Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[RobStark]

Yeah, with a rather lackluster enforcement mechanism ... It's more of a political facility than a real legal framework - for large corporations and large countries.



Uhm, why doesn't patent law protect patents for millennia, like physical property is protected for millennia through uninterrupted chains of titles, ownership transfer and inheritance? Why isn't it protected like ownership of the Staffelter Hof winery was protected, which winery was founded in 862 AD, and the Staffelter Hof family company was owned and inherited through an uninterrupted chain of 1,157 years of private ownership, until today?

If information can be owned then ownership should certainly not be time limited - the expiration of patent protection after ~20 years sure is theft and confiscation of property of the inventor, right? Or if not, why not?

BTW., an interesting historic fact is that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. had a very different notion of "intellectual property":

Looking Deeper into MPAA's Copyright Agenda

"The first copyright act in the U.S, passed in 1790 by some of the same people who helped write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was very limited. It covered only books, maps, and charts - not music, theater, pamphlets, newspapers, sculpture, or any other 18th-century creative medium. The Founders' copyrights lasted 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14. Today, of course, copyright covers nearly all written, visual, sculptural, architectural, and performing art, not to mention computer software and games, and it lasts for the author's life plus 70 years. We suspect that if anyone had described today’s copyright system to, say, Thomas Jefferson, he would have been shocked. By all means, let’s look at how the Founders thought copyright should work, as one guidepost for fixing today’s law."​

Of course back in the 1790s the U.S. was the "China of the Industrial Revolution", the fresh high-growth newcomer developing nation with a quickly growing population to feed and to keep prosperous, which U.S. of A just broke free from a rather possessive colonial power and its restrictive laws and taxation via military violence, and who'd rather copy existing European industrial processes without having to pay rent for those inventions...

As the centuries passed the U.S. moved up the food chain and transformed from an IP user to an IP owner.

In reality patent protection and copyright protection are national economic policy measures, not absolute moral categories like most forms of physical ownership are (with a few notable exceptions such as owning other people - there's limits even to capitalism ).

Most of the developed world owns IP and controls R&D flows, so it's in their national interest to strengthen IP protection and expand the notion of 'information ownership' broadly and impose them on weaker developing countries.

China on the other hand is free to set their own domestic IP protection or non-protection policies, both legally and morally - and right now it's in their best interest to use the copyright and patent policies of Thomas Jefferson.

And yes, Tesla must be aware of these risks of China implementing IP policies differently and Chinese companies copying Tesla's tech - fortunately it's the rate of innovation and the R&D process that matters mostly, not ownership of the bits themselves - at least in the early phases of the EV industrial revolution.

Your defense of Chinese theft and aggressive mercantilist policies is without merit, perplexing, and quite frankly asinine.

China signed up for the international trading system. They signed up for the benefits as well as the obligations.

 

[Beltsbear]

Your defense of Chinese theft and aggressive mercantilist policies is without merit, perplexing, and quite frankly asinine.

China signed up for the international trading system. They signed up for the benefits as well as the obligations.

China has always had pretty uneven policies. The most obvious is the 51% local ownership that Tesla was given an exception to. This rule, along with other home field advantages, has allowed China to acquire vast sums of knowledge and property from overseas investors. In many cases, through trickery and what most people would consider unlawful behavior.

I am not for the trade war, as trade is not a zero sum game. But China has indeed been taking advantage the USA and other countries in the realm of trade for a long time.

 

[EVNow]

Your defense of Chinese theft and aggressive mercantilist policies is without merit, perplexing, and quite frankly asinine.

China signed up for the international trading system. They signed up for the benefits as well as the obligations.

Funny given how US has abrogated on so many international obligations including Kyoto & Paris Accord. They don't want to work with the UN that US founded along with other countries. Attack other countries contrary to international law and kill a million people. Flouted torture laws they are party to etc etc.

 

[Drax7]

Even if the Chinese were beyond reproach,
We don’t have access to their markets.
They have had access to our markets.

Google, Facebook, amazon, visa, Netflix, etc..
Are our comparative advantage and they are blocked
In China.

They have much lower labor rates and access to our markets,
We can’t match their labor rates, but where we can compete,
We are blocked for security reasons.

A few more beans or lack of beans will not balance
The situation. Postponing bean purchases to hurt
Trumps voters and magnify the pressure against
Trump and his re-election is negotiating in bad faith.

 

[Fact Checking]

Your defense of Chinese theft

I don't consider less strict IP laws "theft", just like I don't consider the early United States's lax IP laws "theft". I think it's every country's sovereign right to shape their IP laws.

Put differently:

Exactly. “IP theft” is just an emotionally charged way of saying one country is exerting its power to gain an edge exactly like every other country does.

You continue to argue emotionally, without replying to the detailed arguments I made, such as:

Uhm, why doesn't patent law protect patents for millennia, like physical property is protected for millennia through uninterrupted chains of titles, ownership transfer and inheritance? Why isn't it protected like ownership of the Staffelter Hof winery was protected, which winery was founded in 862 AD, and the Staffelter Hof family company was owned and inherited through an uninterrupted chain of 1,157 years of private ownership, until today?

If information can be owned then ownership should certainly not be time limited - the expiration of patent protection after ~20 years sure is theft and confiscation of property of the inventor, right? Or if not, why not?

BTW., an interesting historic fact is that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. had a very different notion of "intellectual property":

Looking Deeper into MPAA's Copyright Agenda

"The first copyright act in the U.S, passed in 1790 by some of the same people who helped write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was very limited. It covered only books, maps, and charts - not music, theater, pamphlets, newspapers, sculpture, or any other 18th-century creative medium. The Founders' copyrights lasted 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14. Today, of course, copyright covers nearly all written, visual, sculptural, architectural, and performing art, not to mention computer software and games, and it lasts for the author's life plus 70 years. We suspect that if anyone had described today’s copyright system to, say, Thomas Jefferson, he would have been shocked. By all means, let’s look at how the Founders thought copyright should work, as one guidepost for fixing today’s law."
Of course back in the 1790s the U.S. was the "China of the Industrial Revolution", the fresh high-growth newcomer developing nation with a quickly growing population to feed and to keep prosperous, which U.S. of A just broke free from a rather possessive colonial power and its restrictive laws and taxation via military violence, and who'd rather copy existing European industrial processes without having to pay rent for those inventions...

As the centuries passed the U.S. moved up the food chain and transformed from an IP user to an IP owner.

In reality patent protection and copyright protection are national economic policy measures, not absolute moral categories like most forms of physical ownership are (with a few notable exceptions such as owning other people - there's limits even to capitalism ).

Most of the developed world owns IP and controls R&D flows, so it's in their national interest to strengthen IP protection and expand the notion of 'information ownership' broadly and impose them on weaker developing countries.

China on the other hand is free to set their own domestic IP protection or non-protection policies, both legally and morally - and right now it's in their best interest to use the copyright and patent policies of Thomas Jefferson.

And yes, Tesla must be aware of these risks of China implementing IP policies differently and Chinese companies copying Tesla's tech - fortunately it's the rate of innovation and the R&D process that matters mostly, not ownership of the bits themselves - at least in the early phases of the EV industrial revolution.

 

[winfield100]

Odd little occurrence
Daughter saw a camouflaged paint Tesla in Bethesda, Maryland, USA yesterday that was “suv like”
Had the Tesla shape but camouflaged. Just a glimpse though
Not a truck
Any other occurrences?

 

[woof]

Tesla uses camo to decorate their cars to promote their Veteran's program:
Tesla's new custom Model S for its veteran program features an impressive wrap - Electrek

 

[StealthP3D]

An important fact to keep in mind is that "Intellectual Property" is country specific and not a universal legal concept. In particular the very long copyright and patent validity times of the U.S. are NOT universally recognized.

Firstly, it's quite a reach to call unauthorized copying of information or ideas "theft": nothing physical is taken away from the owner - the owner still has the original information. Certain countries don't even allow ownership of certain types of inventions - including the U.S. which doesn't allow the patenting of mathematical ideas or the copyrighting of facts. Why? Because it's in their national interest.

The "copying = theft" and "piracy = crime" false narrative was created by the RIAA and MPAA two decades ago, when they (successfully) lobbied for the DMCA to protect their music and movie monopolies and cartels, accompanied by non-stop propaganda like this:

The failed TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) international legislation effort tried to extend even more draconian U.S.-style ideas of IP (three strikes for copyright infringement - any flogging perhaps to enhance Hollywood returns?) to more countries, but failed.

Just to demonstrate how ridiculous draconian IP can be: the Chinese invented rocketry, gunpowder, the compass, papermaking, printing and key insights into trigonometry. If the Chinese define Intellectual Property to be valid for 3,000 years, then all of the West would still be paying royalties for the use of those inventions and their derivative works!

The US is the leader in intellectual property protections. This came about when it was realized that when innovation is rewarded, people have more incentive to innovate.

If Cyrus McCormick had no way to protect others from copying his first horse-drawn reaper (harvester) in 1831, would he have labored for many years trying to get it to work efficiently? Because without IPR protections, anyone could look at his invention and cheaply copy it without all the trial and error it took to perfect the mechanisms. At the time of his invention, 90% of the American workforce was involved in agriculture and his invention single-handedly transformed the workforce to become 10 times more productive. Stealing others intellectual property DOES harm the inventor by opening the market up to those who didn't put in the necessary work that resulted in the innovatiion. Patent protections give the inventor 20 years of protection so they can recoup their investment in time and materials. During this time they can be the sole producer of the invention or they can license it to others for a fee. After that time it becomes public domain.

Or do only the newest key inventions that western countries invented using ancient Chinese inventions deserve IP rights? Why?

Patent protection only extends 20 years because this allows enough time for the inventor to profit from their work without locking up the technology indefinitely.

Also, legally the Chinese also have the sovereign right to reject IP restrictions - and that's what they are doing right now.

Sigh...In 2001 China chose to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). This opened up new markets for them and provided a legal framework under which trade would occur. One of the requirements was that member nations would abide by the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). There are frameworks in place for dispute resolution. By applying tariffs to China, stepping outside the boundaries of the established protocols, the agreement is broken (not by China, but by the US).

But, no, China did not have the "sovereign right" to reject IP restrictions. They lost that right when they joined the WTO and agreed to abide by the TRIPS agreement. Trump should have used our other trading partners and allies to pressure China to continue to strengthen their enforcement of IPR theft if they wanted to remain in the WTO. China has a patent office and many US corporations patent their inventions in China. So I don't know what you are talking about. Access to foreign markets is not a right, it's a privledge granted under certain conditions. Tariffs are how a 5 year old in a sandbox would get his way, not how intelligent adults negotiate to come to a mutually beneficial concensus.

 

[StealthP3D]

Odd little occurrence
Daughter saw a camouflaged paint Tesla in Bethesda, Maryland, USA yesterday that was “suv like”
Had the Tesla shape but camouflaged. Just a glimpse though
Not a truck
Any other occurrences?

I wonder if it's an early Model Y being road tested?

 

[capster]

And this is bad, how?

Sigh.

What is bad is to engage in sophistry. Specifically to make a call to an authority without acknowledging that authority's bias and to cite an obviously incomplete set of arguments. Then when these are called out deflect the discussion.

What is bad is that the original post and yours stay in the main thread and other replies are put aside. (Not actually personally feeling put upon mod's and I think you all do a great job and a real service. Nevertheless.)

What is bad is to imply objectivity and authority, and then to cherry pick.

What is bad is be so bound by orthodoxy (left or right) that any whiff of contention must be shouted down or otherwise stopped by any means.

I live in the one party state of California. The current Governor didn't even bother to submit a statement to put in the voter guide when being elected. You can be fired for citing facts should they go against the diversity dogma that is the state religion. Still, I'm personally just not that concerned that the US is going to lurch off the deep end on the right or the left. The histrionics that suggest otherwise are tiresome, though yes I understand that lots of folks enjoy being outraged.

Climate change affects us all. Yes, I'm quite aware of all the politics, but, personally, I think the political resolutions will follow changes in the facts on the ground -- driven primarily by technology.

So, please all, post all of your politically oriented thoughts to other threads. Thank you very much.

 

[dmunjal]

I don't consider less strict IP laws "theft", just like I don't consider the early United States's lax IP laws "theft". I think it's every country's sovereign right to shape their IP laws.

Put differently:



You continue to argue emotionally, without replying to the detailed arguments I made, such as:

I worked at Cisco in the 2000s and it was well understood internally that Huawei stole source code of Cisco's core routing operating system that powers much of the Internet. This isn't copying IP, this is actually stealing source code down to the bugs and documentation. The case was eventually settled. But how much of a bootstrap did Huawei get from stealing the underpinnings of what makes a router work? Something Cisco spent decades of R&D on?

60 Minutes torpedoes Huawei in less than 15 minutes

 

[StealthP3D]

They negotiated for months and then discarded whatever had been agreed upon.

That is the very nature of negotiations. It's all tentative until you come to a comprehensive agreement. You agree in principle but it's also a give/take depending upon what other terms are sprung on you.

They agreed to buy soybeans and none were purchased, and on and on .....

They agreed in principle, but not at any price and regardless of other market conditions. Obviously, they found a better deal elsewhere.

 

[Beltsbear]

That is the very nature of negotiations. It's all tentative until you come to a comprehensive agreement. You agree in principle but it's also a give/take depending upon what other terms are sprung on you.



They agreed in principle, but not at any price and regardless of other market conditions. Obviously, they found a better deal elsewhere.

Due to the tariffs , us soybeans are a bargain. They did not find a better deal. They did not buy because we are in a trade war and that is some of their leverage.

 

[Fact Checking]

The US is the leader in intellectual property protections. This came about when it was realized that when innovation is rewarded, people have more incentive to innovate.

This is policy, one of many policies possible - not a moral obligation. I primarily objected to the term of "theft".

Patent protection only extends 20 years because this allows enough time for the inventor to profit from their work without locking up the technology indefinitely.

Again, this is policy and not a moral or legal obligation. You are also wrong to assert it as an absolute outcome that patent protections are beneficial to society at large - this is a hotly contested topic even within the U.S. China certainly has the right to not carbon copy a broken patent system...

They lost that right when they joined the WTO and agreed to abide by the TRIPS agreement.

That's not true. For example the EU is part of the WTO as well (formerly GATT), and the European Court of Justice found that due to the vague nature of certain WTO provisions the treaties are not directly enforceable as EU law, but have to be examined case by case.

As you might know the EU has issued various protectionist measures that other countries have alleged violate WTO rules, and Trump's tariffs actually also violate WTO rules. Yet they didn't limit Trump's ability to collect those tariffs from various firms including Tesla, correct? Do you call those tariffs "theft" too, just because they are against WTO rules? Are thousands of companies suing the U.S. due to "illegal" tariffs? They are not. WTO rules do not carry any direct legal weight.

WTO is a mostly a political institution with weak enforcement mechanisms - binding only on smaller countries.

 

[StealthP3D]

As you might know the EU has issued various protectionist measures that other countries have alleged violate WTO rules, and Trump's tariffs actually also violate WTO rules. Yet they didn't limit Trump's ability to collect those tariffs from various firms including Tesla, correct? Do you call those tariffs "theft" too, just because they are against WTO rules?

Yes, the Trump tariffs are theft from US consumers. Or, more accurately, they are taxes applied without the consent of Congress.

While you are correct that the WTO agreements are somewhat weak from an enforcement perspective, member nations work together to gradually strengthen them and bring laggards into compliance. It's a tool, not a be-all, end-all. The thought that tariffs are the answer is ridiculous to anyone who actually understands international trade.

 

[capster]

Question.

Whatever happened with the poll of owners that Bloomberg did a few months back?

I sort of assumed the responses would paint Tesla in too favorable of a light for them to be willing to generate articles from it.

But maybe something came out and I missed it.

 

[Causalien]

Funny given how US has abrogated on so many international obligations including Kyoto & Paris Accord. They don't want to work with the UN that US founded along with other countries. Attack other countries contrary to international law and kill a million people. Flouted torture laws they are party to etc etc.

As a Canadian, I usually stand with USA, but sorry, the Tariff theater that leads to a renegotiation of NAFTA really opened my eyes. You guys really don't have the moral high ground. Trump basically shattered that illusion. Now I just tell people :"Be careful that your country is not used as a negotiation piece against a bigger country and plunged into chaos to get concessions."

 

[EVNow]

Of course back in the 1790s the U.S. was the "China of the Industrial Revolution", the fresh high-growth newcomer developing nation with a quickly growing population to feed and to keep prosperous, which U.S. of A just broke free from a rather possessive colonial power and its restrictive laws and taxation via military violence, and who'd rather copy existing European industrial processes without having to pay rent for those inventions...

Hmmm … last time I checked the entire continent was stolen from native Americans. So, no protection for industrial processes nor for landed property.

 

[EVNow]

As a Canadian, I usually stand with USA, but sorry, the Tariff theater that leads to a renegotiation of NAFTA really opened my eyes. You guys really don't have the moral high ground. Trump basically shattered that illusion. Now I just tell people :"Be careful that your country is not used as a negotiation piece against a bigger country and plunged into chaos to get concessions."

I guess you never read Chomsky

 

[mrmage]

@mrmage, where do you buy the convertible bonds? Is there an income/net worth requirement to do so (I'm not a billionaire, but I play one on TV)? Thanks!

There's no net worth requirement as far as I know. I buy them on etrade online, and others have bought them on Ameritrade by calling the fixed income desk. In either case you'll need to use CUSIP 88160RAG6

I plan on buying more so I can write more aggressive calls on my TSLA shares without worrying about losing out if they're exercised. Murphy's law says that TSLA will go to $350 the moment I lighten up on my position.