Elon Musk on Open Source
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So what? Did he really open source his patents?
That's what I hear! Not open source exactly, really just "opened" them. The term open source specifically refers to code and patents can't actually include code. But he make them open in the same manner.
There isn't a mechanism to "open source "a US patent at this point in time unless you give up your rights to it. What Tesla has said was they will not pursue any litigation if you use their patents/technologies in good faith. I'm not sure how that will work legally, from my understanding if you let one person get away with using your patent then everyone can.
-
Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.
Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. 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. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.
-
That is pretty awesome that he'd go that route.
-
Sadly though, considering the current climate, someone like Elon needs to actually hold said patents to keep other patent trolls from creating them and suing.
-
@Dashrender said:
Sadly though, considering the current climate, someone like Elon needs to actually hold said patents to keep other patent trolls from creating them and suing.
Hence why there are massive mutual non-aggression agreements. A few large companies with massive portfolios like Tesla has give a lot away but with an agreement that if the other companies decide to patent troll, that all of the patents they are using are no longer free.
-
@Dashrender He couldn't be sued for someone else using the patents that he's "opened up" for everyone to use in good faith.
What he's done is made it possible so he can sue anyone who tries to use his designed for personal gain, rather than for things like global improvement or charity.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@Dashrender He couldn't be sued for someone else using the patents that he's "opened up" for everyone to use in good faith.
What he's done is made it possible so he can sue anyone who tries to use his designed for personal gain, rather than for things like global improvement or charity.
In what way? That goes completely against what his statement was. He was very clear that he did this in the same spirit as the open source movement. If he has the ability to sue for personal use, he's done nothing like open source.
-
From your quote " Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."
Meaning that they have a way to measure "good faith" versus personal gain.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Meaning that they have a way to measure "good faith" versus personal gain.
Good faith and personal gain are not connected in that way at all. This is specifically for personal gain. Going after someone who used them for personal gain would itself violate good faith.
Good faith here would mean using it to hurt people or attack Tesla.
-
For example... using a Tesla patent to make a new patent that is then not opened would be bad faith.
Using a Tesla patent to make money by selling products based on it would be good faith. That use is the intention of the opening of them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
For example... using a Tesla patent to make a new patent that is then not opened would be bad faith.
Using a Tesla patent to make money by selling products based on it would be good faith. That use is the intention of the opening of them.
This is how interpreted it as well.
-
So it's fair game for personal profit to use the patients...
It really does seem like he's giving away the horse and buggy. But at the same time any improvements they make must also be open to be used by anyone else.
So yeah it makes sense now that it's explained like that.
-
Kind of forces corporations to embrace open source if they want to use what he's patented.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
So it's fair game for personal profit to use the patients...
Yup, in the spirit of the open source movement. Think about Linux, FreeBSD, LibreOffice, Apache, Firefox and more.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
It really does seem like he's giving away the horse and buggy.
The "Hacker Ethic": when how rich one is is determined not by wealth accumulated but by wealth given away.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
So it's fair game for personal profit to use the patients...
It really does seem like he's giving away the horse and buggy. But at the same time any improvements they make must also be open to be used by anyone else.
So yeah it makes sense now that it's explained like that.
Right, the whole point is to drive innovation, not stifle it. So many companies get their patent and then never innovate again.
But opening up the patents allows others to innovate, and will likely force Tesla to continue to innovate or die.
