|
Go look at teslamotors' blog...
#326872 - 06/12/14 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: TriggerFin]
#326881 - 06/13/14 03:29 AM
|
|
|
> http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
It's a great PR move. I'm not so sure that doing this will translate directly to greater EV development, but nonetheless it's a refreshing gesture and I applaud it.
Just last week a few friends and I were discussing SpaceX, and naturally the conversation turned toward Elon Musk and his fortune. I remarked something along the lines of, "The dude spends his money on exactly the same kind of things I would spend my money on, were I incredibly ultra-wealthy: designing his own fucking rocket ships, cars, etc", and it suddenly dawned on me... The guy is basically a real-life James Bond Villain in the making.
|
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: TriggerFin]
#326883 - 06/13/14 04:20 AM
|
|
|
Yeah, absolutely nothing legally binding. I'd still be very wary of stepping on a Tesla patent.
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#326885 - 06/13/14 06:07 AM
|
|
|
> Yeah, absolutely nothing legally binding. I'd still be very wary of stepping on a
> Tesla patent.
You've got to be kidding. The PR backlash of them opening up their patents and then going "Oops, we're going to sue you anyways," would destroy them, and there would be nothing to gain from it.
|
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: DMala]
#326886 - 06/13/14 06:20 AM
|
|
|
> > Yeah, absolutely nothing legally binding. I'd still be very wary of stepping on a
> > Tesla patent.
>
> You've got to be kidding. The PR backlash of them opening up their patents and then
> going "Oops, we're going to sue you anyways," would destroy them, and there would be
> nothing to gain from it.
Legally speaking they haven't opened anything - all they said is that they've taken some plaques down off the wall. I've seen enough corporate bullshit to be cynical of anything that's pure PR.
|
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#326893 - 06/13/14 10:39 AM
|
|
|
> Yeah, absolutely nothing legally binding. I'd still be very wary of stepping on a
> Tesla patent.
"Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."
That alone is legally binding. Look up the legal concept of estoppel - specifically, promissory estoppel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel
If Tesla Motors were to renege on their statement and in so doing caused financial harm to another company, they would find themselves in a very actionable position.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#326903 - 06/13/14 05:50 PM
|
|
|
> Legally speaking they haven't opened anything - all they said is that they've taken
> some plaques down off the wall. I've seen enough corporate bullshit to be cynical of
> anything that's pure PR.
Any group of people will eventually generate bullshit. Doesn't matter if you call it a corporation or a government or an emulator team ;-)
Tesla's everyone's darling now, but Google used to be before they assembled all the components of Skynet and unleashed "glassholes" on everyone.
Besides, patents aren't the problem with electric cars, physics are. Energy density is not just a thing, it's *the* thing. It was true circa 1910 when electric cars first came out, and unfortunately battery technology hasn't gotten much better since.
|
|
|
| Moose |
|
Don't make me assume my ultimate form!
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/03/04
|
|
Posts: 1483
|
|
Loc: Outback, Australia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: DMala]
#326920 - 06/14/14 01:51 AM
|
|
|
> > Yeah, absolutely nothing legally binding. I'd still be very wary of stepping on a
> > Tesla patent.
>
> You've got to be kidding. The PR backlash of them opening up their patents and then
> going "Oops, we're going to sue you anyways," would destroy them, and there would be
> nothing to gain from it.
Their statement: "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." seems vague / loaded to me. What exactly do they mean by "in good faith" ?
If they said: "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who wants to use our technology." Then that would be very clear cut. The "in good faith" part makes it sound like meaning is hidden, and that there could be unexpected consequences.
Anyhow, I'm looking forward to buying an electric car in the future. Tesla's range is more than enough for me. Hopefully, Tesla will get their Australian distributors sorted out one day ... It's been "by the end of this year" for ages (well over 5 years now, IIRC) ....
|
Moose
|
|
| Moose |
|
Don't make me assume my ultimate form!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/03/04
|
|
Posts: 1483
|
|
Loc: Outback, Australia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: R. Belmont]
#326921 - 06/14/14 02:00 AM
|
|
|
> Besides, patents aren't the problem with electric cars, physics are. Energy density
> is not just a thing, it's *the* thing. It was true circa 1910 when electric cars
> first came out, and unfortunately battery technology hasn't gotten much better since.
Actually, there have been some very promising breakthroughs in battery technology, especially over the last 10-20 years. The problem is that most of these breakthroughs never seem to see the light of day, outside of the lab, in actual products.
I collect articles (download them as I read them - yeah, I know, I know, it's the OCC in me). I'm on my trusty, old Dell laptop at the moment, so only have a few old "battery" related articles here with me, but these seemed like they could be some promising breakthroughs of recent years (sorry, but they are all Geek.com .... hope the links still work):
IBM is developing 500 mile range lithium-air car battery - Jan-2012
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/ibm-is-developing-500-mile-range-lithium-air-car-battery-2012017/
Battery - Energy storage membrane set to revolutionize rechargeable batteries - Sep-2011
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/energy-storage-membrane-set-to-revolutionize-rechargeable-batteries-20110930/
Japanese company improves Lithium-Ion batteries now up to 10,000 charges, 20 year lifespan - Feb-2010
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/japanese-company-improves-lithium-ion-batteries-now-up-to-10000-charges-20-year-lifespan-2010025/
Plant virus makes lithium ion batteries last 10x longer - Dec-2010
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/plant-virus-makes-lithium-ion-batteries-last-10x-longer-20101210/
|
Moose
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: Moose]
#326923 - 06/14/14 02:04 AM
|
|
|
Were I a manufacturer, I'd hardly just start using their patents, regardless. Lawyers need to talk to lawyers first, unless you intend to do something untoward and then claim that you relied on this statement as being license to do it.
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: Moose]
#326928 - 06/14/14 04:17 AM
|
|
|
> Their statement: "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good
> faith, wants to use our technology." seems vague / loaded to me. What exactly do they
> mean by "in good faith" ?
My guess would be that it means don't use them to rip Tesla off. In other words, use the technology to develop an electric car if you want, don't use it to build bootleg Teslas.
|
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: Moose]
#326947 - 06/14/14 04:06 PM
|
|
|
don't forget the plethora of articles on using nanotubes and varying uses of graphite/silicon in that subject...
|
Just broke my personal record for number of consecutive days without dying!
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: URherenow]
#326948 - 06/14/14 04:59 PM
|
|
|
> don't forget the plethora of articles on using nanotubes and varying uses of
> graphite/silicon in that subject...
Yeah. They seem to have had fairly significant trouble productizing all this stuff though. Cell phone makers alone could make someone who had a real shippable breakthrough seriously rich.
|
|
|
|
Re: Go look at teslamotors' blog...
[Re: R. Belmont]
#326981 - 06/15/14 04:33 AM
|
|
|
> > don't forget the plethora of articles on using nanotubes and varying uses of
> > graphite/silicon in that subject...
>
> Yeah. They seem to have had fairly significant trouble productizing all this stuff
> though. Cell phone makers alone could make someone who had a real shippable
> breakthrough seriously rich.
Well I'd say we actually have seen a battery revolution in our lifetime. Bringing NiMH chemistry down from aerospace scale to AA and even AAA scale was revolutionary, and we've seen steady improvements in capacity, internal resistance and discharge curve since. Lithium ion and lithium polymer were definitely revolutionary in terms of the improvement in capacity per unit mass. They seemed almost magical when they first appeared, and they're even better now than they were in the late '90s. Primary cells have been steadily improving at the same time. Alkaline manganese cells have higher capacity, lower self-discharge and lower internal resistance than ever. Disposable lithium cells gave a big jump in capacity over previously available technologies, at the expense of somewhat poorer temperature characteristics. Sure, batteries still can't challenge the energy density of diesel, but they're come a long, long way in the time we've been watching.
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
Go look at teslamotors' blog...
Reply
[Re: 
