7 ms·

So an informal non-aggression pact is nice, but absolutely no automobile manufacturer would rely on that when a new car costs a significant fraction of a billio

by patio11 12y ago

So an informal non-aggression pact is nice, but absolutely no automobile manufacturer would rely on that when a new car costs a significant fraction of a billion dollars to bring to market. (If I were a cynical man, I might think this didn't escape their notice.) If it were me, and the true intent was to distribute the Tesla patents as widely as possible, I would have said "Tesla pledges to license its entire patent portfolio, on a worldwide non-exclusive no-royalty basis, to any interested party. We will ask for consideration in the amount of $1 for a 99 year license. Your lawyers and accountants can reassure you that these sort of symbolic commitments hold up in court. They'll also no doubt ask to see the full terms, which are about as boring as you'd expect, and which are available from our Legal Department."

andrewfong 12y ago
If I were Tesla, I'd also request that the licensing party grant a reciprocal bulk license to Tesla as well. Or, barring that, that Tesla reserves the right to revoke the license if you initiate a patent lawsuit against it.
- yonran 12y ago
  Does there exist such a patent license with no security holes? I would imagine that it would read, “License will be revoked if you 1) Sue me for patent infringement. 2) Sell a patent to a company that sues me for patent infringement (like Intellectual Ventures does). 3) Sponsor the development of a patent, and the owner of the patent sues me for patent infringement. 4) Contract with a patent pool that sues me for patent infringement. 5) Sue my partners or customers for patent infringement (like Apple vs. Google’s partners)...” and so on ad infinitum.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    One would also have clauses to ensure that the products/devices produced under license would not be designed for lock-in and be compatible with electric cars from other companies.
    - seanp2k2 12y ago
      Interesting; almost like a "SA" license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ but for product compatibility.
  - bshanks 12y ago
    http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ (i'm not asserting it is perfect, just that it is an effort towards what you describe)
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      It's an interesting attempt. The problem I'm seeing is that it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities, or to prevent the sort of thing Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar, essentially paying to license a bunch of questionable patents with the foreseeable effect of giving the non-practicing entity enough cash to create a menace for their competitors. What could be an interesting solution is to prevent people who want the protection of the mutual license from licensing patents from anyone else under any other terms. So if you want the protection of the license and a patent troll approaches you, your only choice is to either vanquish the troll or buy the patent outright and immunize everyone. That should mean no more Rockstars at least, and should make life more difficult for trolls because they couldn't license patents anymore, only sell them outright.
      - pyre 12y ago
        > Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar It is my understanding that Rockstar existed prior to Microsoft and others getting involved. They merely footed the bill.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Pretty sure that's what I said. Is that supposed to absolve them?
        pyre 12y ago
        Not really, but throwing in for something that already exists is slightly different than creating it in the first place.
        throwawaykf05 12y ago
  - thegeomaster 12y ago
    I doubt that Elon Musk would do something like this without heavy consultation with Tesla Motors' legal team.
- fab13n 12y ago
  > I'd also request that the licensing party grant a reciprocal bulk license to Tesla as well. That what I thought "in good faith" meant.
- mathattack 12y ago
  I don't have any inside information, but I have to believe that this is where they are going with the play. They aren't naive enough to give away the store without anything in return. It's more like, "Let's all share and compete against the carbon-based auto makers" rather than "Here's something you can use against me"
chc 12y ago
It seems to me that this press release was meant to invite interested parties to contact Tesla's legal department, though it didn't say so explicitly. If I ran a car company and saw this, that's what I would do, which I'm sure also didn't escape Tesla's notice. This press release seems more about announcing and explaining Tesla's intentions rather than acting as a binding agreement for a multibillion-dollar megacorp.
- mathattack 12y ago
  Exactly. The car companies are all adults. I think this signals, "Let's go down a road where we don't wind up suing each other like the internet companies" This doesn't diminish the impact of what they're doing, but there's a practical side.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    You say this like the people working for and running "the internet companies" aren't adults. Being over an age threshold doesn't have any connection to acting as a benevolent member of society, and all companies, including Tesla and Comcast and Apple and Wawa and Chipotle, are in business to make profits.
    - citrik 12y ago
      I don't think the "in business to make profits" part is entirely true. Apple and Tesla are both leading examples of companies that are out for something other than profits first. You can say that shareholder interests and publicly traded companies require ... but at the end of the day those are two companies that don't let capitalist dogma drive their path. I wish there were more than a handful.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Quoting a good but dead comment for visibility: citrik 10 minutes ago | link [dead] I don't think the "in business to make profits" part is entirely true. Apple and Tesla are both leading examples of companies that are out for something other than profits first. You can say that shareholder interests and publicly traded companies require ... but at the end of the day those are two companies that don't let capitalist dogma drive their path. I wish there were more than a handful. -----
genericuser 12y ago
I saw the press release as more directed towards average automobile buyers. As a "We will not be the ones preventing your favorite Automobile manufacturer from producing an Electric Car in the style you want, and neither will the research cost of the technologies we use". I believe the message was phrased in a way to be directed at consumers so that hopefully the consumers will send a message one way or another to the other manufacturers causing them to come to more official agreements with Tesla. (which will of course have terms).
slantedview 12y ago
It's basically a statement of intent, and there's no reason to believe they don't mean what they say. Hopefully this leads to progressed innovation.
burnte 12y ago
Nothing stops any company from now going to Tesla, aware that Tesla is open to a highly favorable licensing agreement, and propose just such a move.
kalleboo 12y ago
Isn't there a precedent? Volvo opening up the three-point seatbelt patents. Does anyone know the particulars of how that worked? My google-fu is weak, all I can find are articles that sound like PR.
- msiebuhr 12y ago
  Wikipedia has the details + references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Three-point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Three-point
  - corin_ 12y ago
    Not really - neither that page nor its referenced sources talk to the point of how they shared it with other companies, just states that it happened.

by patio11 12y ago

andrewfong 12y ago

If I were Tesla, I'd also request that the licensing party grant a reciprocal bulk license to Tesla as well. Or, barring that, that Tesla reserves the right to revoke the license if you initiate a patent lawsuit against it.

yonran 12y ago
Does there exist such a patent license with no security holes? I would imagine that it would read, “License will be revoked if you 1) Sue me for patent infringement. 2) Sell a patent to a company that sues me for patent infringement (like Intellectual Ventures does). 3) Sponsor the development of a patent, and the owner of the patent sues me for patent infringement. 4) Contract with a patent pool that sues me for patent infringement. 5) Sue my partners or customers for patent infringement (like Apple vs. Google’s partners)...” and so on ad infinitum.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  One would also have clauses to ensure that the products/devices produced under license would not be designed for lock-in and be compatible with electric cars from other companies.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    Interesting; almost like a "SA" license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ but for product compatibility.
- bshanks 12y ago
  http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ (i'm not asserting it is perfect, just that it is an effort towards what you describe)
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    It's an interesting attempt. The problem I'm seeing is that it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities, or to prevent the sort of thing Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar, essentially paying to license a bunch of questionable patents with the foreseeable effect of giving the non-practicing entity enough cash to create a menace for their competitors. What could be an interesting solution is to prevent people who want the protection of the mutual license from licensing patents from anyone else under any other terms. So if you want the protection of the license and a patent troll approaches you, your only choice is to either vanquish the troll or buy the patent outright and immunize everyone. That should mean no more Rockstars at least, and should make life more difficult for trolls because they couldn't license patents anymore, only sell them outright.
    - pyre 12y ago
      > Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar It is my understanding that Rockstar existed prior to Microsoft and others getting involved. They merely footed the bill.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Pretty sure that's what I said. Is that supposed to absolve them?
        pyre 12y ago
        Not really, but throwing in for something that already exists is slightly different than creating it in the first place.
        throwawaykf05 12y ago
- thegeomaster 12y ago
  I doubt that Elon Musk would do something like this without heavy consultation with Tesla Motors' legal team.
fab13n 12y ago
> I'd also request that the licensing party grant a reciprocal bulk license to Tesla as well. That what I thought "in good faith" meant.
mathattack 12y ago
I don't have any inside information, but I have to believe that this is where they are going with the play. They aren't naive enough to give away the store without anything in return. It's more like, "Let's all share and compete against the carbon-based auto makers" rather than "Here's something you can use against me"

chc 12y ago

It seems to me that this press release was meant to invite interested parties to contact Tesla's legal department, though it didn't say so explicitly. If I ran a car company and saw this, that's what I would do, which I'm sure also didn't escape Tesla's notice. This press release seems more about announcing and explaining Tesla's intentions rather than acting as a binding agreement for a multibillion-dollar megacorp.

mathattack 12y ago
Exactly. The car companies are all adults. I think this signals, "Let's go down a road where we don't wind up suing each other like the internet companies" This doesn't diminish the impact of what they're doing, but there's a practical side.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  You say this like the people working for and running "the internet companies" aren't adults. Being over an age threshold doesn't have any connection to acting as a benevolent member of society, and all companies, including Tesla and Comcast and Apple and Wawa and Chipotle, are in business to make profits.
  - citrik 12y ago
    I don't think the "in business to make profits" part is entirely true. Apple and Tesla are both leading examples of companies that are out for something other than profits first. You can say that shareholder interests and publicly traded companies require ... but at the end of the day those are two companies that don't let capitalist dogma drive their path. I wish there were more than a handful.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Quoting a good but dead comment for visibility: citrik 10 minutes ago | link [dead] I don't think the "in business to make profits" part is entirely true. Apple and Tesla are both leading examples of companies that are out for something other than profits first. You can say that shareholder interests and publicly traded companies require ... but at the end of the day those are two companies that don't let capitalist dogma drive their path. I wish there were more than a handful. -----

genericuser 12y ago

I saw the press release as more directed towards average automobile buyers. As a "We will not be the ones preventing your favorite Automobile manufacturer from producing an Electric Car in the style you want, and neither will the research cost of the technologies we use". I believe the message was phrased in a way to be directed at consumers so that hopefully the consumers will send a message one way or another to the other manufacturers causing them to come to more official agreements with Tesla. (which will of course have terms).

slantedview 12y ago

It's basically a statement of intent, and there's no reason to believe they don't mean what they say. Hopefully this leads to progressed innovation.

burnte 12y ago

Nothing stops any company from now going to Tesla, aware that Tesla is open to a highly favorable licensing agreement, and propose just such a move.

kalleboo 12y ago

Isn't there a precedent? Volvo opening up the three-point seatbelt patents. Does anyone know the particulars of how that worked? My google-fu is weak, all I can find are articles that sound like PR.

msiebuhr 12y ago
Wikipedia has the details + references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Three-point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Three-point
- corin_ 12y ago
  Not really - neither that page nor its referenced sources talk to the point of how they shared it with other companies, just states that it happened.