5 ms·

Someone has to read the actual legal verbage. For example, to quote https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1092570451329441792 https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer

Someone has to read the actual legal verbage. For example, to quote https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1092570451329441792 https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1092570451329441792 on Tesla's free patents - "A common belief is that anyone using Tesla's patents has to give Tesla access to its patents, but that's not quite accurate. To meet Tesla's "good faith" standard, you can't have asserted an EV-related patent or IP right against ANYONE." Start with the actual press release: https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/27512455.html https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/27512455.html which links to: https://toyota.jp/cmpn/gp/ma/dc/electrification-technologies_en https://toyota.jp/cmpn/gp/ma/dc/electrification-technologies... - whose title is "Inquiry regarding royalty-free availability of electrification technologies up to 2030"

sweden 8y ago
So in order to take advantage of Tesla patents, you can't be suing anyone else on EV-related patents of your own? That actually sounds like an interesting and positive side-effect, or am I missing something here?
- seltzered_ 8y ago
  I'm not familiar enough with the automotive industry to know. To make some rough strawman examples: If a smaller/startup company gives away patents under a "good-faith" condition, it may at best help other startups try to come up to develop the market - perhaps that was Tesla's intent at the time. If a larger company does this, I'm a bit more confused on intent - perhaps it might be seen as an 'option' in addition to traditional licensing. Where one can either pay for a license or optionally get a free license in exchange for not asserting patent rights against the larger company later on. I've seen cases where a smaller company may exert patent rights on something seemingly obvious on the industry (they filed the patent, and some judge in Marshall, Texas enforced it), and ends up becoming a method of sharing patent rights with other companies in the industry (e.g. smaller company exerts patent rights, larger company discovers smaller company is infringing on their patents, lawyers end up sitting down and negotiating some license for license agreement). This may be changing a bit with the changes in how patent holders choose courts (see https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-texas-town-that-patent-trolls-built-j34rlmjc https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-te... )
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  The MS-PL software license has a similar clause, but it's just if you make a patent claim against a contributor you lose the right to any of their patents immediately. It's a strange little MIT-esque license with a patent clause that I think makes sense. The Tesla clause sounds a little different but yeah it's a good thing. It means don't fight over patents if you're getting access to ours royalty free, then don't be a douchebag. But it's problematic if someone else uses your patents and screws you completely in the process. License full text here for MS-PL: https://www.copyleftlicense.com/licenses/microsoft-public-license-(ms-pl)-version-10/view.php https://www.copyleftlicense.com/licenses/microsoft-public-li...
- forkerenok 8y ago
  This actually doesn't sound like a side effect, but, rather, an intended one: an attempt to contaminate patenting in the industry. I find it a smart move. Not sure what it really bears though: "for the greater good of the industry" incentive or just a PR move with a string attached.
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    Perhaps they believe they have enough of a head-start that they has more to gain from a more or less patent free industry than they have from having patents, but then also having to deal with every ankle-biter who claims to have a relevant patent.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    I have a more optimistic view: Tesla is simply saying that you can live in a post-patent world, or not. Of course as a company late to the automotive game it benefits Tesla to neutralise the legal quagmire of patents. But fair enough I say. If their patents are valuable enough, they might get some traction.
- mbrumlow 8y ago
  Sort of sounds like GPL, but for patents. Maybe this is the way to fix the patent system? Build huge portfolios that grant people use of them so long as they are not suing anybody for any payments they hold.
  - IgorPartola 8y ago
    Except almost worse. You can choose to not use a piece of GPL software. You might very well accidentally invent something simple that turns out to be patented.
    - jcoffland 8y ago
      How is it worse than if Tesla was aggressively perusing their patents? It's the patent system itself that you have a problem with. Tesla's patent sharing scheme only makes things potentially better for other inventors.
      - dalbasal 8y ago
        I suppose worse is a matter of perspective, but I think the OP is right that at some scale, someone could be dragged into this good faith deal, like it or not. Independently invent something. Turns out it's already patented, within this good faith consortium. Now the only way to use it is by participating. Normally, this kind of thing results in getting sued for royalties.
        mbrumlow 8y ago
        I don't think they would be dragged into it. Just don't use any of the patents in the portfolio that has this clause. You had no right to use them before the clause.
        sjwright 8y ago
        Or negotiate a royalty.
        8y ago
- cowsandmilk 8y ago
  > So in order to take advantage of Tesla patents, you can't be suing anyone else on EV-related patents of your own? What you states is true, but you also cannot assert "any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla"; with no restriction in terms of relation to EV or whether or not it is a patent. You use one of Tesla's patents? Now they are free to use any of your trademarks, use the software you wrote for your sound system, etc. It really is a PR item for Tesla that is impossible for any company to take advantage of.
- imtringued 8y ago
  Only startups with nothing to lose would take this deal.
IgorPartola 8y ago
How is this legal? Like I can put together a gizmo in my garage, never looking at Toyota, let alone signing a licensing agreement with them, but because I happen to duplicate their design I now am in a legally binding agreement with them? I really should invent something commonplace and then create a funky license for it like that.
- JOnAgain 8y ago
  That’s what patents are.
  - IgorPartola 8y ago
    I am not talking about patents being weird. Normally if I invent a thing and it turns out someone already invented it and patented it before me, I either don’t use it or pay royalties. But here we have a weird legal setup where instead of simply owing money to someone I can be compelled to do other shit. Is there a limit on it? Can patents enter into their portfolio retroactively? It is weird that a company who have never done business with can compel you to do certain things that have nothing to do with their IP.
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      Nothing about the existence of a no-fee licensing arrangement requires your automatic use of it. It's just normal patent infringement if you don't.
      - rrix2 8y ago
        Nothing about the existence of a no-fee licensing arrangement disincludes the existence of a fee-based licensing arrangement which already exist, as well, no?
        megy 8y ago
        Yes, just as nothing about the existence of a no-free licensing arrangement dis-includes water from making you wet.
mlinksva 8y ago
The press release mentions a previous 2015 fuel cell patents initiative. Press release for that at https://global.toyota/en/detail/4663648 https://global.toyota/en/detail/4663648 ... stories about it were submitted to HN a bunch of times, to no discussion. I wonder what the impact of that 2015 release has been?

sweden 8y ago

So in order to take advantage of Tesla patents, you can't be suing anyone else on EV-related patents of your own? That actually sounds like an interesting and positive side-effect, or am I missing something here?

seltzered_ 8y ago
I'm not familiar enough with the automotive industry to know. To make some rough strawman examples: If a smaller/startup company gives away patents under a "good-faith" condition, it may at best help other startups try to come up to develop the market - perhaps that was Tesla's intent at the time. If a larger company does this, I'm a bit more confused on intent - perhaps it might be seen as an 'option' in addition to traditional licensing. Where one can either pay for a license or optionally get a free license in exchange for not asserting patent rights against the larger company later on. I've seen cases where a smaller company may exert patent rights on something seemingly obvious on the industry (they filed the patent, and some judge in Marshall, Texas enforced it), and ends up becoming a method of sharing patent rights with other companies in the industry (e.g. smaller company exerts patent rights, larger company discovers smaller company is infringing on their patents, lawyers end up sitting down and negotiating some license for license agreement). This may be changing a bit with the changes in how patent holders choose courts (see https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-texas-town-that-patent-trolls-built-j34rlmjc https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-te... )
giancarlostoro 8y ago
The MS-PL software license has a similar clause, but it's just if you make a patent claim against a contributor you lose the right to any of their patents immediately. It's a strange little MIT-esque license with a patent clause that I think makes sense. The Tesla clause sounds a little different but yeah it's a good thing. It means don't fight over patents if you're getting access to ours royalty free, then don't be a douchebag. But it's problematic if someone else uses your patents and screws you completely in the process. License full text here for MS-PL: https://www.copyleftlicense.com/licenses/microsoft-public-license-(ms-pl)-version-10/view.php https://www.copyleftlicense.com/licenses/microsoft-public-li...
forkerenok 8y ago
This actually doesn't sound like a side effect, but, rather, an intended one: an attempt to contaminate patenting in the industry. I find it a smart move. Not sure what it really bears though: "for the greater good of the industry" incentive or just a PR move with a string attached.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  Perhaps they believe they have enough of a head-start that they has more to gain from a more or less patent free industry than they have from having patents, but then also having to deal with every ankle-biter who claims to have a relevant patent.
- sjwright 8y ago
  I have a more optimistic view: Tesla is simply saying that you can live in a post-patent world, or not. Of course as a company late to the automotive game it benefits Tesla to neutralise the legal quagmire of patents. But fair enough I say. If their patents are valuable enough, they might get some traction.
mbrumlow 8y ago
Sort of sounds like GPL, but for patents. Maybe this is the way to fix the patent system? Build huge portfolios that grant people use of them so long as they are not suing anybody for any payments they hold.
- IgorPartola 8y ago
  Except almost worse. You can choose to not use a piece of GPL software. You might very well accidentally invent something simple that turns out to be patented.
  - jcoffland 8y ago
    How is it worse than if Tesla was aggressively perusing their patents? It's the patent system itself that you have a problem with. Tesla's patent sharing scheme only makes things potentially better for other inventors.
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      I suppose worse is a matter of perspective, but I think the OP is right that at some scale, someone could be dragged into this good faith deal, like it or not. Independently invent something. Turns out it's already patented, within this good faith consortium. Now the only way to use it is by participating. Normally, this kind of thing results in getting sued for royalties.
      - mbrumlow 8y ago
        I don't think they would be dragged into it. Just don't use any of the patents in the portfolio that has this clause. You had no right to use them before the clause.
        sjwright 8y ago
        Or negotiate a royalty.
      - 8y ago
cowsandmilk 8y ago
> So in order to take advantage of Tesla patents, you can't be suing anyone else on EV-related patents of your own? What you states is true, but you also cannot assert "any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla"; with no restriction in terms of relation to EV or whether or not it is a patent. You use one of Tesla's patents? Now they are free to use any of your trademarks, use the software you wrote for your sound system, etc. It really is a PR item for Tesla that is impossible for any company to take advantage of.
imtringued 8y ago
Only startups with nothing to lose would take this deal.

IgorPartola 8y ago

How is this legal? Like I can put together a gizmo in my garage, never looking at Toyota, let alone signing a licensing agreement with them, but because I happen to duplicate their design I now am in a legally binding agreement with them? I really should invent something commonplace and then create a funky license for it like that.

JOnAgain 8y ago
That’s what patents are.
- IgorPartola 8y ago
  I am not talking about patents being weird. Normally if I invent a thing and it turns out someone already invented it and patented it before me, I either don’t use it or pay royalties. But here we have a weird legal setup where instead of simply owing money to someone I can be compelled to do other shit. Is there a limit on it? Can patents enter into their portfolio retroactively? It is weird that a company who have never done business with can compel you to do certain things that have nothing to do with their IP.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    Nothing about the existence of a no-fee licensing arrangement requires your automatic use of it. It's just normal patent infringement if you don't.
    - rrix2 8y ago
      Nothing about the existence of a no-fee licensing arrangement disincludes the existence of a fee-based licensing arrangement which already exist, as well, no?
      - megy 8y ago
        Yes, just as nothing about the existence of a no-free licensing arrangement dis-includes water from making you wet.

mlinksva 8y ago

The press release mentions a previous 2015 fuel cell patents initiative. Press release for that at https://global.toyota/en/detail/4663648 https://global.toyota/en/detail/4663648 ... stories about it were submitted to HN a bunch of times, to no discussion. I wonder what the impact of that 2015 release has been?