Elon Musk on Open Source
-
@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.
