8 ms·

This is absurd. It’s theft, plain and simple. Tesla wants to habe each owner of the car pay the $7,000 software update option, yet when someone pays for it, t

by muzika 7y ago

This is absurd. It’s theft, plain and simple. Tesla wants to habe each owner of the car pay the $7,000 software update option, yet when someone pays for it, they refuse to transfer the license to the buyer’s next car.

londons_explore 7y ago
I'm not sure this is the case here. I think they're implying the original owner may not have paid for autopilot, and perhaps had it activated through illicit means, like persuading an employee to tweak a database.
- Swenrekcah 7y ago
  Be that as it may, in the meantime the car returned to Tesla's ownership who then advertised it as having those options. They need to reactivate it for this car (forever), apologize for the misunderstanding and then case is closed.
  - kjksf 7y ago
    > who then advertised it as having those options That's what the dealer claims. Tesla claims this feature was never bought for this car. You can choose to believe one party or the other, but don't present that belief as a fact.
    - Swenrekcah 7y ago
      Well I did read the article and it has what seems to be a sales sheet for the car from the auction, on which you can see those features listed. It is a bit confusing that some are marked included and some have a price tag, but if you add up all the price tags you get the advertised price, so I think it's reasonable to assume that everything listed there is included in the purchase. There are also screenshots, supposedly from the car, showing that the car has those features activated. Now, I'm not going to independently verify the claims the article makes and I'm for now assuming it's presenting the case in a fairly unbiased way. It seems to me then that Tesla's position is that since the activation was done without payment and their knowledge (again, I believe the article for now), then they have the right to deactivate it. And I would agree with them if anyone other than Tesla themselves had sold the car at the auction. But they did, they said the features were there and they have the authority to add them, so they should. They didn't verify the car properly before selling and that's on them.
- TheGrumpyBrit 7y ago
  The fact that this was a lemon law buyback suggests to me that the original owner did pay for the feature, but then got a full refund. Tesla intended to restore it to standard features but accidentally sold it on before doing so, and in doing so asserted that it still included that feature. Legally, I think that leaves them in the same position as if they'd intended to remove the premium interior but sold it on before doing so - tough.
madaxe_again 7y ago
If I have a computer with a big pile of really expensive software on it licensed to me, and I sell you that piece of hardware, without formatting the disks, does that mean I’ve sold you those licenses? I think any reasonable take here is “no, you did not”. A Tesla is a computer that just happens to have wheels. In this case, it sounds like someone bought a second hand computer that happened to have an unlicensed installation of some software, and the license was revoked. Perhaps the car was ex-demo before the owner who auctioned it off did so. Now, there’s a separate question around the communications over this, and the dealer/end customer being mis-sold, and they’ve stumbled there, but this is more of a gap between expectations (it’s a car!) vs reality (it’s a computer).
- Nursie 7y ago
  If the computer is specialised to the extent that the software is only useful on that one computer, and you have no ongoing use for the software without the computer, and perhaps you even advertised the software license as part of your sale... Hell yes you transferred that license.
- brailsafe 7y ago
  I think this analogy depends entirely on communication and your ability to defend what you think of as your property. Applying the reverse logic, is it theft if the person uses that software that you sold them access to? As far as I'm concerned, someone's property is what they can defend as their property. If someone has access to a license that you didn't intend to sell them, but also doesn't impair your ability to use it, then you now both have that property. Otherwise, if you clearly communicate that it's part of the deal, but then keep a backdoor in, and remove the software from the person's new computer, that's theft. The only way I'd argue that the software would remain yours after the transaction and when you forgot to exclude it, is if you maintained access to it somehow. Whether the person keeps it or not is up to their goodwill or ability to use the licenses. In the old days, if a computer came with a Photoshop license on it, it's yours.
- _Microft 7y ago
  Could Tesla owners really keep the FSD 'license' when selling a car and use it with their next Tesla? I have never read about anything like that. I thought the features were tied to the car, not to the owner.
Forgivenessizer 7y ago
Even funnier, if you, say, get cancer and die, and you leave your girlfriend your car, she can't have autopilot without ponying up again, even if you lived with each other for decades.

by muzika 7y ago

londons_explore 7y ago

I'm not sure this is the case here. I think they're implying the original owner may not have paid for autopilot, and perhaps had it activated through illicit means, like persuading an employee to tweak a database.

Swenrekcah 7y ago
Be that as it may, in the meantime the car returned to Tesla's ownership who then advertised it as having those options. They need to reactivate it for this car (forever), apologize for the misunderstanding and then case is closed.
- kjksf 7y ago
  > who then advertised it as having those options That's what the dealer claims. Tesla claims this feature was never bought for this car. You can choose to believe one party or the other, but don't present that belief as a fact.
  - Swenrekcah 7y ago
    Well I did read the article and it has what seems to be a sales sheet for the car from the auction, on which you can see those features listed. It is a bit confusing that some are marked included and some have a price tag, but if you add up all the price tags you get the advertised price, so I think it's reasonable to assume that everything listed there is included in the purchase. There are also screenshots, supposedly from the car, showing that the car has those features activated. Now, I'm not going to independently verify the claims the article makes and I'm for now assuming it's presenting the case in a fairly unbiased way. It seems to me then that Tesla's position is that since the activation was done without payment and their knowledge (again, I believe the article for now), then they have the right to deactivate it. And I would agree with them if anyone other than Tesla themselves had sold the car at the auction. But they did, they said the features were there and they have the authority to add them, so they should. They didn't verify the car properly before selling and that's on them.
TheGrumpyBrit 7y ago
The fact that this was a lemon law buyback suggests to me that the original owner did pay for the feature, but then got a full refund. Tesla intended to restore it to standard features but accidentally sold it on before doing so, and in doing so asserted that it still included that feature. Legally, I think that leaves them in the same position as if they'd intended to remove the premium interior but sold it on before doing so - tough.

madaxe_again 7y ago

If I have a computer with a big pile of really expensive software on it licensed to me, and I sell you that piece of hardware, without formatting the disks, does that mean I’ve sold you those licenses? I think any reasonable take here is “no, you did not”. A Tesla is a computer that just happens to have wheels. In this case, it sounds like someone bought a second hand computer that happened to have an unlicensed installation of some software, and the license was revoked. Perhaps the car was ex-demo before the owner who auctioned it off did so. Now, there’s a separate question around the communications over this, and the dealer/end customer being mis-sold, and they’ve stumbled there, but this is more of a gap between expectations (it’s a car!) vs reality (it’s a computer).

Nursie 7y ago
If the computer is specialised to the extent that the software is only useful on that one computer, and you have no ongoing use for the software without the computer, and perhaps you even advertised the software license as part of your sale... Hell yes you transferred that license.
brailsafe 7y ago
I think this analogy depends entirely on communication and your ability to defend what you think of as your property. Applying the reverse logic, is it theft if the person uses that software that you sold them access to? As far as I'm concerned, someone's property is what they can defend as their property. If someone has access to a license that you didn't intend to sell them, but also doesn't impair your ability to use it, then you now both have that property. Otherwise, if you clearly communicate that it's part of the deal, but then keep a backdoor in, and remove the software from the person's new computer, that's theft. The only way I'd argue that the software would remain yours after the transaction and when you forgot to exclude it, is if you maintained access to it somehow. Whether the person keeps it or not is up to their goodwill or ability to use the licenses. In the old days, if a computer came with a Photoshop license on it, it's yours.
_Microft 7y ago
Could Tesla owners really keep the FSD 'license' when selling a car and use it with their next Tesla? I have never read about anything like that. I thought the features were tied to the car, not to the owner.

Forgivenessizer 7y ago

Even funnier, if you, say, get cancer and die, and you leave your girlfriend your car, she can't have autopilot without ponying up again, even if you lived with each other for decades.