Tesla Motors Decide to Open Source their Patents

On June 12th 2014, Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Product Architect of electric car company Tesla Motors announced that Tesla Motors will let other companies use its inventions under an open source inspired agenda at the company. This is how Elon Musk put it in his blog post- “Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.” This initiative came as a huge surprise to the technology space, and got a lot of people thinking. Considering Tesla’s exhaustive Patent portfolio, this move came as a bigger surprise to some, as the company holds the largest number of Patents in the electric vehicle industry having pioneered the technology and having gained constantly improved efficiency in process and technology in the industry. Tesla pioneered innovations lowered cost and increased safety of battery packs. Its cars recharge much faster than others on the market, thanks to connector, software, and power-management advances. Now this public company will offer these novel technologies to its rivals and ask nothing but goodwill in return.

Tesla has set the industry standard as far as their technology is concerned, which is quite evident from the hundred of Patents they hold and a number of applications pending. The question though arises that why would they open source their Patents for competitors to use after having spent huge resources in the process..There is more than one perspective to the argument though. This was probably a step Tesla Motors was contemplating and waiting to initiate once they feel no threat from competition. From a competition standpoint Tesla’s place is secure. “What we are doing is a modest thing,” he said. “You want to be innovating so fast that you invalidate your prior patents, in terms of what really matters. It’s the velocity of innovation that matters.” As long as Tesla keeps inventing and pushing the limits of the technology, it will remain ahead of rivals.

According to Tesla Motors opening up the patents around the charging technology could pave the way for important partnerships and collaborations. Musk has spoken to executives from BMW about sharing the cost of building recharging stations and creating a common infrastructure. Tesla’s nationwide network of recharging stations and its plans to build huge battery factories strengthens Musk’s point of view.  Tesla’s planned gigafactory, due to start production in 2020, will be the biggest battery-making facility in the world. At peak production, it alone will create 500,000 lithium-ion packs a year, more than all batteries produced worldwide last year. That’s more than enough to fuel the competition. No other automaker is planning these types of investments in electric cars. The rate of innovation in the electric car industry when you look at Tesla’s competitors does not in any way match Tesla’s progress. Musk would like to see the industry focus shift and would want automobile manufacturers to invest more heavily in the electric car business, and change their thought process from treating electric vehicles like a hobby to making them a top priority. This could be one of the objectives behind taking such a drastic step to promote a culture that is more environment friendly and realises the pace at which the climate change situation could drastically affect life in the near future, apart from being a culture which seems to be extremely business friendly as well.

An interesting analogy can be drawn when we think of electric cars in terms of smartphones. Tesla, which has been long compared with Apple, with its sleek design, luxury prices and chargers that exclusively plug in to Apple products, now wants to become open-source like Android. Like the micro-USB chargers that fit Android and Blackberry smartphones, all compatible cars could use Tesla’s superchargers. That way, other companies will use and enlarge Tesla’s existing network of 100 charging stations that currently dot a path across the continental United States, making it more and more feasible to swap fuel-burning cars for battery-electric ones, even for long distance travel. Also considering the electric cars account for less than 1% of the total cars manufactured and sold, this decision from Tesla seems like a smart strategy to encourage electric car manufacturing, get more players in the business and initiate profitable collaborations.

Reaction received from Tesla by the big 3 car manufacturers has been interesting though. General Motors Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles haven’t reached out to Tesla, while Ford Motor Co. didn’t comment directly on the matter.

Although multiple reports said BMW inquired about the patents, industry analysts say most automakers find Tesla battery technology outdated or not compatible with their own programs, but would be open to collaboration on other parts like charging stations in the future. In a June blog post, Musk said, “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.” This sentiment was not strongly felt by a number of top automobile companies. The value, some  analysts believe, may lie in Tesla’s charging stations. Tesla in June opened its 100th Supercharger station for its electric Model S car. The stations can charge an electric car in about 20 minutes, about 16 times faster than other public stations.

Detroit’s automakers said they’re open to working with other car companies. “We encourage the adoption of innovative technology across the industry,” Ford said in a statement. “We are the first and only automaker to have dedicated open-source hardware and software platforms, Smart Device Link and OpenXC.” Ford has a Focus Electric vehicle that’s powered by a lithium-ion battery, as well as C-MAX and Fusion hybrids.

GM has three plug-in electric vehicles: the Chevy Volt, the Chevy Spark and Cadillac ELR. “We have not talked to (Tesla) about the patents,” said Kevin Kelly, GM’s manager of electrification communications. “We don’t have anybody looking at those right now. It’s not something that’s on the front burner for us to look at.” Still, Kelly didn’t rule out the use of shared technology in the future. “I think anything that can help to advance the adoption of electric vehicles is a positive,” he said.

While Chrysler Group’s powertrain strategy includes vehicle electrification, a technology we have successfully demonstrated to date, we have no immediate plans for such outreach,” Chrysler said in a statement.

Gloria Bergquest, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said, “It’s such a competitive industry, that if anyone can find a benefit in sharing info, they will do so.

If other manufacturers use Tesla technology and make cars that could plug in at Tesla Superstitions, Musk’s company stands to make a fortune simply from giving away its blueprints to competitors..This explains the strategy from purely a business stand point ignoring other theories that this position is taken by Tesla in good faith for society at large. While the consequences of the initiative would definitely help society at large, the reason for Tesla going ahead with the bold move is a subjective matter.

Sun Microsystems (ORCL) once made a similar intellectual-property move in the computer world. Known for its pricey, proprietary software, Sun opted to open-source all its products. The decision was a result of hard times faced by Sun and was looking to generate interest in its products to revive the company.

Tesla is in quite a different situation. Its share price has been rising for a year helped by the excellent response received by the Model S. That car, just the second made by Tesla, has already swept the automotive awards, including top safety and customer-service ratings. Next year, Tesla plans to begin shipping the Model X, a sports-utility vehicle.

Considering Tesla’s excellent rate of innovation, further improving their own Patented technologies sooner than you would expect, their strategy has caused one to rethink patent terms.  Technology and software have shorter life spans than most products in terms of their market value. In industries whose technology will be much different in a couple decades, a twenty year patent term is of little use to companies like Tesla. The benefit to such a lengthy term is enjoyed by Patent trolls who can use old patents and subjectively argue them as prior art that anticipates genuine inventions.

Having said that, just because Tesla has decided not to sue good-faith users of its patents does not mean the company will not face litigation from patent trolls. This kind of mentality would kill the mere purpose of existence of patent trolls who hunt for older patents on technology still used into today’s products, including automobiles and contribute heavily to the rising number of Patent litigations seen in the industry today. While Tesla’s initiative will provide limited relief to automotive companies from a Patent litigation perspective, only time will tell how well Tesla’s invitation to others to use its technology will work.

NOTE: Quoted text taken from certain sources such as ‘The Detroit News’

About the Author: Mr Ankur Sehgal, Patent  Associate at Khurana and Khurana and can be reached at: Ankur@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Tagged

patent, Tesla Motors,

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010