Fisker Buzz Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Yesterday, Elon Musk announced that Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who 'in good faith' wants to use Tesla technology. Musk claims the move is an attempt to promote the use of electric vehicles in order to reduce the effects of climate change in the face of the fact that 99% of traditional auto manufacturers' sales continue to be generated from gasoline powered autos. Pretty effing amazing if you ask me. Go Tesla!!!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianso...elon-musk-releases-patents-to-good-faith-use/
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
320 Posts
Yesterday, Elon Musk announced that Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who 'in good faith' wants to use Tesla technology. Musk claims the move is an attempt to promote the use of electric vehicles in order to reduce the effects of climate change in the face of the fact that 99% of traditional auto manufacturers' sales continue to be generated from gasoline powered autos. Pretty effing amazing if you ask me. Go Tesla!!!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianso...elon-musk-releases-patents-to-good-faith-use/
What does that mean: in good faith? As long as you don't compete with Tesla, it's ok to use the technology?
 

·
Deep Ocean in ATL
Joined
·
436 Posts
On the Tesla web site it simply means to develop Battery powered vehicles, which limit CO2 emissions. A number of years ago Mercedes allowed their safety technology to be used by any auto manufacturer to promote safer autos. The front end crumple zones is a prime example.

I would imagine that "good faith" would be determined on a case by case base whether a competitor or not. Tesla has already said that any electric vehicle can use a super charge facility-- at this time there are no ELV that are capable of DC to DC high amp charging. So if Fisker, for example, used Tesla's system to directly charge the battery (understanding that opens a whole bunch of other issues) then Tesla would allow them to use the Super Chargers for a portion of the build out fee.

It is refreshing to see a company promote reduction is CO2 as its primary purpose. We like our Fiskers for it CO2 reductions and looks. I applaud those who follow.... be it Tesla, Volt, Caddy ELR or Leaf. Any reduction in CO2 is GREAT. Choices will help us get there collectively. All Good News.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
i think it's a marketing spin..
Do you really think they would let anyone to plug in to their supercharger network?
sooner or later car will be energy storage banks and ppl will be able to live off the grid from a supercharger in a way.. will Elon musk fund this? maybe in our dreams..
 

·
Deep Ocean in ATL
Joined
·
436 Posts
We are a long way from the Battery to be a source on which to live. At best in the near term, they may be a temporary back up. Please note that some superchargers are Solar Powered, so the cost is in the rental of the property. Second, as Musk stated, there are no vehicles yet capable of high powered DC to DC charging.... so it will be a few years for Leaf, Fisker, Volt, or Caddy to install the technology to use the Superchargers. Even after the build out in a year, it would still be a 60-100 mile drive to a supercharger. It would be akin to someone driving 20 miles to save 5 cents a gallon on gas. Lastly, it wouldn't be free.... I would imagine there is a cost element for each Tesla for Supercharging network, that cost would be paid by any other manufacturer (maybe even at a cost plus).

Whether a marketing op, or pure altruism...my sole point is it promotes reduction of CO2.
 

·
Karma Enthusiast
Joined
·
454 Posts
So you are at the mercy of Tesla unless you get a contract. In good faith is what N. Tesla actually did, he ripped up his patents so Westinghouse could bring his technology to the people...unfortunately for him JP Morgan strong armed Westinghouse and Telsa died broke. I don't think we will see a repeat on this mistake. I bet tesla will know who charged where and send a bill to someone!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,662 Posts
So you are at the mercy of Tesla unless you get a contract.
You don't need any contract with Tesla to use the technology in their patents, as long as you don't sue Tesla for infringing your patent or try to invalidate one of their patents. The terms are set out in the legal section of their website (scroll down to the section titled "Patent Pledge") It's pretty straightforward and there is not a lot of fine print. It's technically not a license but a covenant not to sue, which may affect the rights and obligations under certain circumstances, but for most intents and purposes, the effect is the same.

So you are free to use their technology to set up your own supercharger-type DC-DC chargers. But this does not mean that you can use Tesla's chargers without their permission. I assume they use some sort of authentication between car and supercharger to restrict access to legitimate Tesla owners only.

This is like McDonald's releasing its secret hamburger recipe to the public domain. In that situation, you can cook a hamburger just like theirs, even sell them if you want, but you can't show up at a McDonald's and demand a free burger.

In good faith is what N. Tesla actually did, he ripped up his patents so Westinghouse could bring his technology to the people.
That's not what actually happened. Tesla did not "rip up" his patents. He accepted a significant lump sum payment in lieu of future royalties, for a very practical reason that had nothing to do with altruism. As explained in Tesla's Wikipedia page:

In 1897, Westinghouse explained his financial difficulties to Tesla in stark terms, saying that, if things continued the way they were, he would no longer be in control of Westinghouse Electric and Tesla would have to "deal with the bankers" to try to collect future royalties. Westinghouse convinced Tesla to release his company from the licensing agreement over Tesla's AC patents, in exchange for Westinghouse Electric purchasing the patents for a lump sum payment of $216,000.[91] This provided Westinghouse a break from what had turned out to be an overly generous $2.50 per AC horsepower royalty, due to alternating current's rapid gain in popularity.[69]
 

·
Deep Ocean in ATL
Joined
·
436 Posts
@Fabulist, you are correct. There is a "hand shake" between the car and Tesla when connecting to the Super Charger. Previously, the Model 60 (KW/hour) were marketed as a "local" vehicles and would not connect to the Super Charger network. Tesla also monitors each Super Charger for capacity, usage, and issues and updates that information to all vehicles "Trip Planner" navigation over the LTE connection.

Currently, there are no DC to DC high capacity vehicles that could connect to Tesla's Super Charger network. It may not be known to Fisker owners, but having both, I'm amazed at how fast Tesla can charger on the DC network. Bypassing the on-board converter, Teslas initially charge a 400VDC and over 200Amps. That is insane amount of energy. As the battery "fills" the amperage decreases, since it is more difficult to put current in the nearly full battery. The genius of the Super Charger philosophy is you don't need to fill the battery on the road -- just enough power to get to the next super charger. My typical charge on the road is about 30-45 mins to gain 150 to 200 miles of charge -- enough to reach the next Super Charger.

Tesla's position has been if someone makes a DC to DC capable of connecting to the Super Charger, Tesla will consider opening (I would assume for a fee). However, with the up-coming 300-400,000 Model 3's hitting the roads in the next 5 years, that position may change. In the US, Tesla is planning to open an additional 600 Super Charger locations (4-8 stalls each) in the US in the next two years, bring the total to nearly 1,000 locations or 5,000 stalls. All Tesla's come with a J1772, a 14-50 and 110 Vac adapter as well, and a number of hotels have Tesla 220VAC/80amp chargers for patrons. The Nissan Leaf adapter is available for purchase.

Before the Fisker owners jump on me, I still like my Karma and the Serial hybrid design. It is a viable alternative for some road trips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I'm pretty sure there are some loopholes behind what he's said at the end of the day. But of course considering the crazy things that he's known for, I can't quite tell at the moment either. But I suppose that he's being quite cocky and confident in Tesla's ability to be able to buy over anyone else's ideas as they are taking root too...
 

·
Liked, but not well liked
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
I'm pretty sure there are some loopholes behind what he's said at the end of the day. But of course considering the crazy things that he's known for, I can't quite tell at the moment either. But I suppose that he's being quite cocky and confident in Tesla's ability to be able to buy over anyone else's ideas as they are taking root too...
"Good faith" is the loophole and it is at Tesla's sole discretion with regards to what the definition of "good faith" is.

Still waiting for Tesla to comply with GPL (which I don't think they will ever do)

On the other hand BMW, will actually hand over portions of their open sourced code and thus complies with GPL

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/30/bmw_complies_with_gpl/

https://gist.github.com/duncan-bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e

Karma Automotive, does not comply with GPL and there are many posts/polls which memorialize this. For example the CIU code uses a Linux kernel and a lot of open source software; yet they will not release this under GPL terms that govern that code.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
888 Posts
"Good faith" is the loophole and it is at Tesla's sole discretion with regards to what the definition of "good faith" is.

Still waiting for Tesla to comply with GPL (which I don't think they will ever do)

On the other hand BMW, will actually hand over portions of their open sourced code and thus complies with GPL

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/30/bmw_complies_with_gpl/

https://gist.github.com/duncan-bayne/fc3213d4a0eabb70bb1e

Karma Automotive, does not comply with GPL and there are many posts/polls which memorialize this. For example the CIU code uses a Linux kernel and a lot of open source software; yet they will not release this under GPL terms that govern that code.


In terms of GPL, is Karma the legal successor or owner of the Fisker CIU code?
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top