6 ms·

Classy! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/356779314043305985 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/356779314043305985 "I really hate patents unless critical to

Classy! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/356779314043305985 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/356779314043305985 "I really hate patents unless critical to company survival. Will publish Hyperloop as open source."

onebaddude 13y ago
>"I really hate patents unless critical to company survival" Isn't "critical to company survival" the same defensive argument that every patent holder uses?
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Yes but most of them are wrong.
- kiba 13y ago
  SpaceX don't patent anything because they thought the Chinese would steal their technologies using the patents itself. It's a different story for Tesla Motors, though.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I think there is more "secret sauce" in Tesla than in SpaceX. SpaceX is doing great implementations of pretty conservative designs. In any case, both are "product" companies and benefit from patents less than "design" companies. Contrast SpaceX with Mojave Aerospace Ventures (the investment vehicle that owns the Spaceship One IP developed by Scaled Composites).
    - cryptoz 13y ago
      > SpaceX is doing great implementations of pretty conservative designs. Mostly. So far. But very quickly SpaceX will start building things that have never been built before, and I would assume small teams are already working on the designs. Ships like human-rated Mars landers, colony buildings, fuel-creating reactors for Mars, etc.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - amitparikh 13y ago
      > SpaceX is doing great implementations of pretty conservative designs. Like the other reply mentioned, they are certainly working on some technologies that are starkly less conservative. One example is the Grasshopper [1], a reusable first stage that is capable of returning to the launchpad under controlled burn. [1] Here's the most recent 325m test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        It's long been argued by Jerry Pournelle and others that a fully reusable spacecraft could be built by being "starkly conservative" in materials and technology, but using modern construction techniques. See The Rocket Company Grasshopper seems to be following this play book.
      - criley2 13y ago
        It's worth mentioning that their "less conservative" VTVL rocket is currently hitting about 10% of the DC-X's ~3100m record. While the grasshopper is very cool, the concept of a VTVL rocket is not new. Hell, the Apollo Lunar Module technically landed and took off afterwards, as well!
        berntb 13y ago
        I remember reading the arguments for reusability etc 1990 on usenet's sci.space (and later sci.space.tech). Henry Spencer et al made good points. You have to wonder how large a role is played by NASA not having a shuttle now -- and hence no motivation to use its political clout to stop competition? Let us just hope delaying the real space age capabilities a few decades won't result in the death of humanity... (But if we go extinct because of a bureaucracy's need for job security, we arguably deserve what we get.)
        pudquick 13y ago
        While you may be right about VTVL not being new, this is disingenuous at best: > Hell, the Apollo Lunar Module technically landed and took off afterwards, as well! It landed and launched in a relatively airless (windless) environment at 1/6th Earth's gravity ... and when it launched it left half of itself behind! "Technically" indeed.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      My understanding is that although kerosene burning rocket engines are nothing exotic or unfamiliar to the Chinese (or really anybody), the devil is in the details. For example, the details of the explosive forming of the regeneratively cooled Merlin 1D combustion chambers is allegedly pretty damn "secret sauce".
    - apendleton 13y ago
      So far their designs have been fairly conservative, but they've made some pretty significant advances in manufacturing process and in materials as compared to their rivals, despite their designs being relatively similar. Heavy use of friction-stir welding would be an example of the former, and the PICA-X heat shield material would be an example of the latter, and details of the former (if you watch SpaceX factory tours on youtube, etc.) are considered trade secrets that aren't shown to the public, even though they're not patented.
    - btilly 13y ago
      Everyone has criticized you based on how great SpaceX is. I'll go the other way. Tesla at its heart is "put a ton of batteries which were developed by other companies into an electric motor that drives a car." People have been trying this formula for over a century. Tesla happened to do it when battery technology was just good enough to work, with really good styling.
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        To say this is highly disingenuous, and disregards the massive amount of work into the energy management system researched by Tesla. Put a ton of batteries into a car? Yeah, that's how they get 265 miles to a charge. Clearly all other EV cars just need a ton of batteries to solve the range issue.
        btilly 13y ago
        Of course it is disingenuous. Deliberately so, in exactly the same way that lightly dismissing SpaceX is disingenuous.
        rayiner 13y ago
        I'm not "lightly dismissing SpaceX." I just think Tesla is tredding more unproven ground.
        toomuchtodo 13y ago
        They are completely different domains. Electric cars are at the mercy of consumers. Rockets are at the mercy of physics.
        btilly 13y ago
        I disagree because I know people who have been at SpaceX and have been following their plans. But let's have this conversation again in 5 years.
      - mncolinlee 13y ago
- non-sense 13y ago
  In this case he has promised: "Will publish Hyperloop as open source." I didn't see a catch here. In the same context, SpaceX have not applied for many patents when compared to the work they are doing. However in this case the prime motive could be keep the tech secret.
  - JonSkeptic 13y ago
    Elon Musk is the only man alive who could promise the moon and make me want to believe that he means it. I hope he follows through, I want to believe that he will, and I have no reason to doubt; if anyone will do it, it will be him. Open source FTW.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Certainly not. There are many different arguments for patents, most of which just boil down to "I deserve to be compensated for the work I put in to inventing this."
- arbuge 13y ago
  Certainly the patent trolls could argue that patents are essential to their patent troll company survival...
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  It's a tweet. Expect it to be an abbreviated incomplete answer.
- mhartl 13y ago
  Many companies use patents as a matter of course, whether it's critical to their business or not.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- non-sense 13y ago
  This is an interesting point of view. What I gathered from this is that the magnitude of this project is BIG. This will mean that it will involve more than one entity to participate and hence the need to keep it open.
alexvr 13y ago
It is classy and awesome, but don't forget that he can afford to be classy and awesome. (Everyone knows he's the inventor, and he's got the people and capital to make it happen before anyone else... not that that is necessarily his goal.) Can't wait to see it.
georgemcbay 13y ago
I hate most patents as well, but given that we've recently switched to a "first to file" system here in the US, if this has patentable components (which it seems like it would) it would probably be prudent for him to file patents on it (at least within the one year grace period after disclosing the system in public), even if just to turn around and do some sort of public promise not to enforce. Of course, I'm sure he's well aware of these issues.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  First to file only matters when someone invents in secret. Public is public, won't that block any other patent attempts?

onebaddude 13y ago

>"I really hate patents unless critical to company survival" Isn't "critical to company survival" the same defensive argument that every patent holder uses?

ThomPete 13y ago
Yes but most of them are wrong.
kiba 13y ago
SpaceX don't patent anything because they thought the Chinese would steal their technologies using the patents itself. It's a different story for Tesla Motors, though.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I think there is more "secret sauce" in Tesla than in SpaceX. SpaceX is doing great implementations of pretty conservative designs. In any case, both are "product" companies and benefit from patents less than "design" companies. Contrast SpaceX with Mojave Aerospace Ventures (the investment vehicle that owns the Spaceship One IP developed by Scaled Composites).
  - cryptoz 13y ago
    > SpaceX is doing great implementations of pretty conservative designs. Mostly. So far. But very quickly SpaceX will start building things that have never been built before, and I would assume small teams are already working on the designs. Ships like human-rated Mars landers, colony buildings, fuel-creating reactors for Mars, etc.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - amitparikh 13y ago
    > SpaceX is doing great implementations of pretty conservative designs. Like the other reply mentioned, they are certainly working on some technologies that are starkly less conservative. One example is the Grasshopper [1], a reusable first stage that is capable of returning to the launchpad under controlled burn. [1] Here's the most recent 325m test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGimzB5QM1M
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      It's long been argued by Jerry Pournelle and others that a fully reusable spacecraft could be built by being "starkly conservative" in materials and technology, but using modern construction techniques. See The Rocket Company Grasshopper seems to be following this play book.
    - criley2 13y ago
      It's worth mentioning that their "less conservative" VTVL rocket is currently hitting about 10% of the DC-X's ~3100m record. While the grasshopper is very cool, the concept of a VTVL rocket is not new. Hell, the Apollo Lunar Module technically landed and took off afterwards, as well!
      - berntb 13y ago
        I remember reading the arguments for reusability etc 1990 on usenet's sci.space (and later sci.space.tech). Henry Spencer et al made good points. You have to wonder how large a role is played by NASA not having a shuttle now -- and hence no motivation to use its political clout to stop competition? Let us just hope delaying the real space age capabilities a few decades won't result in the death of humanity... (But if we go extinct because of a bureaucracy's need for job security, we arguably deserve what we get.)
      - pudquick 13y ago
        While you may be right about VTVL not being new, this is disingenuous at best: > Hell, the Apollo Lunar Module technically landed and took off afterwards, as well! It landed and launched in a relatively airless (windless) environment at 1/6th Earth's gravity ... and when it launched it left half of itself behind! "Technically" indeed.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    My understanding is that although kerosene burning rocket engines are nothing exotic or unfamiliar to the Chinese (or really anybody), the devil is in the details. For example, the details of the explosive forming of the regeneratively cooled Merlin 1D combustion chambers is allegedly pretty damn "secret sauce".
  - apendleton 13y ago
    So far their designs have been fairly conservative, but they've made some pretty significant advances in manufacturing process and in materials as compared to their rivals, despite their designs being relatively similar. Heavy use of friction-stir welding would be an example of the former, and the PICA-X heat shield material would be an example of the latter, and details of the former (if you watch SpaceX factory tours on youtube, etc.) are considered trade secrets that aren't shown to the public, even though they're not patented.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Everyone has criticized you based on how great SpaceX is. I'll go the other way. Tesla at its heart is "put a ton of batteries which were developed by other companies into an electric motor that drives a car." People have been trying this formula for over a century. Tesla happened to do it when battery technology was just good enough to work, with really good styling.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      To say this is highly disingenuous, and disregards the massive amount of work into the energy management system researched by Tesla. Put a ton of batteries into a car? Yeah, that's how they get 265 miles to a charge. Clearly all other EV cars just need a ton of batteries to solve the range issue.
      - btilly 13y ago
        Of course it is disingenuous. Deliberately so, in exactly the same way that lightly dismissing SpaceX is disingenuous.
        rayiner 13y ago
        I'm not "lightly dismissing SpaceX." I just think Tesla is tredding more unproven ground.
        toomuchtodo 13y ago
        They are completely different domains. Electric cars are at the mercy of consumers. Rockets are at the mercy of physics.
        btilly 13y ago
        I disagree because I know people who have been at SpaceX and have been following their plans. But let's have this conversation again in 5 years.
    - mncolinlee 13y ago
non-sense 13y ago
In this case he has promised: "Will publish Hyperloop as open source." I didn't see a catch here. In the same context, SpaceX have not applied for many patents when compared to the work they are doing. However in this case the prime motive could be keep the tech secret.
- JonSkeptic 13y ago
  Elon Musk is the only man alive who could promise the moon and make me want to believe that he means it. I hope he follows through, I want to believe that he will, and I have no reason to doubt; if anyone will do it, it will be him. Open source FTW.
mikeash 13y ago
Certainly not. There are many different arguments for patents, most of which just boil down to "I deserve to be compensated for the work I put in to inventing this."
arbuge 13y ago
Certainly the patent trolls could argue that patents are essential to their patent troll company survival...
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
It's a tweet. Expect it to be an abbreviated incomplete answer.
mhartl 13y ago
Many companies use patents as a matter of course, whether it's critical to their business or not.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

non-sense 13y ago
This is an interesting point of view. What I gathered from this is that the magnitude of this project is BIG. This will mean that it will involve more than one entity to participate and hence the need to keep it open.

alexvr 13y ago

It is classy and awesome, but don't forget that he can afford to be classy and awesome. (Everyone knows he's the inventor, and he's got the people and capital to make it happen before anyone else... not that that is necessarily his goal.) Can't wait to see it.

georgemcbay 13y ago

I hate most patents as well, but given that we've recently switched to a "first to file" system here in the US, if this has patentable components (which it seems like it would) it would probably be prudent for him to file patents on it (at least within the one year grace period after disclosing the system in public), even if just to turn around and do some sort of public promise not to enforce. Of course, I'm sure he's well aware of these issues.

Dylan16807 13y ago
First to file only matters when someone invents in secret. Public is public, won't that block any other patent attempts?