There is a clear new trend among automotive companies. They are now innovating again. Tesla is a big driving force in this industry. While I wouldn't say they are "disrupting" the entrenched players, their pace of innovation and acceptance of risk while innovating is certainly pushing big automakers out of their comfort zone and encouraging them to either innovate in house (ala Nissan) or acquire talent and tech (ala GM/Cruise and now GM's solid state lidar).
There is an interesting trend that dovetails what other industries have undergone as they innovate -- patent portfolios are growing but also established portfolios from other industries, seemingly unconnected to self driving car technology, are asserting licenses and claims to technology. This, in turn, drives patent trolls to acquire portfolios from dying (or dead) tech companies such as Nokia or Kodak for pennies on the dollar and assert them in creative ways against emerging tech companies. While the Innovation Act might become law, SCOTUS has partially blunted the appeal of troll litigation in Octane Fitness but troll litigation still poses a dire threat to self driving tech companies.
Tesla's patent strategy is one of non-enforcement. They favor broad licensing and will not assert their patent portfolio in a traditional manner. This is a curious one and I do not necessarily think Tesla should adopt this position until it has firmly established control of the tech space but that's what Mr. Musk has decided and it means that Tesla will have to steer clear of others while still convincing its stakeholders of its portfolio's value as a shield and not a sword.
This is such a large topic that I do not think this first post could really intelligently uncover it all but I wanted to separate out the general patent talk into a potential discussion on self driving tech patents, licensing schemes, specifically FRAND (fair reasonable non-discriminatory) licenses for essential industry technology and the intersection of innovation and reality in terms of patent litigation and injunctive relief for infringement.
Tesla's portfolio seems to mainly focus on electric battery drivetrain technology which mostly will be industry specific essential tech (IMO) and therefore Tesla's permissive licensing just reinforces the existing RAND scheme. However, I do not believe other industry players will be so quick to cede potential royalties or strategic advantages with declaratory/injunctive relief from purported infringement. The costs and lost time due to patent litigation is a powerful weapon in rapidly advancing tech. Just a look at Waymo's trade secret litigation against Uber reveals how devastating and costly litigation can be for emerging tech companies. I believe Tesla's IP strategy is worthy of its own thread as it might have more influence on the advancement (or lack thereof) of autonomous technology than the actual engineering efforts behind the scenes (that we are not privy to).
For some (mostly relevant) discussion of the essential tension between innovation and patent royalties (and whether something should be FRAND vs. regular negotiated royalty), this article isn't horrible.
FRAND And Patents - The Economic Problem Behind The Apple And Qualcomm Lawsuit
Sorry, there really aren't great discussion of patent law that aren't usually filled with jargon and patent law but I'll look and put up what I find.
There is an interesting trend that dovetails what other industries have undergone as they innovate -- patent portfolios are growing but also established portfolios from other industries, seemingly unconnected to self driving car technology, are asserting licenses and claims to technology. This, in turn, drives patent trolls to acquire portfolios from dying (or dead) tech companies such as Nokia or Kodak for pennies on the dollar and assert them in creative ways against emerging tech companies. While the Innovation Act might become law, SCOTUS has partially blunted the appeal of troll litigation in Octane Fitness but troll litigation still poses a dire threat to self driving tech companies.
Tesla's patent strategy is one of non-enforcement. They favor broad licensing and will not assert their patent portfolio in a traditional manner. This is a curious one and I do not necessarily think Tesla should adopt this position until it has firmly established control of the tech space but that's what Mr. Musk has decided and it means that Tesla will have to steer clear of others while still convincing its stakeholders of its portfolio's value as a shield and not a sword.
This is such a large topic that I do not think this first post could really intelligently uncover it all but I wanted to separate out the general patent talk into a potential discussion on self driving tech patents, licensing schemes, specifically FRAND (fair reasonable non-discriminatory) licenses for essential industry technology and the intersection of innovation and reality in terms of patent litigation and injunctive relief for infringement.
Tesla's portfolio seems to mainly focus on electric battery drivetrain technology which mostly will be industry specific essential tech (IMO) and therefore Tesla's permissive licensing just reinforces the existing RAND scheme. However, I do not believe other industry players will be so quick to cede potential royalties or strategic advantages with declaratory/injunctive relief from purported infringement. The costs and lost time due to patent litigation is a powerful weapon in rapidly advancing tech. Just a look at Waymo's trade secret litigation against Uber reveals how devastating and costly litigation can be for emerging tech companies. I believe Tesla's IP strategy is worthy of its own thread as it might have more influence on the advancement (or lack thereof) of autonomous technology than the actual engineering efforts behind the scenes (that we are not privy to).
For some (mostly relevant) discussion of the essential tension between innovation and patent royalties (and whether something should be FRAND vs. regular negotiated royalty), this article isn't horrible.
FRAND And Patents - The Economic Problem Behind The Apple And Qualcomm Lawsuit
Sorry, there really aren't great discussion of patent law that aren't usually filled with jargon and patent law but I'll look and put up what I find.
