
All Our Patent Are Belong To You - gkoberger
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
======
patio11
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
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
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.

~~~
bshanks
[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
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.

~~~
sjwright
> it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities

It doesn't do anything about non-practicing entities because it can't. There's
no formulation of words that could cause a license to have any bearing on
NPEs.

Your potential wording would make the patent license completely unusable.
Perhaps an alternative might be something along the lines of: _You may not
license a patent that has been involved in legal dispute. If a licensed patent
is subsequently involved in legal dispute, either this license or that license
must be terminated within NN months._

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> It doesn't do anything about non-practicing entities because it can't.
> There's no formulation of words that could cause a license to have any
> bearing on NPEs.

That isn't true at all. You can do something about NPEs by changing the
behavior of their targets. You take away the ability to license a patent
without securing a license for everyone and now the troll can no longer rely
on extracting nuisance value settlements from large numbers of targets,
because for the target the cost of losing the reciprocal license (and having
to fight all of _those_ patent holders) now exceeds the cost of invalidating
the troll's patent. And if everyone sees the same calculus and everyone
fights, trolling as a business model could become unprofitable.

> Your potential wording would make the patent license completely unusable.

Why is that? The ideal endgame would be to bring about a de facto
nullification of software patents. The more patents that become licensed under
the defensive license, the more incentive there is to put all of your own
patents under it, which creates all the more incentive for others to do the
same. Obviously you wouldn't have e.g. IBM signing on the first day, but as it
snowballs the incentive to do so increases over time. At the end of the chain
you would have a situation where there would be ten times as many patents that
IBM is infringing than they own and the only way they could get a license to
those patents is to join the agreement with everyone else.

I would think another interesting feature would be to allow anyone who has
signed on to the agreement to use any of the signatories' patents offensively
against anyone who hasn't, in exchange for a large chunk of the proceeds,
essentially on a contingent fee basis. I believe a third of the amount
recovered is typical? That would allow patent trolling to eat itself, because
patents lawyers could sign on to the agreement at no cost (since they don't
characteristically own patents) and then have instant access to a huge corpus
of patents to go sue everyone else with, until such time as everyone relevant
has signed on. And it would also create an incentive to sign on in the early
days, because if you sign on and have any good patents there is a reasonable
chance that some lawyers will go out and sue Microsoft et al at their own
expense and then give you half the money. Until there are a lot of signatories
that should be about as profitable for existing patent holders as hiring a
lawyer to go sue people on your behalf without the defensive conditions,
unless everybody starts signing on right away, which would be even better.

------
rayiner
I love Elon Musk, and kudos to them for doing this, but it's useful to read
between the lines:

> Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto
> headquarters.

This is consistent with my view of how engineers in the traditional
disciplines view patents.

> At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that
> the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive
> manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla

This is the precise thing that patents are designed to prevent: to keep the
market from turning into a race to see who can outsource most efficiently to
China and inundate the public most completely with advertising.

> The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs
> for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers
> are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of
> their total vehicle sales.

So the other manufacturers didn't copy Tesla's technology, either because they
are incapable of it or because they didn't feel there was enough money in it
relative to their traditional markets.

> We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world
> would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

In other words, it helps Tesla more to have lots of companies developing
electric cars to push back on regulatory barriers and consumer perceptions
than it does for them to protect themselves against larger manufacturers
copying their technology. Also buried in here is the assumption that Tesla is,
now, far enough ahead of its potential competitors that it doesn't matter if
they copy the technology.

I think this is the right move for Tesla, but there's a lot of dynamics at
play that have nothing to do with the usefulness of patents in general.

~~~
sandstrom
I think it partly an ethical thing. Patents doesn't (most of the time) benefit
society, they only create monopolies (which are about as helpful as those in
many socialist countries, i.e. not very much).

I think Musk cares more about advancing electric cars than suing and squeeze
profits out of patent monopolies.

~~~
soperj
Don't know what you have against socialist countries(ie: most of the G7) but
you definitely have monopolies in the U.S.

~~~
adventured
The U.S. is a welfare state like most of the G7. The only variance is how the
U.S. welfare state is implemented. We're absolutely not a Capitalist country;
maybe 30 or 40 years ago we were still a mixed economy. It's about as far away
from Capitalism as you can get before crossing over into Venezuelan style
Socialism. The US Government has enough power, through numerous means, to
directly control every aspect of the economy as it sees fit or if it cares to.
The US flavor of Socialism, is going to be Fascism (or totalitarianism, or
inverted totalitarianism; whatever the case, the vague generalities are
understood).

We definitely have government protected monopolies though, no doubt about
that. Tons of them in fact. From defense contractors, to telecom, to banking,
to healthcare, and so on. Most major industries are filled with some variation
of massive corporations protected from competition by the government.

------
mwsherman
There is no legal covenant here. I imagine Tesla’s definition of “good faith”
is “we evaluate on a case by case basis”.

Which amounts to “if we like you” and “we reserve the right”. If they wanted
these patents to be open source, they would license them explicitly.

~~~
icambron
I'm curious about this. To what degree is a CEO writing and publicly
distributing the statement, "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against
anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." legally binding? "In
good faith" actually strikes me as reasonably interpretable by a court, so I
guess the question is just how much "he said so in a blog post" counts. I'd
love to hear a lawyer weigh in on this.

~~~
jonnathanson
"Good faith" is somewhat subjective, and usually it depends on context.
Generally speaking, it means acting in an as-stated, forthright, non-deceptive
manner.

For example, if I agree to explore a partnership with you "in good faith," it
means I am serious about the possibility of a partnership. I am not merely
wasting your time for the purposes of distracting you, defrauding you,
conducting market espionage, or sending false signals. Basically, I am acting
"in good faith" when I honestly believe I am doing what I claim to be doing,
for the reasons I claim to be doing it. You assume I am acting in good faith,
and vice versa, unless a pattern of actions or evidence gives sufficient cause
to doubt it.

IANAL, but I've dealt with "good faith" issues in business development and
licensing contracts more times than I wish I'd had to. There is usually an
implicit assumption that all contracts are entered into in good faith unless
proven otherwise -- which means I'd almost definitely want to enter into an
agreement with Tesla if I were to use their technology.

~~~
sitkack
Bad faith would be GM patenting an obvious extension to a Tesla patent. What I
think Musk is trying to do is poison the electric car patent pool with Milk
and Honey. It isn't just Tesla patents that matter, but the whole landscape.
Patents stifle the spread and pace of good idea distribution.

------
nbouscal
Alex Tabarrok comments on this: "I believe that this announcement will be
discussed in business schools for years to come much like Henry Ford’s
announcement of the $5 a day wage."

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/06/tes...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/06/tesla-
says-all-our-patent-are-belong-to-you.html)

~~~
danielweber
Just like everyone remembers when the US bought up and public-domained all the
aeronautic patents.

 _EDIT_ I should explicitly say that I am being sarcastic. Mr Tabarrok is
believing what he wants to be true.

~~~
jeffh
Most people are actually unaware of Ford's "innovations" on pay, or the
reasoning behind them, but that does not dilute the profound impact the
actions had.

~~~
superuser2
It's 4th grade US history curriculum.

~~~
btbuildem
most people don't live in the US

~~~
superuser2
Approximately 100% of people under the jurisdiction of US patent law and
influenced by the American auto industry do.

------
Arjuna
Assuming that this search represents nearly all of them, that is approximately
133 patents:

[https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&gws_rd=ssl#q=inassignee:%22T...](https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&gws_rd=ssl#q=inassignee:%22Tesla+Motors,+Inc.%22&safe=off&tbm=pts)

Edit: Nice catch, peter_l_downs ... I didn't realize that the estimated search
result of 6,430 would be off by such a large factor.

~~~
pdevr
This is not like IBM making some of its less important patents available to
the community. This is huge.

How many times in the past has a private company opened up its core patents
for everyone to use? There aren't that many precedences.

~~~
tcas
In 1956 AT&T opened all of it's patents to everyone without royalties to
settle an antitrust suit, including the transistor.

[http://explodingthephone.com/docs/dbx1036.pdf](http://explodingthephone.com/docs/dbx1036.pdf)

~~~
gdilla
Didn't know that! That turned out well. To the innovators go the spoils.

~~~
sp332
The opposite, actually. This is about giving the spoils to everyone who _didn
't_ invent the transistor.

~~~
gohrt
the spoils to everyone who _innovated on_ the transistor.

~~~
sp332
Not necessarily, unless they also got patents on their innovations.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You're aware that it's possible to make money on an invention without
patenting it. First to market advantage, a foothold in the market, continuing
brand recognition as the go-to source for that product, a head start on the
next round of innovation, increased sales across the industry as the product
becomes more valuable to customers, increased sales of complementary products
and services, etc.

~~~
jedrek
Or just keeping it a trade secret, like WD-40.

------
aresant
In the biotech space there exists a system called "patentleft" which
theoretically provides royalty-free licensing of patents with the stipulation
that any derivative works / improvements also be licensed under the same
terms.

Seems like there is good potential to build on the momentum of Tesla's
announcement to formalize the process, and answer the questions that I'm sure
will emerge in this thread - eg more akin to an Creative Commons (which is
very well defined and practical).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentleft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentleft)

~~~
bthomas
How common is this - are there any well known examples? (If so, they're not in
wikipedia!)

------
graeham
Sounds to me like the "in good faith" clause is to retain the patents for a
defense should someone try to come after Telsa for infringing.

Quite an interesting business move and pretty unprecedented as far as I know,
at least for a non-software company. Presumably he is hoping that this will
encourage improvement to infrastructure. He is also probably thinking he can
build higher quality cars and cheaper than others, irrespective of if they are
electric or not (probably this is true).

~~~
oddevan
That is certainly the most plausible reading of that phrase, but it still
seems like it could be put into a licence pretty easily, along the lines of
"User of these patents hereby relinquishes all claims of infringement against
Tesla Motors for any patents the user may own or license".

~~~
jayrox
i read "in good faith" as "you may use these as you wish but don't turn around
and try to sue us for using something you hold a patent for"

i could be totally off the mark though

~~~
TeMPOraL
I read it more along the lines of "you may use these as you wish but don't try
to turn around and screw the electrification of transportation, harming
humanity's future for your own short-term gain". Musk isn't doing it for money
after all.

~~~
fragsworth
> Musk isn't doing it for money after all.

No, it's for money.

It's the charging stations. There aren't enough of them, and it's the biggest
problem they have.

Tesla needs the big manufacturers to build electric cars so they will put
charging stations everywhere.

~~~
TeMPOraL
You're right that the problem is they can't scale charging stations up fast
enough. But my point was that Musk is running Tesla not to earn money, but to
fix a particular global problem. His _terminal goal_ is electrification of
transport, as opposed to typical terminal goals of many CEOs, i.e. "to have a
lot of money". Money is only instrumental for Tesla.

------
hengheng
> Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith,
> wants to use our technology.

I'm not familiar with US legislation, but from my perspective this is just
Musk on his soap-box making a statement. It's not something I can rely on
while building a business that possibly (!) infringes one of Tesla's patents.
They may retract their statement and reconsider at any time, especially when
times get tough.

It's nice to hear this, sure, but I fail to see the meat in this announcement.

~~~
gkoberger
They have to keep the patents (or donate them to a trusted third part, as a
bunch of tech companies have done). They unfortunately need the protection.
Otherwise, someone could sue _them_.

I think Musk's word in this case is good. He's not a nobody; his reputation is
stellar.

~~~
IBM
They should license the patents for free to anyone who wants to use them.
There's no word needed.

~~~
gtirloni
Looks who's talking, the largest patent holder and bureaucratic entity on
Earth. Yeah, right ;)

~~~
ethbro
I believe that was the joke. :)

------
ekanes
Volvo famously acted similarly with their invention of the seatbelt.

~~~
swimfar
It was actually their invention of the three-point seatbelt in 1959.

[http://www.wired.com/2009/08/strapping-success-
the-3-point-s...](http://www.wired.com/2009/08/strapping-success-the-3-point-
seatbelt-turns-50/)

------
smackfu
"Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith,
wants to use our technology."

What exactly does that little "in good faith" clause mean in there?

~~~
criley2
People are optimistic but I'm with you.

For example, using the Supercharger network __requires __that the automotive
company offer energy for free for life to customers, and charge up front at
the point of sale for all energy requirements for the life of the vehicle.

That's Musk's business model and is enforcing it for anyone who wants to use
his "open infrastructure".

Which is bollocks to me: only wealthy people buying extremely expensive
vehicles are going to want to prepay for a decade or two's worth of
electricity. It means BMW and Audi will Supercharge, but Toyota and Ford? You
can't ask budget customers to prepay a decade's worth of travel costs. You
can't competitively and aggressively price a vehicle like that.

I imagine "good faith" means "follow OUR rules for the industry", which makes
me sad. I'd like to see things be a bit more open than that, and I have very
little doubt that this "standard" will be duplicated by companies unwilling to
play by wealthy rules.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> but Toyota and Ford? You can't ask budget customers to prepay a decade's
> worth of travel costs.

A 2014 Ford Focus gets ~40mpg. Assuming 12,000 miles/year, that's ~300 gallons
of fuel. Assume, conservatively, $3/gallon. That's ~$900/year for fuel, or
$2700 over 3 years. The cost to get supercharger access from Tesla is $2000 at
time of purchase ($2500 after delivery).

To finance $2000 at even a ridiculously high 10% over 3 years is $64.53/month,
fully loaded principal and interest. This is already less than most people pay
per month for gasoline/petrol.

And that's THREE YEARS. After that, to fuel at Superchargers is essentially
free (already amortized).

~~~
nolok
"Budget car customers" include a lot of relatively poor people who cannot
afford to make that fixed-amount decently-large payment every single month.
And certainly not upfront at time of sale. Have you never seen someone who can
"only put twenty buck of gas" ?

~~~
nfriedly
Yea, but someone in that position probably shouldn't be buying _any_ new car.

------
beltex
Fun aside: Tesla patent wall in question via Steve Jurvetson

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/14405402742/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/14405402742/)

------
sidcool
Inspite of all the negative reactions here, I applaud this move. The preceding
statement to the one with 'good faith' is pretty important

>"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"

------
fidotron
The interesting subtext here is that for Tesla to fulfil its potential more
support for electric cars in wider society is needed, and while everyone else
struggles to build electric cars the infrastructure won't catch up.

Opening up, in this sense, could be seen to be a selfish endeavour, but still
a positive one, aiming to position Tesla as the Apple of the electric car
market, only mildly less litigious.

------
pnathan
I see this as essentially an open note to hardware tech companies asking them
to come by and talk about licensing and interop deals without worrying that
Tesla will be a hardcase about any possible IP infringement.

~~~
loganu
That may not have been their intention, but that's what came to mind for me as
well.

------
bthomas
He makes an interesting implicit argument - that it's okay to use patents to
block established players from innovating with you, but not to block new
startups from challenging you.

~~~
sdpurtill
He's not saying that. He's arguing that, were Tesla not to take the patents,
there was a good chance one of the established auto makers would have taken
them. _This_ would have been the problem, as the entrenched players probably
would have used the patents to stifle innovation in order to maintain
dominance.

------
jaekwon
What can an innovator do besides filing a defensive patent?

I've heard of various strategies like publishing the work in as many forums as
possible; publishing it on IP.com; filing a patent application and withdrawing
it; filing it and pledging; etc.

It would be nice if there were a step by step guide written by an attorney--
ideally an ex-patent attorney--that goes lists the steps in order of
priority/cost/ease for both individual innovators and companies with deeper
pockets.

~~~
dnautics
There used to be a mechanism called the "statutory invention registration" but
that got eliminated in the 2013 AIA.

This is another option (although kind of outside the box in terms of what RPX
normally used for), although it's likely to be pricey:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation)

------
sytelus
There are almost no instances where patents turned out to be good for
community. Wright Brothers stifled all competition by patent litigation
causing US to be lightyears behind airplane tech. Edison similarly stifled
lighbulb development causing Americans to pay for bad quality at higher prices
than European counterparts. Steve Jobs tried to extinguish smartphone
revolution causing funny things like removal of fairly generic features like
pinch and zoom.

One would argue that they might not have been encouraged to invent these stuff
if there were no patents. Even if that was true, the fact is that they had
already ammassed massive fortunes even before they started patent wars. One
would expect these visionary geniuses to let go patents in interest of
advancing the state of art after they have gotten more money than they know
how to reasonably spend. Elon Musk is the only one doing this here on the top
of risking everything on fields that few entrepreneurs would dare. Hats off to
him.

------
ajsharp
Interesting point:

> At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that
> the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive
> manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t
> have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car
> programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the
> major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of
> far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.

I read this as effectively saying that it's easy for them to take this step,
relative to companies in other industries (Apple, Google, Amazon, et al)
because none of Tesla's competitors even have the ability to make use of their
technology. Makes me wonder if Musk would have done the same thing if Tesla
were a software company.

~~~
nolok
That's because he is being disingenuous there, he is not talking about money
invested in R&D but percentage of electric cars in total sales.

Those companies have an established market share which correspond to a massive
number of non-electric car sales, it is not surprising in the least that the
new developing area they are coming in (electric) is being very small right
now. That's doesn't mean they aren't doing a lot of R&D or lack the ability to
uses those patents.

------
nullz
If I were building a giant battery factory, I would also encourage others to
make electric cars.

~~~
Ryel
Or if you wanted to be John D Rockefeller, rather than Henry Ford.

------
ibrad
This is a bold move, and of course open to interpretation. But I am still
optimistic about it. You can argue why they have patents in the first place,
remember that if they didn't or sold it to a third party it will come back to
bite their ass.

It is much better to hold the patent and allow others to used without being
worried about getting sued. I am sure the big auto makers may consider taking
advantage of this situation to crush tesla, but Elon Musk is known for not
getting distracted by the petty things.

------
syedzbadar
I really admire Elon Musk--a lot. His insight that Tesla’s real competition
isn't the Fords, Chryslers, etc., but rather it’s the momentum behind gasoline
cars. And, if that momentum is the actual competition, then that
momentum/competition can be broken by open sourcing Tesla’s technology… I
think that his specific move on patents (as it relates to the auto industry)
is an excellent example of having the perfect balance of having customer
obsession and being competition aware.

------
rasur
What I find hilarious about the discussions going on here is the fact that
everyone's generally concentrating on the terrible pain of 'patent abuse',
instead of the spectacularly obvious Elephant in the room which is trying to
do as much as possible to stop the only home we currently have slowly turning
into Venus (the hot, inhospitable planet, not the fictional Goddess of old).

------
iancarroll
Are there any legal documents that certify this? I'm not a lawyer, but would
this post actually count as a "license"?

------
chrisbennet
"We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition
is in China," said Musk in the interview. "If we published patents, it would
be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book."

Perhaps Tesla relies on trade secrecy as well?

~~~
omegant
It´s easier to keep a rocket under trade secrecy than a car that can be
disassembled and copied as soon as you got your hands on it.

------
capkutay
This may be the wrong venue to say this, but the war against proprietary
technology and patents doesn't totally make sense to me. I've read about many
of the popular cases where large corporations use patents as a legal tactic to
stall competitors, and I understand how it hurts innovation.

On the other hand, can't patents protect smaller companies? Open sourcing
projects and technology has its case-by-case pros and cons. I agree the
increase in open source adoption has had a largely positive impact on the
development community. But there seems to be a lot of stigma against
'proprietary' as a whole.

How is your company supposed to grow if you can't protect your technology from
being easily replicated by competitors?

~~~
psykotic
> On the other hand, can't patents protect smaller companies? Open sourcing
> projects and technology has its case-by-case pros and cons. I agree the
> increase in open source adoption has had a largely positive impact on the
> development community. But there seems to be a lot of stigma against
> 'proprietary' as a whole.

You are conflating several concepts in the space of a paragraph.

Can patents protect smaller companies? Maybe, if you have the resources to
defend yourself in court. If you are seeking investment, you can file for
brain-dead patents as a way to prop up your valuation and quiet investor
fears. Sadly, this seems to be the main motivation these days among startups.

'Open source' entails a public release of source code and associated artifacts
under a copyright grant with certain freedoms. Traditionally, patent grants
have not been a part of these licenses, probably because the pervasiveness of
software patents is a relatively new phenomenon. It is only with version 3 of
the GPL that it gained explicit patent grant and retaliation clauses, and most
other open source licenses still don't have such clauses. But the bigger
question is what 'open source' even means in the context of Tesla. It is not
like they're going to release detailed plans and blueprints from production
facilities and upwards that would allow competitors to make perfect replicas
of Tesla cars.

'Proprietary' usually refers to trade secrets. If you file something as a
patent, which is a form of public disclosure, it is no longer a trade secret.

Most of my peers are strongly against software patents. They don't consider it
a moral obligation to open source your company's code or release proprietary
information that represents a competitive advantage. In this moral framework,
patenting is considered an anti-social act, and releasing source code and
proprietary information are considered altruistic acts, ceteris paribus. Note
that this doesn't mean that _not_ releasing source code is an anti-social act.

------
iamjdg
this is another marketing ploy. this is also the beginning of Elon preparing
for his next career move. Elon's realizing he has hit the technical and
economic limits of all battery vehicles and can't deliver. now that he has
given away all his patents, he will make moves to distance himself from Tesla.
he will hand over the reins to someone else. step away. start another
unrelated business. and when tesla crashes and burns (no pun intended) he will
be able to say it wasn't his fault, that he left them with all the tools and
"they" couldn't make it happen. in the executive world they call it the
"sideways shuffle" or the "Teflon shoulder".

------
codewiz
Funny how the companies with the best engineering also tend to be those with
the best business ethics. Kudos to Tesla for being once again disruptive and
innovative in the risk-averse and ailing automotive industry.

------
beamatronic
Does Tesla want the big automakers to build cars with equal capabilities as
the Model S? Assuming they did so, would they not be more cost-competitive due
to economies of scale? Their mission of promoting sustainable transporation
might be at odds with their fiduciary duty to their shareholders then.

If Tesla really wanted to see the big auto makers build more capable electric
cars, AND if they also want to be a profitable enterprise, THEN, the best
course of action would be to OEM the powertrain parts that they have already
invested in inventing and building.

~~~
mcb3k
Note that Tesla owns the super charging stations, and is also aiming to stand
up a large scale battery production facility. Assuming that the patents would
lead to other auto-manufacturers to use the same standards that Tesla uses,
this would mean that the would need to either build their own batteries, or
buy them from Tesla. Since Tesla is making the Gigafactory so that the price
of batteries will drop, it's likely to be cheaper to buy them from Tesla than
standing up their own infrastructure to handle it. So, even if they aren't
selling as many cars as the big automakers, they can still sell batteries and
access to the super charging stations to the big players.

In any case, I think a sufficient amount of people would probably still buy a
Tesla because of the brand recognition, even if the big auto-makers were
making solid electric cars.

------
yaddayadda
I wonder if this will spur WikiSpeed (an open source car group) to also
support an electric engine module?

[http://wikispeed.org/](http://wikispeed.org/)

------
nchlswu
Didn't Twitter declare something similar?

Is there anything they can do that's binding outside of a declarative 'we
won't sue you unless...' statement?

~~~
smackfu
IIRC, Twitter's approach was to also give the inventor a transferable license
to the patent. That way if Twitter used it offensively, the inventor could
independently license the patent to the company who was being sued.

~~~
dnautics
That's very reminiscent of the Spooner vs. Tucker argument about dual
ownership of a patent; Spooner conceding to Tucker that co-inventors should
each be able to freely license, then Tucker asking if one inventor were to
give away the license to the world for free would he be infringing on the
other inventor's rights.

------
ma2rten
> Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith,
> wants to use our technology.

What does that even mean? How do you make cars in bad faith?

------
ww520
This is a pretty good gesture. It will be good to spurt innovation since
smaller players in the area don't need to worry about infringing.

What about the defensive measure? To defend against being sued. It would be
good if Tesla pools the patents with others to form an "open patent" club
where all the interested parties can join and use the patent to defend against
infringement lawsuits.

~~~
lilsunnybee
Think you mean 'spur' not 'spurt'.

Sorry to be a pedant! Great points. :-)

~~~
ww520
Thanks for pointing out the error. I'll pay closer attention next time I use
it. :)

------
notdonspaulding
These are big words, even coming from the extreme underdog in the auto
industry.

What exactly is Elon committing to here? Is Tesla planning on releasing any
design documentation, or technical specifications or manufacturing process
information?

It's great that they won't enforce patents in an effort to not stifle
innovation, but do they plan on taking any _actions that will encourage
innovation_?

~~~
thibautx
Since many auto manufacturing companies doing R&D and Tesla, having already
created technologies good enough to bring to market, there will definitely be
incentive for taking action. Tesla has already created technologies to run
cars that rival (performance) gasoline cars, and access to those
technologies/designs will accelerate their own EV efforts.

------
vacri
It's not all give, there is some take. By bringing other manufacturers on
board, Tesla gets more assistance in building their recharging network, which
is a formidable undertaking. Similarly, the more manufacturers of viable
electric vehicles there are, the more mainstream they are, and the larger the
overall pie. Tesla does stand to gain something out of sharing.

------
larrys
Does anyone know if Musk requires non competes of Tesla's employees?

Separately using the "All Our Patent Are Belong To You" meme (as has been
pointed out below by peterarmstrong ) appears to be a clear "in your face" to
"the man".

Most people I would imagine aren't aware of this meme (I wasn't) and using it
in a public press release seems a bit odd to me.

------
ihatecommenting
Finally Good PR actually means doing something good! hopefully companies/firms
will do more advertising, marketing and PR that consists of contributing value
to society and CSR. This will hopefully also shake up the awful inefficiencies
within charities (not taking anything from the amazing work they do) instead
of polishing a turd or diverting money to ads.

------
bld
This is one of the most clear & succinct - and more importantly high exposure
- statements on the value of open source that I've seen to date. The same
message from other sectors like 3D printing has been thoroughly muddied by the
proprietary side of the market - who have benefited from the expiration of key
patents & widespread open source designs.

------
obelos
Translation: our pinch point is supplier scaling.

------
ISL
Without an explicit licensing agreement, one should consider the fate of Troy,
even if Tesla's present intentions are good.

------
NicoJuicy
It i were Google (and manufacturing cars) or Volvo (who also has a impressive
driverless car: [http://goo.gl/qWU7DS](http://goo.gl/qWU7DS) ).

I would go all in on this. A niche product (in the current condition) and
usable driverless electric cars.

You aren't really competing with Tesla, because you have a total different
audience.

------
Alex_MJ
(1) I love this.

(2) Having limited legal knowledge, I'm curious what he means with "a lottery
ticket to a lawsuit". Is he indicating that patenting something would make a
company more likely to get sued? My basic understanding is the opposite, that
patents yield protection from lawsuits rather than create exposure to them. Is
this flawed?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Looking at software patents, I read (2) as saying that a patent is a lottery
ticket, in which winning tickets are the patents someone accidentally
infringed, thus opening a way for you to sue them out of their money.

------
phkahler
Some speculation: This is necessary to close a deal on the huge battery plant.
Not sure why I didn't think of this immediately given the timing.

Reason? The partner(s) want to sell all the capacity even if Tesla can't buy
it all, and they want everyone to know there won't be any issue buying Tesla
batteries.

------
samstave
So, would this mean that Tesla would be open to a cottage industry where
anyone could start a company building a different body type on top of their
drivetrain?

More specifically - could you just buy the S chassis/drivetrain from tesla and
build say a delivery van body on top of it?

------
WhoBeI
If it was anyone else I'd be a lot more skeptical. There is something
different about this guy so he might just mean exactly what we would like him
to mean. Mmm hmm, yeah, I'm going to stay positive until proven I shouldn't
be.

------
tonygan
I am more interested in the mentioning of "the spirit of the open source"
part. Just image that if one day we are in a world that full of all those
"open source electronic cars", to me it will just be too beautiful to see.

~~~
webmaven
Well, seems as though projects like
[http://www.osvehicle.com/](http://www.osvehicle.com/) and
[https://localmotors.com/](https://localmotors.com/) will be all over this.

------
anuraj
Good move! At this point Tesla knows that market needs to be created and it is
impossible to achieve unless auto industry works in tandem. Once the market
expands, the pie is bigger for everybody.

------
briantakita
I seem to recall that there is a precedent to this in the microcontroller
market in the 1970s and 1980s (and possibly further in the past). Does anyone
have link(s) to this business practice.

------
andrewtbham
Is the title a reference to "all your base are belong to us?"

~~~
andrewtbham
To answer my own question, yes and the Elon Musk reference is already added in
wikipedia. That was quick.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us)

------
couchand
I can't help but think of Howard Aiken's words, "don't worry about people
stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their
throats."

------
haberman
That's great. I wonder if they will do a similar thing with their proprietary
supercharger plug. They'd need a way to charge non-Tesla drivers for the
energy though.

------
reas
This is awesome and inspiring even if it's just PR.

"Tesla, other companies ..., and the world would all benefit from a common,
rapidly-evolving technology platform"

Indeed.

------
hyp0
I love Elon's PR. He reframes himself as a champion of humanity, above ego
competition, to make you feel good (and I do!). He simultaneously criticises
the competition, in those terms.

And I also agree he was right to fear the better-resourced incumbents to
duplicate his tech for free, unfounded though it was.

He doesn't mention this, but at this point, he is _also_ well ahead of his
real competition (fellow disruptors) in market terms, and so it won't harm him
to release these patents.

~~~
hyp0
It's weird, I always get downvoted on HN for saying I love Elon, and analysing
what he's doing. Something similar used to happen with Apple posts.

~~~
hyp0
See what I mean?

------
askar_yu
"All Our Patent Are Belong To You" this sentence sounds grammatically
incorrect to my non-native-English ear (O_o)

~~~
bdcs
You are correct. "All Our Patent Are Belong To You" is a reference to this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us)

FYI, in correct English the sentence would read, "All of our patents belong to
you."

------
wcchandler
Wow, not even more than a day after their meeting with BMW. I wonder if
something was said to provoke this announcement.

------
lsv1
So Telsa Keeps their patents but anyone can use them? What are some cool non-
automotive applications for their patents?:)

------
josephschmoe
I'm curious Mr. Musk, does this mean "Give us a call and we will license you
our patents at no cost."?

~~~
fleitz
Phone and ask?

------
Istof
Is Tesla getting worried of other technologies like fuel cells?
[http://www.hyundainews.com/us/en-
us/Media/PressRelease.aspx?...](http://www.hyundainews.com/us/en-
us/Media/PressRelease.aspx?mediaid=40904)

------
colanderman
FFS, change the title back to what it was submitted with! "All Our Patent Are
Belong To You" makes no sense out of context. At least the original title said
something about Tesla Motors.

~~~
fuddle
Mr Musk, I expected better grammar from you.

~~~
peterarmstrong
It's a meme:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base)

~~~
larrys
Thanks for pointing that out (I didn't know that). That said I think it's a
bit immature and out of place in a public blog post (which will no doubt be
repeated elsewhere) for such a visible company that wishes to be taken
seriously.

~~~
chc
Not everyone subscribes to the theory that companies must have a grim and
humorless face. I don't see why a lighthearted title is a bad thing. It's not
like it's lowbrow or mean-spirited humor.

~~~
larrys
Why? Because it's not just being lighthearted. It appears to be bad use of
english.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Bad use of english is purposeful - it's a meme, one of the oldest and most
widely recognized on the Internet. He's just showing some humour (not the
first time).

[http://xkcd.com/286/](http://xkcd.com/286/) seems relevant here ;).

~~~
larrys
So you are saying that the audience for the blog post consists of an
overwhelming number of people that understand that meme? As opposed to people
who do not? I disagree.

------
dmritard96
I wonder if they will consider more open source also?

------
anvarik
lol, in germany if you are an employee in a company like BMW, you are not even
allowed take your personal cellphone with you

------
Fando
Finally, progress. A great lesson to all!

------
DogeDogeDoge
Pretty awesome :) if it will not be empty words we maybe could have much more
momentum in the field of electric cars.

------
narendra_l
one who takes patent for buttons should learn from tesla's move.

------
jermaink
So Tesla goes Android.

------
briantakita
But, but, how will Tesla find the incentive to innovate without patents?

------
reiichiroh
Love the Zero Wing reference.

------
natural219
If you want to track the death of the cultural vision of Silicon Valley -- the
belief that _some_ people, at least, can rise above petty human squabbling and
competition and are _legitimately_ working to better humanity -- look no
further than this thread. Every top comment is a skeptical one. "This is
clearly a great PR move, but has no teeth." "How do you enforce this
guarantee?" Etc.

These are reasonable questions, but as Shaw said, all progress comes from
unreasonable men. I cannot help but be fundamentally depressed as I read these
comments. In my view, Elon Musk has, moreso than any other human except maybe
Bill Gates, given every absolute inch of human effort and genius to fight to
solve the world's biggest problems. And all we have for him, after benefiting
freely from the fruit of his labor, is skepticism. We want more. It's not
enough. It's never enough.

Yes, Tesla Motors is a company operating in a media-hyped 2014 America. I know
some of you are butthurt that he engages in the same "dishonest" PR tactics
that other companies do. _GET THE FUCK OVER IT_. The end product he's
producing will _save humanity_. That all of America has not rallied behind
Musk and Tesla as the most important movement and achievement in the last 100
years of human history absolutely blows my mind.

Not only do we not recognize his goals or his achievements, we actively try
and bring him down and shit on his accomplishments. "Well, they invented a
pretty cool electric motor, sure, but they were kind of dishonest in that one
press release that one time."

Go fuck yourself.

I want to say "I'm done with Hacker News", but we know that's not true. I'm
supremely disappointed in all of you. Godspeed, Musk. I thought this was a
great announcement, and I'm behind you 100%. I just hope you can finish your
work before our shitty, myopic, destructive society tears you down. Here's to
faith.

~~~
guscost
Elon Musk is one of the most interesting inventors of our time, and comes
across as a completely stand-up guy. Watching companies like Tesla and SpaceX
take on and solve these incredibly difficult problems is inspiring. I'd guess
that this patent move is motivated by goodwill, and any benefit to Tesla
probably goes together with the larger goal of bringing good to the world.

But when I see "this man will _save humanity_ by selling chemical battery
powered automobiles" it comes across as more than a bit hyperbolic. There is
plenty of opportunity to criticize cynical attitudes without making such a
ridiculous claim.

~~~
natural219
Fair enough. I'm emotional. I don't usually cuss when making logical points.
What I meant to say is, electric battery technology will move humanity in the
right step which I strongly believe will have a big impact on curbing climate
change, which I feel is one of the biggest challenges humans collectively
face.

~~~
guscost
OK, that makes more sense. For the record I'm not at all concerned about the
climate changing (although I'm very interested in conservation and efficiency
in general). Additionally it seems that an electric car is not actually going
to emit less whatever than one of these wonderful new four-cylinders
unless/until we make like France and build out more nuclear infrastructure.

Still, Tesla is doing a lot of good by leading the way towards technologies
that could bring much improved living conditions, especially in places like
Beijing and Los Angeles.

~~~
marvin
You're wrong on the emissions point - even a contemporary, luxury electric car
like the Model S causes less CO2 emissions from a well-to-wheels perspective
than an effiient gasoline car, even if run exclusively on coal-generated
electricity. The crucial part of the calculation is to also take into
consideration the energy required to produce the fuel, which is often skipped
when analyzing the CO2 emissions of fossil-powered cars. The drivetrain
(batteries) is somewhat more energy-intensive to produce, but the difference
is made up after 20,000 miles or so. There's a lot of FUD from the established
automobile and energy industries on this topic.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk)

On the climate change front, you're probably in disagreement with scientific
consensus, but this is not my field of expertise.

~~~
lilsunnybee
> On the climate change front, you're probably in disagreement with scientific
> consensus, but this is not my field of expertise.

Not just probably in disagreement, definitely in disagreement:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

A lot of us like to believe we're rational actors in the world, but denying
scientific consensus on this is very irrational, if not just badly
misinformed.

~~~
thesimpsons1022
the idea of climate change goes against everything conservatives and
libertarians believe in. first, it disproves the randian notion that everyone
working in their own self interest is positive. Second, it's a problem that
can only be solved by government. When something goes against people's core
values so deeply, no amount of proof in the world will change their mind. not
believing in global warming is a big part of their identity. not to mention,
if they accepted climate change, it'd be pretty hard to continue listening to
talk radio or Fox News and watching their favorite commentators blatantly lie
about climate change. Because hey, maybe if Sean hannity is wrong about
climate change, maybe he's wrong about other stuff too.

------
notastartup
Elon Musk is a heartthrob.

~~~
notastartup
looks like anti-Musk zombies at it with the downvotes in the comments

------
siscia
You want to make money or you want to change the world ?

I really liked Tesla here, there is the "good faith" deal, but still...

------
hatred
Elon Musk #Respect

------
vonsydov
Holy shite.

------
volandovengo
How can you not love this guy?

~~~
Shivetya
I do love the humor, that sets them even further apart from the old crew

------
supergeek133
Perfect move by Tesla, they've hit a wall on progress that the big auto
companies and government will allow.

Let's see what a mob of similar armed companies will do.

------
kirk21
If you want to learn more about Elon Musk, you can start here:
[http://everyelonmuskvideo.tumblr.com/](http://everyelonmuskvideo.tumblr.com/)

