So much for Tesla open sourcing the Model S IP.
Tesla Goes Open Source: Elon Musk Releases Patents To 'Good Faith' Use - Forbes
Tesla patent move - Real world obligations?
- Thread starter apacheguy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
So much for Tesla open sourcing the Model S IP.
Tesla Goes Open Source: Elon Musk Releases Patents To 'Good Faith' Use - Forbes
To be fair, the blog post makes it clear that they are allowing the use of the patents for the purpose of advancing the creation and adoption of EV's, not for the purpose of repurposing their battery packs as home storage subsystems:
" They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology"
"We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform. "
"We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."
@scaesare - One of the main premises of EVs and their viability is the ability to reuse the expensive (and environmentally detrimental) battery packs. Demonstrating grid storage is integral to this approach and something that Tesla should take seriously so as to spur the adoption of EVs.
They opened the patents they didn't say they would also provide tech support for people that want to use the patents.
And, a lot of what makes Tesla special is the stuff they haven't patented. There's a lot of novel engineering work that's gone into the battery, supercharger, etc. For example, has Tesla patented how the Supercharger makes use of charger modules, instead of one large charger?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2007
- 9,880
- 4,806
Was about to say the same thing. The issue is not the usage (car or grid storage), but that Tesla is not obligated to provide tech support, plus they probably don't want the liability if something goes wrong in the process.
Good point. So 'open source' is the wrong term that people have been using to describe Tesla's patent maneuver. If you have to reverse engineer something then it is, by definition, not open source. All they did was say we won't sue you if you copy us.
Actually they are obligated to provide support in the form of service manuals to properly service and troubleshoot the car including the battery. They can't exclude the battery for safety reasons since it it the most valuble item on the car. It's like saying you cant crack open your engine to fix it because of the fire risk. People would be outraged if you slapped a holographic non serviceable parts sticker on their engine. That is why the manual says to use a non sparking tool on the fuel lines. In Europe they are going to have to provide both diagnostic tools and parts to the independent repair shops. Thankfully, it is the law in the EU.
Which makes it seem like a PR stunt more than anything else
Not a sincere attempt to speed the transition. I agree they dont have to provide tech support but they could be doing much more than saying here use these patents because we dont patent the really important stuff anyway
"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."
We need a recipe book Tesla right now on how to make safe battery systems! The Tesla BMS patents are in no way a recipe book. Patents are supposed to be written such thst those skilled in the art could build the device. I'm not seeing that at all for the BMS related patents. No details just broad wording to give them protection against lawsuits
Wrong. Tesla used the word open source to describe their own patent maneuver. It is not other people creating this illusion
"We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."
While you may believe that to be true, that's not within the scope of what they opened the patents for, so it's unfair to characterize them as not holding true to their word because they they aren't helping to build home packs out of them.
In addition, Tesla has already discussed that they plan to recycle the packs for new batteries, so they aren't ignoring the reuse idea.
That is correct, all they have done is promise not to litigate for patent infringement if used in "Good Faith" (whatever that means).
Not even that; the parts and designs are still copyrighted, the processors run copyrighted code, etc. The patents may be used by anyone in good faith, but only the patents. Someone can't take the CAD drawings of Tesla's battery and reproduce it, for example. They have to re-engineer it in a clean-room manner (with the patent as the reference.)
Huh, well now I see their patent maneuver as a PR play as well and nothing more. Too bad.
Big deal. They need to show an afterlife for the cells, not just the pack enclosure.
Big deal. They need to show an afterlife for the cells, not just the pack enclosure.
Clearly you have never bought any non OEM aftermarket parts to repair or upgrade a car. It will take time but aftermarket motor and battery and inverter upgrades or non OEM replacements will eventually become available for the Model S. You will change your tune when your warranty expires...
Yes! Being green is not about recycling. It is about permaculture. Making things last or resuing them. There is no more argument that you should junk your old car because of terrible mileage.
The Model S can be kept on the road for hundreds of years. I'm being dead serious when I say that.
Can you point to the exact language in the EU law that says that. The ones that I have seen people point to are only in place to allow independent shops to compete with "authorized dealers" which Tesla doesn't have.
I'm not entirely sure what that means, but here's what they are doing with regard to recycling:
Closed Loop Recycling
Gigafactory Plans Includes Materials Recycling
What are you a lawyer? Trust it is in Tesla best interest to comply with the spirit of the law as intended. You too will be crying a different tune if Tesla were to go bankrupt (unlikely but not impossible) or when your warranty expires
----
Since June 19, 2011, the automobile industry in Europe has been subject to EU Regulation 566/2011, according to which manufacturers are obligated to release elec- tronic data enabling the exact identification of replacement parts for vehicles. This will further strengthen the position of independent service providers in the after- market sector, a sector that includes automotive services, parts, and the maintenance business. In the future, independent operators will thus have the same access to electronic repair and diagnostic information enjoyed by authorized repair shops.
With this, the EU Commission is systematically following the path it has pursued since the turn of the century with a variety of regulatory amendments (e.g., 1400/2002; 715/2007; 692/2008; 595/2009; 461/2010; 64/2012). The goal is to create a competitive landscape in Europe in which independent repair shops and autho- rized repair shops compete to serve different customer needs and segments. The idea is to strengthen the customer’s position and to encourage intense competition on all levels of the repair and parts value chain.
wk057
Senior Tinkerer
Similar threads
