8 ms·

https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled... Except the actual terms state th

by Veserv 3y ago

https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled... Except the actual terms state that: "A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not: asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla" [emphasis mine] So Tesla agrees to not pursue you for patent infringement as long as you agree to not pursue Tesla for patent and copyright and trademark infringement and trade secret misappropriation. What a fine and upstanding fair agreement. And, just in case it is not clear it also states: "marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so." which is a explicit carveout for Tesla's copyright and trademark even though they demand you give up yours. [edit]: Added trade secret misappropriation as a reply mentioned since that is traditionally considered a intellectual property right as well.

staticautomatic 3y ago
Should probably include trade secrets for good measure
a-dub 3y ago
reads to me like "our lawn is for everyone as we want to see the technology succeed, but those who try to crap on it will be asked to leave." what's wrong with that?
- Veserv 3y ago
  Because it states, "patent or other intellectual property right" for Tesla, but only "patent right" for everybody else. If you are really "opening" your patents or intellectual property then you would just have a symmetric agreement like patents for both, or intellectual property for both. You would not have a ridiculously asymmetric agreement that legalizes your usage of industrial espionage or counterfeiting. For that matter, the pledge is transitive, but only uniquely privileges Tesla intellectual property rights: "(i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla" "(ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment" See how they clearly highlight different rights. The second term is a symmetric patent pledge, everybody equally agrees to not sue each other or others over patents. But the first term says Tesla is more equal than others and you can not sue them for anything even if they steal your trade secrets or literally make counterfeits of your products.
  - a-dub 3y ago
    you are correct that it is not symmetric, but i suspect they wanted to avoid weird situations where they find themselves publicly obligated to pull patents as a result of non-trivial non-patent ip disputes between third parties.
    - Veserv 3y ago
      That does not even make sense. That might be why they would not transitively require non-enforcement of all intellectual property. It does not support uniquely granting themselves massive additional rights to commit intellectual property infringement against all other signatories. Your logic would only be sound if Tesla agreed to symmetrically not enforce any of its intellectual property rights if others would not enforce them against Tesla, while still only requiring transitive non-enforcement of patent rights. That would trivially carve out third party disputes on non-patent IP while still holding Tesla to a higher standard (and others against Tesla only). Instead, the pledge as written grants Tesla a level of privilege that is hard to overstate with respect to intellectual property. This is not some sort of oopsie oversight. Tesla has tons of highly paid lawyers that can work out clear terms and Elon Musk personally proposed the idea and signed off on that wording while actively marketing Tesla as taking some sort of moral high ground. The specific wording of that pledge is a inexcusable, scummy, deliberate betrayal of the spirit of a patent pledge. They deserve negative morality points for their intentional deception and misuse of terminology meant to imply a moral stance they deliberately betray.
      - a-dub 3y ago
        they want to protect their brand, but they don't want to get into the business of protecting those that belong to others, from others. they are not going to engage in malfeasance, they have spent too much building the brand that they seek to protect. i'm not a huge elon fan, but this seems pretty obvious to me.
        Veserv 3y ago
        What you are describing are the standard protections of trademarks (brand protection). You get those if you do not waive your trademarks which is the default. The Tesla patent pledge requires everybody to explicitly grant Tesla, and only Tesla, the right to violate their trademarks (and all other IP) freely without repercussion. Tesla is not “protecting” themselves with that clause, they are giving themselves a unlimited malfeasance license. This is a “oh by the way, I am allowed to unilaterally steal all your stuff” clause. There is zero justifiable reason for such wording. They can just not give themselves that additional power. If they had even the slightest intention of a fair pledge they would have only needed to have clause (ii). They deliberately chose not to. Their patent pledge is a disgrace.

by Veserv 3y ago

staticautomatic 3y ago

Should probably include trade secrets for good measure

a-dub 3y ago

reads to me like "our lawn is for everyone as we want to see the technology succeed, but those who try to crap on it will be asked to leave." what's wrong with that?

Veserv 3y ago
Because it states, "patent or other intellectual property right" for Tesla, but only "patent right" for everybody else. If you are really "opening" your patents or intellectual property then you would just have a symmetric agreement like patents for both, or intellectual property for both. You would not have a ridiculously asymmetric agreement that legalizes your usage of industrial espionage or counterfeiting. For that matter, the pledge is transitive, but only uniquely privileges Tesla intellectual property rights: "(i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla" "(ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment" See how they clearly highlight different rights. The second term is a symmetric patent pledge, everybody equally agrees to not sue each other or others over patents. But the first term says Tesla is more equal than others and you can not sue them for anything even if they steal your trade secrets or literally make counterfeits of your products.
- a-dub 3y ago
  you are correct that it is not symmetric, but i suspect they wanted to avoid weird situations where they find themselves publicly obligated to pull patents as a result of non-trivial non-patent ip disputes between third parties.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    That does not even make sense. That might be why they would not transitively require non-enforcement of all intellectual property. It does not support uniquely granting themselves massive additional rights to commit intellectual property infringement against all other signatories. Your logic would only be sound if Tesla agreed to symmetrically not enforce any of its intellectual property rights if others would not enforce them against Tesla, while still only requiring transitive non-enforcement of patent rights. That would trivially carve out third party disputes on non-patent IP while still holding Tesla to a higher standard (and others against Tesla only). Instead, the pledge as written grants Tesla a level of privilege that is hard to overstate with respect to intellectual property. This is not some sort of oopsie oversight. Tesla has tons of highly paid lawyers that can work out clear terms and Elon Musk personally proposed the idea and signed off on that wording while actively marketing Tesla as taking some sort of moral high ground. The specific wording of that pledge is a inexcusable, scummy, deliberate betrayal of the spirit of a patent pledge. They deserve negative morality points for their intentional deception and misuse of terminology meant to imply a moral stance they deliberately betray.
    - a-dub 3y ago
      they want to protect their brand, but they don't want to get into the business of protecting those that belong to others, from others. they are not going to engage in malfeasance, they have spent too much building the brand that they seek to protect. i'm not a huge elon fan, but this seems pretty obvious to me.
      - Veserv 3y ago
        What you are describing are the standard protections of trademarks (brand protection). You get those if you do not waive your trademarks which is the default. The Tesla patent pledge requires everybody to explicitly grant Tesla, and only Tesla, the right to violate their trademarks (and all other IP) freely without repercussion. Tesla is not “protecting” themselves with that clause, they are giving themselves a unlimited malfeasance license. This is a “oh by the way, I am allowed to unilaterally steal all your stuff” clause. There is zero justifiable reason for such wording. They can just not give themselves that additional power. If they had even the slightest intention of a fair pledge they would have only needed to have clause (ii). They deliberately chose not to. Their patent pledge is a disgrace.