3 ms·
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 en
by 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 agoWhat 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.
- a-dub 3y ago"good faith" has meaning in the california business code and it would not stand up in court if they attempted to abuse semantics in the absurd way you describe. their text is abundantly clear: you can use the ideas in their patents if you are using them in good faith and are not law trolling.
- tovej 3y agoThe "you can use Teslas ideas" part of the contract is not what's being discussed. What parent is talking about is the rights you must give up in order to gain this right.