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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Wow

[meta-monkey]

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

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".

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

[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

[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

[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?

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[angelbar]

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

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.

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).

First thought that I had....

[seededfury]

It's a TRAP!!!!

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.

Lets the games begin!

[angelbar]

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

3 words

[technosaurus]

Open invention network.

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.