretty sure patents do not have a "must defend" clause. In trademark, it will be invalidated if you don't stay on it and pursue anyone misusing it (Kleenex will come down on any magazine/newspaper they see that doesn't put after their trademark because if they don't, they can lose that trademark).

Re:A very interesting thing to do - however.

[Roujo]

Don't patents have a 'must defend' clause in them for them to continue to be valid?

IANAL, but as far as I know that's not a requirement. You can patent stuff you invent without ever suing anyone afterwards, or you can offer free licenses, or whatever. Trademarks do have such a clause (or something similar), however.

screw those guys

[Thud457]

Nobody wants to go to North Dakota or Mississippi anyway.
Actually, the current map doesn't cover a good part of the deep South or most of northern Tea-bag-anistan. But it does cover the important (sic) parts of Texas, WTF.

Re:screw those guys

[SydShamino]

I don't understand their lack of coverage on the I-35 corridor, the primary north-south corridor through the center of the country. Even when they add the Oklahoma City station later this year, and the Augusta, Kansas station in 2015, the runs from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City and from Topeka to Des Moines seem huge.

Ok, the internet says those distances are 196 miles and 256 miles, respectively. Already that only works in the 85 kWh version, and then only barely.

That just seems strange to me. In my anecdotal experience, driving north and south is far more likely than east and west; people* take cars to go up and down the coasts or the central corridor, but are more likely to fly from coast to coast or center to coast.

* At least the type of people that can afford a Tesla.

Re:screw those guys

[timothy]

Google directions from Texas could have a checkbox for Tesla. Certain parts of your route would include things like "At Texarkana, meet up with flatbed truck. Continue to Atlanta. Debark from flatbed and charge up."

On the other hand, I must admit (dragging that slider to the right) things look very promising for 2015 ... a long road trip I'm planning right now would be impossible right now by means of superchargers (Austin to Western Massachusetts, via Houston, Penscola, Baltimore, and other places), but if that map turns out to be accurate looks like it would work in 18 months, especially since there's regular charging, too, for the days with fewer miles. Since I don't have a Tesla or a spare 100,000 to go pick one up in a state that Tesla to do business, that's OK: I can get gasoline all over the place.

I'd like an electric car (and a pony), and specifically I'd like to be able to reach El Paso in approximately the same time it would take me to get there with a gas-driven car. Much farther than that, and even my range anxiety fades, because it's rare that I drive a greater distance without an overnight stop, which would mean at least enough *time* to charge up. The 2015 projections definitely make that look possible, in a car that has the range of the current Teslas and can use their superchargers. (Which, for now, as far as I know, means only Tesla's own cars.)

Outside of dedicated charging points, things may get sticky for the *place* to charge up, though, as more and more people get the cars -- witness http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/s...

Re:screw those guys

[timothy]

Agreed -- there's a lot of IMO obnoxious, self-righteous naysaying of the naysayers, when it comes to range anxiety; I suspect that lots of the people pooh-poohing other people's need for range don't live in a place like Texas or Oklahoma. Open range anxiety is more like it. If you must reach a distant destination (and return from it!) without waiting overnight to slow charge, edge of the envelope distance is hard to take seriously. I don't want to be in the red when I take a wrong turn on a Texas highway (whether it's gas or electricity powering the motor); AAA, though, can deliver me some gas.

 

Re:screw those guys

[jo_ham]

The map only shows supercharger stations, and not the more regular (and already more numerate) EV charging stations.

One of the goals of this opening up is to try and encourage other manufacturers to also build supercharger stations so they spread more quickly.

As the statement says right now - Tesla is small and sells only a small number of vehicles, relatively, so expecting them to blanket the entire US in supercharger stations - especially in areas where market research has likely told them they will not sell many Model S's - is somewhat unreasonable at this stage. These are the "sweeten the deal" parts of the car - free, rapid charging. The more readily available EV charging (that you have to pay for) is still there, and also growing rapidly.

Re:screw those guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Those states are planned to get superchargers in 2015.

What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[bobbied]

This press release is all fine and good, but what does the qualifier "In Good Faith" mean?

Until Tesla provides a license with the legal verbiage that describes "In Good Faith" I'm not so ready to start the celebrations. Without a license to use the patent, you are stupid to knowingly infringe on it, regardless of what some CEO says in a press release.

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[bluefoxlucid]

Good faith is a legal concept often addressed in court. Some opposite concepts are bad faith and negligence. All of these center around the beliefs of a rational person: if a rational person with appropriate qualifications (i.e. your engineers did X, would an engineer know the implications of X?) would understand the consequences of an action, then you are held to that understanding. If you act such that you should know the outcome is harmful and contrary to what would be considered good faith, you are acting in bad faith.

An example of bad faith would be production of sub-quality components with a staff of engineers who understand the limits of such components. If you built chargers with 14ga wire to carry 20A currant, using aluminum core wire with extremely thin electroplating, those chargers would degrade quickly. If you are doing so and then marketing heavily in areas trafficked heavily by Tesla cars, we can reasonably assume you are committing sabotage: these chargers will quickly degrade, causing charging issues and damaging Tesla's image. If you release your own charger architecture of better quality, the evidence reinforces this: Why would you use 12ga full copper wire for 20A chargers of your design, but 14ga aluminum core for 20A of Tesla's design?

Evidence of ulterior motives and willful negligence constitute bad faith.

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[bobbied]

But, this term still allows for subjective interpretation of what "Good Faith" is in terms of Tesla's patents. Would it be "bad faith" for someone to take the patent design a product and compete with Tesla? What if I managed to put them out of business in the process? How about just making a profit using their patent? Is Tesla just saying "don't' build junk" stuff and we are good or what? We don't know.

You see, if you don't have license terms spelled out, this whole thing is subjective, and you'd be stupid to use their patents.

I guess I'm saying that I would want to see the license terms, in writing, before I went with what the CEO said. Talk is cheap, lawyers on the other hand are expensive.

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[TapeCutter]

It's a legal term that means don't be a liar or a cheat. I'm not sure how one could use someone else's patent in bad faith when they have been given explicit permission to use it. A good example of bad faith is a climate denier or the company that sponsors them, they know the facts but are employed to lie about them in a convincing manner.

There's an infamous case here in Australia where a popular far-right columnist (Andrew Bolt) was convicted of racial vilification. He fought it on the right to express an opinion and lost, the judge convicted him on the "good faith" clause and told him he does not have the right to knowingly publish lies about an individual's racial heritage for the purposes of political propaganda. The plaintiff could have won a libel suit but chose a rare racial vilification suit to make a legal and moral point.

The current (hard right) government attempted to change the law soon after coming to power, arguing it was anti-free-speech, however they seem to have dropped that idea since polls showed 80+% of voter's want to keep the "good faith" clause and the attorney general was widely ridiculed for his claim that people have a "right to be bigots".

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[jo_ham]

It means they will sue defensively if necessary.

In other words, if they trade patents on a design and Tesla is all open and friendly, but $EVIL-CAR-COMPANY plays along at first then sues Tesla for using some patented tech then Tesla can fight back.

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making a profit or providing a superior product or manufacturing process doesn't imply bad faith. You don't accidentally (negligently) manufacture hardware to be marketed in applications that exceed its tolerance, such things happen willfully. When companies are negligent in their conduct, the courts will find out about the nature of what's normal and reasonable and will use it as evidence against bad faith. You don't accidentally use Tesla patents then attack Tesla for patent infringement. Yes, the term is subjective according to a court's judgement, but I have faith that courts are reasonably rational whenever dealing with the concept of good faith.

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[rdnetto]

You see, if you don't have license terms spelled out, this whole thing is subjective, and you'd be stupid to use their patents.

Subjectivity cannot be eliminated completely; that is why the reasonable person test is used in law. Most (or possibly all) human languages require some interpretation on the part of the reader, and as a result terms like 'reasonable person' and 'good faith' are used in law to imply that such interpretation is required there.

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[bobbied]

So... What is the guy saying? As long as you are not trying to make a quick buck by building substandard stuff that uses their patent, then all is well? "Good Faith" is basically a judgment call about ones motives. Sometimes this judgment call is easy to make, but sometimes the issue is more obscured. What rights does Tesla wish to keep for these patents? The right to refuse because of "bad faith" is what he's saying, but in what ways could one use their patents in "bad faith"? If my stated goal was to ruin Tesla's business, would that be "bad faith"? (Not that I would)

Re:What does "In Good Faith" mean?

[rdnetto]

tldr: good faith = don't be a dick

Disclaimer: IANAL, and I am not particularly familiar with equity law, which (promissory) estoppel falls under.

In contract law, acting in bad faith refers to following the literal wording of the contract while taking actions that would deprive the other party of their benefits. e.g. you lease a car, but do not provide the car key. In some jurisdictions there is an implied duty of good faith in contracts, while in others explicit terms are required.

Now, in this case there is no contract because there is no quid pro quo relationship between Tesla and the licensees (the legal term is consideration). Instead it is enforceable by promissory estoppel, which essentially means Tesla can't sue someone who relied on their statements.

Since Tesla isn't explicitly receiving anything in return for the license, it's unclear what an action in bad faith could deprive them of.
One argument would be that the benefit Tesla accrues from this is that other companies will (hopefully) build infrastructure. It's entirely possible that they may choose to do so using Tesla's patents but with incompatible, DRM'd connectors. I suspect this is what the good faith requirement is intended to prevent. (Non-DRM'd connectors would be more of a grey area, since they could argue that it was used simply because their technology is better.) In other words, the other company would not be permitted to prevent Tesla from supporting their charging stations if they used the patents in question.

"In good faith"

[synthesizerpatel]

At the point where you actually would be considered competition for Tesla is the point at which you would not be acting in good faith I assume?

Yeah.. Nice PR move, but effectively pointless.

This really does work to their advantage

[adric22]

Right now they have virtually zero real competition. On the other side, many people are still afraid of electric cars for one reason or another. And by helping the market expand, it will help their own brand succeed too.

Re:This really does work to their advantage

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe I've ever met anybody afraid of electric cars. I have met a good many who have no interest in buying one anytime soon, if ever.

Re:This really does work to their advantage

[bobbied]

many people are still afraid of electric cars for one reason or another.

I'm not afraid of them, they just do not suit my daily driving needs and their TCO is still higher than the standard gasoline fueled cars available. It's not about fear, but economics and how impractical they are in practice. I need a car that can reliably go 200 miles at 30 - 70 MPH on a hot day without recharging, carry 4 comfortably and has a TCO that compares to the used Honda Accord I have now. Right now, such electric cars don't exist, or they are hugely expensive.

Verify

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the definition of "Don't trust".

Is There A List?

[CanHasDIY]

Read through the blog post, didn't see a link or listing of the patents that they've 'open-sourced.'

Anybody know where to find them? I'm curious.

Re:Is There A List?

[jmkaza]

Tesla Patents

Re:Is There A List?

[CanHasDIY]

Hm, would have expected there would be more than 11 of them, considering the number of plaques on that wall...

FYI, if that link to the picture doesn't work, go read the comments on the Tesla blog post, that's where I found it.

Re:Is There A List?

[jmkaza]

No one has ever accused the patent office of making things easy to find.

Re:Is There A List?

[angelbar]

Start making... http://stks.freshpatents.com/T...

Enjoy watching the Koreans and Chinese eat you

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to stop them now, they don't like to innovate, now they don't have to!

Re:Enjoy watching the Koreans and Chinese eat you

[MildlyTangy]

Nothing to stop them now, they don't like to innovate, now they don't have to!

Thats OK, the innovation has already been done for them. Look at the patents for details.

This means that Tesla compatible fast chargers can be built all over the world at a decreasing price as time goes on.

That means that owners of a Tesla car can find moar chargers, making their life easier, increasing the incentives to buy an environmentally responsible form of trabsport....

* Thereby helping the Planet.....
OMG...the Implications are astounding!

*(booos and hisses from the crowd)

Re:Enjoy watching the Koreans and Chinese eat you

[MildlyTangy]

nooooo, I made English Language grammar mistakes in my post above.... that means all reasoning and logical deductions that can be gleaned from my post have now been invalidated....

Damn you grammar nazis!

Good Job Tesla - Now how about that GPL source?

[Spoke]

This is a great move by Tesla and I hope that more companies follow suit.

Now - how about releasing the source code to owners for GPL software and derivatives you ship in your vehicles?

So far I am not aware of any owners who have been successful in getting access to that code.

Elon Musk:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sucks way less than most billionaires

GM

[BradMajors]

It seems it is possible, for example, for GM to build charging stations using Tesla's patents and then only allow GM cars and prohibit any Tesla cars from using the charging stations.

Re:GM

[BasilBrush]

Sure. But that doesn't put Tesla in an worse a position, given that GM don't have any charging infrastructure for Tesla drivers to use now.

Re:GM

[david_thornley]

And then we get to the meaning of "good faith". If that's what GM was relying on, they'd lose the use of the patents and would have to negotiate with Tesla to get a specific license, which would likely include language about Tesla's cars using GM's supercharge stations and vice versa.

Toyota and Honda will pounce.

[Anonymous Coward]

If these patents are useful (and if Toyota and Honda don't have a Not-invented-here complex), then these technologies will be rapidly integrated into their respective models.

Re:Toyota and Honda will pounce.

[Mysticalfruit]

I hope Chevy pounces as well. A Volt with ultra charging technology sounds awesome! Mind you, this isn't the battery technology, this is their charging tech.

What about the shareholders?

[ccb621]

Elon Musk owns about 23% of Tesla stock (http://business.time.com/2014/02/26/elon-musk-1-1-billion-tesla-tuesday/) and the board of directors probably owns another significant stake. The rest of the shareholders, myself included, don't have much of a voice. Honestly, I am fine with this. I don't know anything about running a car company or building electric vehicles, and I doubt the company leadership would do anything to lose their own money. Tesla is one of the few companies I trust because their motives have always seemed altruistic (aside from the obvious capitalistic qualities of any corporation).

And then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some d-bag will take those patents you just took down and re-register them to his name.

First thought that I had....

[seededfury]

It's a TRAP!!!!

Re:First thought that I had....

[MildlyTangy]

It's a TRAP!!!!

Ironicly, its actually a TARP.
Theres a patent for an "invention using a low cost plastic sheet covering to be placed over a vehicle for the purpose of rainproofing aforementioned vehicle.....with computers* "

* rebadged patent granted, yours sincerely, USPTO.

Re:First thought that I had....

[m.ducharme]

Funny thing is, I could almost see this being a legitimate patent, if the tarp had some rfid and chipware embedded that communicated with the car (ie, tarp is still on, some clown is uncovering your car, tarp is blowing down the highway you forgot to take it off you idiot)

His past...

[mycroft16]

It should be noted that Elon Musk has degrees in economics and physics as well as real world experience in the software field (PayPal) as well as engineering and business (SpaceX/Tesla). The man is incredibly intelligent and seems to really understand how things work. I'm willing to bet this decision wasn't made without the board. I'm sure Wall St won't like it and stocks may fall, but this is the correct decision. Musk is doing what many businesses don't seem to understand these days, playing the long game rather than the short game. He may lose a little in the short term, but long term, Tesla comes out a huge winner an brings up a whole lot of other winners with them. There's a good chance he explained all this to the board, and given their about to start battery production, they realized that they stand to have a huge revenue stream if they jump start the electric car industry in this way.

Re:His past...

[TapeCutter]

The guy reminds me of Henry Ford who (against all prevailing business wisdom) famously instituted a 40hr week at his factories only to see productivity skyrocket. Forceful, erratic, unapologetic, and willing to act "out of the box" rather than just think about it, that can be dangerous in a CEO, but it's mandatory if you want to want to build something like Ford from the bottom up.

Re:His past...

[BlackPignouf]

Exactly.
Moreover, he gets a lof of free publicity from people thinking he's cool (e.g. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/t...)
I'm not even sure he needs to wait very long to get profit out of this decision.

Re:His past...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why everyone assumes he's doing this out of unselfish motives. Tesla is screwed if they can't get electric charging stations deployed and they can't afford to do it, it's as simple as that. They have probably identified that one of the reasons nobody else is willing to pitch in with the investment to do it is that there are these patents blocking the way. Remove the patents and then there is at least a chance someone else will share some of the burden of funding all this infrastructure. I'm not cynical about it, I think it's great and demonstrates exactly how stupid patents can get in the way of innovation as much as they can help it. But there's a tremendous cheering going on here as he's done this out of the pure goodness of his heart which is simply not true.

Lets the games begin!

[angelbar]

Start making... http://stks.freshpatents.com/T...

Excellent!

[AndyKron]

So they DON'T want to be like Apple. Excellent! Oh ya. FUCK APPLE!

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's innovation of the iPhone caused three handset companies to either go bankrupt or be broken apart and sold off: Motorola, Nokia, and Blackberry. Motorola's handset division is now owned by Lenovo. Nokia's handset division is now owned by Microsoft. And Blackberry, not ever big enough to have been broken apart, I think they just went bankrupt.

We have better phones today, and yes, it is in large part due to the folks at Apple.

Re:Open Source RULES Innovation Advances Civilizat

[Anonymous Coward]

Well ask the same question to the Chinese in a year. Then we'll see if open source lives upto it's ideals.

C, UNIX (aka what then became BSD and Linux), TCP, etc. are were open sourced after no one was making money hand over fist. Remember the early days of computing--it was a pricey environment (30K computer hardware, 50K licenses). Once the tech reached a mass audience, they were let free.

Telsa's going to see the same problem every open source hardware innovator has faced to date: illegal cloning (i.e. China and Eastern EU). Look at Makerbot, 3DR, Sparkfun, Open Cores, EPuck, Openmoko,.... all falling to others exploiting and not supporting the efforts and ending up in court.

3 words

[technosaurus]

Open invention network.

Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology."

I don't see how removing the headquarters could advance EV tech...

Unamerican

[Anonymous Coward]

What an unamerican thing to do. The people of the capitalist and greed nation writhe in their sofas.

Re:Open Source RULES Innovation Advances Civilizat

[david_thornley]

A long time ago, there were plenty of languages for systems programming, each for more or less specific systems. Control Data's (yes, I said a long time ago) was Cybol. If C had been kept proprietary, there would have been other languages (perhaps better, perhaps worse). Apple started with BASIC and the Mac started with Pascal, and C won because people liked it more than Pascal. If it hadn't been C, it would have been another language.

Open source

[rolias]

This is about the best press coverage that open source can get, when an aggressive, innovative, and successful CEO with the ear of the press & public challenges the idea that patents actually help "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." It's a rare day when I hear the words "open source" on NPR's Marketplace.

Keep the wall

[catprog]

I would of kept the wall as a demonstration of the patents now free.

Go Elon

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon Musk just scored major points in my universe. You are a true humanitarian and visionary sir. Thank you.
Now lets get the Vazimir engine on an Interplanetary Dragon spaceship & let's go to Mars :)