5 ms·

> saying that public disclosure of the information could cause competitive harm. Remember what Musk said many years ago, something along the lines of that he w

> saying that public disclosure of the information could cause competitive harm. Remember what Musk said many years ago, something along the lines of that he wants to get the global EV movement started, and that for this to happen he'd gladly let anyone use his patents without retaliating? Now he doesn't even want data which might save lives to get out into the public. > June 12, 2014 > 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. https://web.archive.org/web/20160722033909/https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you https://web.archive.org/web/20160722033909/https://www.tesla...

JKCalhoun 1y ago
My impression is that Tesla's are (were) status symbols people bought to flaunt their wealth [1]. Perhaps Musk's persona has kind of killed that though. Or at least he causes one to weigh the status aspect of the car against the politics they increasingly represent. [1] The thing I've alsways disliked most about Tesla actually — not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite.
- benwad 1y ago
  Personally I think the strategy of starting with luxury cars and getting cheaper was a good one. The bigger profit margin of luxury cars could be fed back into R&D to make cheaper electric cars viable. Of course, that's the ideal situation. Tesla in 2025 is very different from what they were talking about in 2014.
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    It’s a shame they chose to seriously pursue the ridiculous cybertruck and vapourware rather than cheaper cars.
    - Yeul 1y ago
      A pickup truck wasn't a bad idea but they should have made a normal looking one.
      - _aavaa_ 1y ago
        No, a regular pickup truck would make boatloads of money. Instead they made a rusty tin can that chops off fingers and falls apart. Meanwhile their competitors are moving downmarket and releasing cheaper cars
  - sorenjan 1y ago
    Yes, but Tesla has made several weird strategic errors IMO. The first one I remember reacting to where the falcon doors on the model X. They had issues which delayed the launch, and I remember thinking it was strange to put those kind of specialty doors on a SUV instead of focusing on delivering a functional car as quick and easy as possible. The next was of course the massive focus on self driving, and then the cyber truck. The company has had the same CEO during all of these decisions. But what do I know, I assume their self driving AI hype is what drives their hugely inflated stock price, so it has made a lot of people very rich, which is a goal in itself. It's hard to point at the richest man in the world and say he made strategic errors.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      > It's hard to point at the richest man in the world and say he made strategic errors. It should be done carefully, but it should be done. More than one company has been imploded by a leader who's been successful in the past and no longer has anyone to tell them "No." Honestly, the best thing for Tesla would be to evict Musk as a leader, install someone who can focus on excellent delivery (like SpaceX), and create a separate R&D org for Musk to lead.
      - falcor84 1y ago
        > and create a separate R&D org for Musk to lead. He already has Neuralink - he should put his efforts into that; perhaps as a test subject.
      - sheepscreek 1y ago
        > install someone who can focus on excellent delivery (like SpaceX) You know, I’ve thought about this too. What makes us think he hasn’t done this already? He could have an org structure where someone else is in charge of everything and still be this “veto guy”. Personally, I don’t think he’s very excited about electric cars anymore. Tesla has mostly achieved what it set out to do. Electric cars are undeniably mainstream now. His next passion is possibly Optimus (which would also help with Tesla manufacturing and Mars settlement) and AI (same - would help with everything, make Optimus smarter). Maybe the only thing he might still be excited about, related to cars, is the self-driving taxi service. That could become a highly profitable business with a massive entry barrier for anyone that wants to compete with them. I believe in this thesis even more after the success of Starlink. As for competition - Waymo had been too cautious and slow in its rollout to a fault. Much like Google’s AI policy before ChatGPT. Tesla can still beat them to a punch. Being a fully vertically integrated car company, they can churn out robo-taxis faster than anyone else.
  - aaronbaugher 1y ago
    Yeah, that's just how developing new technologies works. Home PCs, VCRs, CD players, cell phones: every one was hundreds or thousands of dollars at first, a plaything for wealthy people. Then as volume increased, prices came down to where most people could afford them and they became mass-market consumer items. It doesn't always work out. Sometimes another technology or a competitor gets over that hump first, and the other (LaserDisc, Betamax) never gets the volume it takes to become an affordable commodity. And it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which one was better. But that's the path to selling a new tech to the masses: sell with a high price tag to the wealthy first.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  > [1] The thing I've alsways disliked most about Tesla actually — not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite. This seems a little crazy. They started with the fastest one, but it was still much cheaper than equivalents, and model 3s and model ys have been selling like hot cakes. These are cars for the people.
  - femiagbabiaka 1y ago
    People in the Bay Area perhaps.
    - spacebanana7 1y ago
      In the UK you can get a wide range of used Tesla Model 3's for £10k-£20k that are only 2-4 years old. This makes them pretty affordable for people on average income, especially given the lack of fuel expenses and road tax.
      - ivewonyoung 1y ago
        Looks like the average selling price of new cars in the UK is around 45K pounds, and there are several new Tesla cars that come below that.
    - ivewonyoung 1y ago
      "In California, the Tesla Model 3 Is Now Cheaper Than a Toyota Camry" https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-model-3-cheaper-than-toyota-camry-california/ https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-model-3-ch... The average selling price for a new car in the U.S. was around $47K, both the Model 3 and some models of the Y come below that.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        >> Article updated on June 10, 2023 at 5:00 AM PDT >> Now that the Tesla Model 3 is eligible for the full $7,500 [US federal] electric vehicle tax credit >> The Model 3 is eligible for the full $7,500 [California tax credit], bringing the total amount of federal and state tax credits to $15,000. So the cheapest Model 3 (as of 2023) was $14,000 more expensive than the cheapest Camry, but offset by tax policy.
- sandworm101 1y ago
  They are symbols. Far more carbon would be saved if people instead bought solar panels for thier houses and drove a smaller IC car rather than an EV tank. But you cannot flaunt solar panels like you can a fancy car.
  - bumby 1y ago
    The environmental aspect I rarely hear discussed is how much carbon would be saved by maintaining your existing vehicle instead. The existing car is already a sunk carbon cost and manufacturing is a huge emitter. It’s more nuanced of course, but it seems to me that it’s always been a status play falsely veiled as a virtuous environmental decision. We humans are great at rationalizing our emotional decisions.
    - everyone 1y ago
      Its an optimization problem, the embodied energy of the new car vs how much you save driving it, as it's more fuel efficent than the old one. But in most cases you would need to drive the new car for decades before you break even.
      - slashdev 1y ago
        It’s much less than decades. Unless you only drive once a week to the corner store.
        bumby 1y ago
        It really depends on the grid emissions. If you’re charging your EV in Vermont (mostly hydro grid) vs West Virginia (mostly coal fuel), it can be orders of magnitude different.
    - sandworm101 1y ago
      For the rich people who can even consider a tesla, there are no old cars. The average tesla owner would not be seen in any car more than a decade old. They lease. Older/used cars are someone elses domain. This is a shame because cars today can easily last 25+ years. If manufactuers wanted to, they could even biuld them to last much longer. But the new car market is dominated by people who lease and dump cars, not people who keep them around once the shine is gone.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tiahura 1y ago
  I think your impression is mostly speaking about you.
- lallysingh 1y ago
  The model Y was the best selling car in the world last year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/239229/most-sold-car-models-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/239229/most-sold-car-mod... That's a lot of flaunters.
  - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
    Can we expand the sources for that? I ask because I want to know if this source is the same company that had dealerships "selling" thousands of cars over a single weekend right before a tax incentive disappeared. It could very well be true, but there's also reasons it might not be.
    - dlivingston 1y ago
      Anecdotally, Model Ys are EVERYWHERE in Massachusetts. I would guesstimate 1 out of every 10 cars in this state is a Model Y.
  - blargey 1y ago
    Is that a meaningful comparison if the biggest car manufacturers have their sales split across a dozen models for each Tesla model?
    - NoPicklez 1y ago
      I think it is, a car manufacturer having multiple models doesn't take away from any particular model.
      - enragedcacti 1y ago
        It absolutely does take away from other models. Most automotive brands have a 50-60% loyalty rate and all sorts of general brand appeal/features that span models. Someone who wants an HR-V but can't get one is massively more likely to buy a Civic or CR-V than the average person. If the Model 3 didn't exist, most of those buyers would get a Y because they want the software, the supercharging, the range, the brand name, etc. Having a large lineup is good for customer satisfaction and for attracting customers on the fence, but it definitely hurts you on this one very specific, mostly meaningless metric.
- _ea1k 1y ago
  They've never been that. Their goal has always been to be the highest volume car manufacturer in the world, not some weird status symbol. The Model Y being the best selling car in the world for 2 years in a row is a part of that. There's nothing rarefied at all about it.
- panick21_ 1y ago
  > not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite. Based on what? They are at or below the avg car price. They are literally definitionally avg. In fact, the Model 3 was one the cheapest electric cars at the time. And still today Model Y isn't all the expensive. And its the most sold car in the world. How can the most sold car in the world be considered elite?
- vonneumannstan 1y ago
  >[1] The thing I've alsways disliked most about Tesla actually — not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite. Not generally a fan of Teslas but this just rings hollow. You can get Model 3's and Model Y's for under $40k which is much less than the average cost of a new car in the US. (~$49k in 2025). I would consider a car priced below the average well within the reach of "the people". Even a top specced Model S is no where near what actually rarefied elites could drive. A Base 911 Carerra is ~$130k, a 911 Turbo S is $230k. A New Ferrari 296 is over $400k and you can't buy one even if you wanted to.
  - tzmudzin 1y ago
    Would this hold for median car prices?
    - vonneumannstan 1y ago
      Doesn't seem to be much data but considering the best selling cars last year were the Chevy Silverado, Ford F-Series Trucks, Toyota Rav4 and Tesla Model Y which start at ~$37k and $38k, $29k, and $37k respectively I'd say the conclusion is still sound.
- NoPicklez 1y ago
  From my understanding this couldn't be further from the truth. Elon knew that EV's weren't sexy, so he decided to risk it and build a fast and ultimately expensive EV to begin with, to show people that they were worth buying and fast. Only now through the model Y and the model 3 are we now seeing more consumer friendly models, which is what Elon always wanted from the start. Here in Australia you can buy a model 3 for around the same price as our most sold car.
kypro 1y ago
While this article seems to be trying to imply Musk made this decision himselves it seems like the request actually came from the legal team at Telsa. Obviously Musk is still the CEO though and should overrule the decision for the reason you note, but should probably just note that this isn't necessarily a decision coming directly from Musk. Almost any company is likely to do the same thing given their incentives. The reason Musk's stance on patents was rare was because it's arguably a pretty bad business decision.
- contingencies 1y ago
  The whole problem with EV transitioning is that the charging requires you to build out infrastructure. By making their standards open they made the infrastructure investment shared. This was a high confidence basis for build-out. Now third parties like ABB produce chargers and sell them to third parties like gas stations. It's a perfectly rational business decision coming from a strategic position of "large greenfield investment and ongoing maintenance required". Obviously things evolve, but Tesla is certainly not in a worse position for the charging infrastructure (the main enabler of their products) due to the open patents decision at present.
sumeno 1y ago
Even the patent thing was just a scam. You're free to use Tesla's patents as long as you promise to not sue them for violating any of your patents. It wasn't some altruistic thing
- Corrado 1y ago
  I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a "scam" but there were definitely reasons that other automakers didn't take them up on the offer. IMHO if someone like Ford or Toyota had taken them up on the offer they could be miles ahead of the competition today and not lagging behind the Chinese competitors. While there were strings attached there were also a lot of good ideas in those patents that would have boosted development and deployment timelines.
- Veserv 1y ago
  Worse than that [1]. > asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla You had to agree to let Tesla use any of your patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and all other forms of intellectual property. In return Tesla lets you use just their patents. Yes, it is actually explicitly that blatantly unfair. [1] https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled...
_ea1k 1y ago
That was always intended to be a reciprocal agreement, similar to the ones used in the software industry to defend against patent trolls. Tesla has a history of being very concerned about that type of behavior and its impact on their business. I disagree with Tesla about this case at the moment, but the issues are very different.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > That was always intended to be... [something else entirely] That's not what he said, anyone can invent excuses after the fact but that doesn't change the facts. Musk simply pulled the "Don't be evil" trick, in so many words. Oops, sorry, not being evil helps the competition - which has also been slapped with 150% tariff, just in case.
  - _ea1k 1y ago
    It is exactly what they said at the time: "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." They offered this statement along with a "good faith" patent pledge that required reciprocity. Just like the annual "robotaxis this year", nothing has changed. lol
castratikron 1y ago
Question to anyone, how does autonomy align with Tesla's goal to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport? How are autonomous vehicles more "sustainable"?

JKCalhoun 1y ago

My impression is that Tesla's are (were) status symbols people bought to flaunt their wealth [1]. Perhaps Musk's persona has kind of killed that though. Or at least he causes one to weigh the status aspect of the car against the politics they increasingly represent. [1] The thing I've alsways disliked most about Tesla actually — not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite.

benwad 1y ago
Personally I think the strategy of starting with luxury cars and getting cheaper was a good one. The bigger profit margin of luxury cars could be fed back into R&D to make cheaper electric cars viable. Of course, that's the ideal situation. Tesla in 2025 is very different from what they were talking about in 2014.
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  It’s a shame they chose to seriously pursue the ridiculous cybertruck and vapourware rather than cheaper cars.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    A pickup truck wasn't a bad idea but they should have made a normal looking one.
    - _aavaa_ 1y ago
      No, a regular pickup truck would make boatloads of money. Instead they made a rusty tin can that chops off fingers and falls apart. Meanwhile their competitors are moving downmarket and releasing cheaper cars
- sorenjan 1y ago
  Yes, but Tesla has made several weird strategic errors IMO. The first one I remember reacting to where the falcon doors on the model X. They had issues which delayed the launch, and I remember thinking it was strange to put those kind of specialty doors on a SUV instead of focusing on delivering a functional car as quick and easy as possible. The next was of course the massive focus on self driving, and then the cyber truck. The company has had the same CEO during all of these decisions. But what do I know, I assume their self driving AI hype is what drives their hugely inflated stock price, so it has made a lot of people very rich, which is a goal in itself. It's hard to point at the richest man in the world and say he made strategic errors.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    > It's hard to point at the richest man in the world and say he made strategic errors. It should be done carefully, but it should be done. More than one company has been imploded by a leader who's been successful in the past and no longer has anyone to tell them "No." Honestly, the best thing for Tesla would be to evict Musk as a leader, install someone who can focus on excellent delivery (like SpaceX), and create a separate R&D org for Musk to lead.
    - falcor84 1y ago
      > and create a separate R&D org for Musk to lead. He already has Neuralink - he should put his efforts into that; perhaps as a test subject.
    - sheepscreek 1y ago
      > install someone who can focus on excellent delivery (like SpaceX) You know, I’ve thought about this too. What makes us think he hasn’t done this already? He could have an org structure where someone else is in charge of everything and still be this “veto guy”. Personally, I don’t think he’s very excited about electric cars anymore. Tesla has mostly achieved what it set out to do. Electric cars are undeniably mainstream now. His next passion is possibly Optimus (which would also help with Tesla manufacturing and Mars settlement) and AI (same - would help with everything, make Optimus smarter). Maybe the only thing he might still be excited about, related to cars, is the self-driving taxi service. That could become a highly profitable business with a massive entry barrier for anyone that wants to compete with them. I believe in this thesis even more after the success of Starlink. As for competition - Waymo had been too cautious and slow in its rollout to a fault. Much like Google’s AI policy before ChatGPT. Tesla can still beat them to a punch. Being a fully vertically integrated car company, they can churn out robo-taxis faster than anyone else.
- aaronbaugher 1y ago
  Yeah, that's just how developing new technologies works. Home PCs, VCRs, CD players, cell phones: every one was hundreds or thousands of dollars at first, a plaything for wealthy people. Then as volume increased, prices came down to where most people could afford them and they became mass-market consumer items. It doesn't always work out. Sometimes another technology or a competitor gets over that hump first, and the other (LaserDisc, Betamax) never gets the volume it takes to become an affordable commodity. And it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with which one was better. But that's the path to selling a new tech to the masses: sell with a high price tag to the wealthy first.
robertlagrant 1y ago
> [1] The thing I've alsways disliked most about Tesla actually — not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite. This seems a little crazy. They started with the fastest one, but it was still much cheaper than equivalents, and model 3s and model ys have been selling like hot cakes. These are cars for the people.
- femiagbabiaka 1y ago
  People in the Bay Area perhaps.
  - spacebanana7 1y ago
    In the UK you can get a wide range of used Tesla Model 3's for £10k-£20k that are only 2-4 years old. This makes them pretty affordable for people on average income, especially given the lack of fuel expenses and road tax.
    - ivewonyoung 1y ago
      Looks like the average selling price of new cars in the UK is around 45K pounds, and there are several new Tesla cars that come below that.
  - ivewonyoung 1y ago
    "In California, the Tesla Model 3 Is Now Cheaper Than a Toyota Camry" https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-model-3-cheaper-than-toyota-camry-california/ https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-model-3-ch... The average selling price for a new car in the U.S. was around $47K, both the Model 3 and some models of the Y come below that.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      >> Article updated on June 10, 2023 at 5:00 AM PDT >> Now that the Tesla Model 3 is eligible for the full $7,500 [US federal] electric vehicle tax credit >> The Model 3 is eligible for the full $7,500 [California tax credit], bringing the total amount of federal and state tax credits to $15,000. So the cheapest Model 3 (as of 2023) was $14,000 more expensive than the cheapest Camry, but offset by tax policy.
sandworm101 1y ago
They are symbols. Far more carbon would be saved if people instead bought solar panels for thier houses and drove a smaller IC car rather than an EV tank. But you cannot flaunt solar panels like you can a fancy car.
- bumby 1y ago
  The environmental aspect I rarely hear discussed is how much carbon would be saved by maintaining your existing vehicle instead. The existing car is already a sunk carbon cost and manufacturing is a huge emitter. It’s more nuanced of course, but it seems to me that it’s always been a status play falsely veiled as a virtuous environmental decision. We humans are great at rationalizing our emotional decisions.
  - everyone 1y ago
    Its an optimization problem, the embodied energy of the new car vs how much you save driving it, as it's more fuel efficent than the old one. But in most cases you would need to drive the new car for decades before you break even.
    - slashdev 1y ago
      It’s much less than decades. Unless you only drive once a week to the corner store.
      - bumby 1y ago
        It really depends on the grid emissions. If you’re charging your EV in Vermont (mostly hydro grid) vs West Virginia (mostly coal fuel), it can be orders of magnitude different.
  - sandworm101 1y ago
    For the rich people who can even consider a tesla, there are no old cars. The average tesla owner would not be seen in any car more than a decade old. They lease. Older/used cars are someone elses domain. This is a shame because cars today can easily last 25+ years. If manufactuers wanted to, they could even biuld them to last much longer. But the new car market is dominated by people who lease and dump cars, not people who keep them around once the shine is gone.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tiahura 1y ago
I think your impression is mostly speaking about you.
lallysingh 1y ago
The model Y was the best selling car in the world last year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/239229/most-sold-car-models-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/239229/most-sold-car-mod... That's a lot of flaunters.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
  Can we expand the sources for that? I ask because I want to know if this source is the same company that had dealerships "selling" thousands of cars over a single weekend right before a tax incentive disappeared. It could very well be true, but there's also reasons it might not be.
  - dlivingston 1y ago
    Anecdotally, Model Ys are EVERYWHERE in Massachusetts. I would guesstimate 1 out of every 10 cars in this state is a Model Y.
- blargey 1y ago
  Is that a meaningful comparison if the biggest car manufacturers have their sales split across a dozen models for each Tesla model?
  - NoPicklez 1y ago
    I think it is, a car manufacturer having multiple models doesn't take away from any particular model.
    - enragedcacti 1y ago
      It absolutely does take away from other models. Most automotive brands have a 50-60% loyalty rate and all sorts of general brand appeal/features that span models. Someone who wants an HR-V but can't get one is massively more likely to buy a Civic or CR-V than the average person. If the Model 3 didn't exist, most of those buyers would get a Y because they want the software, the supercharging, the range, the brand name, etc. Having a large lineup is good for customer satisfaction and for attracting customers on the fence, but it definitely hurts you on this one very specific, mostly meaningless metric.
_ea1k 1y ago
They've never been that. Their goal has always been to be the highest volume car manufacturer in the world, not some weird status symbol. The Model Y being the best selling car in the world for 2 years in a row is a part of that. There's nothing rarefied at all about it.
panick21_ 1y ago
> not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite. Based on what? They are at or below the avg car price. They are literally definitionally avg. In fact, the Model 3 was one the cheapest electric cars at the time. And still today Model Y isn't all the expensive. And its the most sold car in the world. How can the most sold car in the world be considered elite?
vonneumannstan 1y ago
>[1] The thing I've alsways disliked most about Tesla actually — not a car "for the people" — way too rarefied, elite. Not generally a fan of Teslas but this just rings hollow. You can get Model 3's and Model Y's for under $40k which is much less than the average cost of a new car in the US. (~$49k in 2025). I would consider a car priced below the average well within the reach of "the people". Even a top specced Model S is no where near what actually rarefied elites could drive. A Base 911 Carerra is ~$130k, a 911 Turbo S is $230k. A New Ferrari 296 is over $400k and you can't buy one even if you wanted to.
- tzmudzin 1y ago
  Would this hold for median car prices?
  - vonneumannstan 1y ago
    Doesn't seem to be much data but considering the best selling cars last year were the Chevy Silverado, Ford F-Series Trucks, Toyota Rav4 and Tesla Model Y which start at ~$37k and $38k, $29k, and $37k respectively I'd say the conclusion is still sound.
NoPicklez 1y ago
From my understanding this couldn't be further from the truth. Elon knew that EV's weren't sexy, so he decided to risk it and build a fast and ultimately expensive EV to begin with, to show people that they were worth buying and fast. Only now through the model Y and the model 3 are we now seeing more consumer friendly models, which is what Elon always wanted from the start. Here in Australia you can buy a model 3 for around the same price as our most sold car.

kypro 1y ago

While this article seems to be trying to imply Musk made this decision himselves it seems like the request actually came from the legal team at Telsa. Obviously Musk is still the CEO though and should overrule the decision for the reason you note, but should probably just note that this isn't necessarily a decision coming directly from Musk. Almost any company is likely to do the same thing given their incentives. The reason Musk's stance on patents was rare was because it's arguably a pretty bad business decision.

contingencies 1y ago
The whole problem with EV transitioning is that the charging requires you to build out infrastructure. By making their standards open they made the infrastructure investment shared. This was a high confidence basis for build-out. Now third parties like ABB produce chargers and sell them to third parties like gas stations. It's a perfectly rational business decision coming from a strategic position of "large greenfield investment and ongoing maintenance required". Obviously things evolve, but Tesla is certainly not in a worse position for the charging infrastructure (the main enabler of their products) due to the open patents decision at present.

sumeno 1y ago

Even the patent thing was just a scam. You're free to use Tesla's patents as long as you promise to not sue them for violating any of your patents. It wasn't some altruistic thing

Corrado 1y ago
I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a "scam" but there were definitely reasons that other automakers didn't take them up on the offer. IMHO if someone like Ford or Toyota had taken them up on the offer they could be miles ahead of the competition today and not lagging behind the Chinese competitors. While there were strings attached there were also a lot of good ideas in those patents that would have boosted development and deployment timelines.
Veserv 1y ago
Worse than that [1]. > asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla You had to agree to let Tesla use any of your patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and all other forms of intellectual property. In return Tesla lets you use just their patents. Yes, it is actually explicitly that blatantly unfair. [1] https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled...

_ea1k 1y ago

That was always intended to be a reciprocal agreement, similar to the ones used in the software industry to defend against patent trolls. Tesla has a history of being very concerned about that type of behavior and its impact on their business. I disagree with Tesla about this case at the moment, but the issues are very different.

bigbadfeline 1y ago
> That was always intended to be... [something else entirely] That's not what he said, anyone can invent excuses after the fact but that doesn't change the facts. Musk simply pulled the "Don't be evil" trick, in so many words. Oops, sorry, not being evil helps the competition - which has also been slapped with 150% tariff, just in case.
- _ea1k 1y ago
  It is exactly what they said at the time: "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." They offered this statement along with a "good faith" patent pledge that required reciprocity. Just like the annual "robotaxis this year", nothing has changed. lol

castratikron 1y ago

Question to anyone, how does autonomy align with Tesla's goal to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport? How are autonomous vehicles more "sustainable"?