Tesla patents. Go ahead and use them.

[master_shake_]

because he's already rich - good for him

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/elon-musk-gain-giving-teslas-patents/story?id=24111407

I'm surprised to see they are a public company though - how shareholders may think this is an ok idea... hmm...

Another thought - what's to stop another company from taking an idea, improving upon it, and patenting it themselves? Kills the spirit of the move.

what? is apple gonna make cars too?

 

[Imp]

I always wanted to make some electric turbine electric thing with batteries to power my... <sex object>

 

[bradley]

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
&#8213; Nikola Tesla

 

[SSSnail]

In the spirit of Nikola Tesla himself, the move actually brings a little tear to my eye.

And anyone not knowing the story of Tesla himself needs to research it. In my mind, he's second only to Jesus as the most fascinating human to have ever lived.

But but, we have evidence of Tesla lived and benefited the world...

Elon Musk is a God.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

what? is apple gonna make cars too?

No, they'll just try to make some modification then spend billions on getting a patent themselves and suing everyone else.

 

[Albatross]

Tesla will soon have a gigafactory that will produce more batteries than the rest of the world combined,Elon is trying to create a mass market for electric cars.It is quite a shrewd move but risky nonetheless.

 

[Imaginer]

(Goddammit where are the Gen IV nuclear reactors?!? Right now with our terribly inefficient reactors [1-5% fuel], the amount of waste produced by a lifetime of energy consumption is small, a lump the size of your hand. Gen IV reactors are looking to consume >90% of the fissile material in a given amount of fuel, and they can use existing waste stockpiles as fuel.)

This. While I do not mind solar, the efficiency per AREA is terrible and the generated energy cannot keep up with the dynamic loading which ultimately needs robust battery storage to ease droughts in stored energy - also at whims of environment conditions in cloud cover and maintenance cleaning of panels or solar channels (if using solar in a thermal/steam perspective - which turbines in conversion is better than photoelectric cells - roughly off the top of my mind in referencing methods now).

Nuclear reactors, is a smaller footprint for the generated energy and if development goes further, it is basically having the power of the sun, locally, and can be long lasting in fuel in recycling waste to continue to generate energy.

Also, there is the stigma behind nuclear since everyone thinks bombs and warheads - when in reality, weapons grade material is different than energy grade material (i.e. weapons grade is much more enriched, thus wasting fuel if one enriches that otherwise would be for domestic power scenarios). It is something that a power plant cannot do and would definitely require a separate facility.

Looking at some options out there, Thorium reactors are more failsafe than other options in design. Only then can we have the electrical output needed to satisfy the demand leading into solely electric vehicles for the one/two passenger consumer. Which leads me to...

Although it's a nice gesture, no one cares.

Electric cars will fail just like they failed 100 years ago. Car makers are not biting FOR A REASON.

There is no easy solution to energy, and electric motor is CERTAINLY not it.

The problem isn't the locomotion of electric to kinetic - it is the storage and generation for the now increased load/demand over the course of a period/time/day/night.

The correction to that quote, would be for application. Right now, you do not see commercial trucks being solely powered by electric locomotion, with good reason - most of the motors require a good amount of energy for the torque needed - batteries would be discharged quickly to provide that output - thus limiting greatly in range. To really provide a full cargo transportation that solely uses electricity would be a revival of electric rails and going into magnetic levitated rails that transverses between major city hubs and distribution centers.

For outlying cities, trucks will still be needed and under typical combustible fuels.

And batteries aren't EXACTLY environmental friendly - which defeats the whole "green" movement. Neither does the manufacturing processes that maybe adopted in making them as well.

what? is apple gonna make cars too?

They are getting into home AUTOmation and onboard car systems. Who knows?



Either way, if their portfolio is open, has anyone asked the question where they all can be had for reading?

 

[norseamd]

working off the post above for now hybrids are the way forward in the next decades

hydrogen technology might reach maturity by then

for pure electric cars to have adoption as the primary automobile they need more charging stations, faster charging, more reliable batteries that can handle fast charging, more environmental tolerance, and far more range

otherwise they are restricted to the niche market and as secondary city cars

 

[Kaido]

Translation - our technology is not profitable now because large auto manufacturers won't adopt it and the installed infrastructure does not support it. We will try to increase adoption by donating technology to the public. Once adoption is increased, we will kick ourselves and our company will go out of business because we will be subjugated by those who can make and use our technology more efficiently and at lower cost. We might feel good that we brought the world closer to the electric car. But we will be out of business nonetheless.

Oh . . . and our investors will be pissed at us and may sue the Board of directors for recklessly endangering the financial future of the company in favor of a idealistic goal, which has no business driving the bottom line of a company.

I sense a big "DOH" from Elon in the future. And a huge drop in Tesla stock.

That was my first reaction from a business POV as well, but if you think about it a bit more, some points in their favor come to mind:

1. Tesla is the only one seriously pursuing the electric car market. Every other car is limited to 80 miles of range with non-insulated batteries (the Tesla doesn't have a range drop in winter; my buddy's Honda Fit EV drops down to 19 miles in the cold); Tesla hits 200 to 300 depending on the options you get. Sure there's the Leaf & other cars, and misc. stuff like the Volt & plug-in Prius, but nothing as serious as a replacement car as Tesla - Supercharging, infrastructure, realistic range, etc.

2. Tesla is building a $5 billion Gigafactory. And they're building it in the U.S (= jobs). That will enable them to cut costs by an estimated 30% eventually, and will help when their third vehicle, the "affordable" $35k "EV for everyone", comes out. They are going to have a HUGE jump-start on other car manufacturing companies, including the Big 3, because no one else has a $5 billion dollar battery factory, or the in-house experience of building nothing but electric cars for years.

3. Musk seems like a pretty smart dude - Zip2, Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity, etc. I'm sure he has a long-term gameplan & patent-usage stipulations all lined up to stay profitable. He's on the hook for Tesla for at least another 3 to 5 years as well.

I am curious as to how they're going to split the costs of the Supercharger. Right now they pay for them and Tesla owners use them for free (for life). And it still takes 20 or 30 minutes to do a quick charge, so if you suddenly have everyone in the neighborhood lining up, that's going to make for some long lines. So they're going to have to figure out something interesting for public chargers.

My main concern here is charging standards. Gas is gas, one nozzle fits all ICE cars. But battery technology is constantly evolving. The initial argument is that Musk wouldn't be investing in a $5 billion dollar battery factory if they had already found something better, so this will be the standard for the next few years, at least. But there's still a lot to be learned about batteries, efficiency, capacity, fast charging, etc. What if they figure out a new graphene battery that can charge to capacity in 2 minutes? Are they going to retrofit the existing chargers? Lots of questions to be answered, but we have to start somewhere, so this sounds good to me!

 

[Kaido]

This. While I do not mind solar, the efficiency per AREA is terrible and the generated energy cannot keep up with the dynamic loading which ultimately needs robust battery storage to ease droughts in stored energy - also at whims of environment conditions in cloud cover and maintenance cleaning of panels or solar channels (if using solar in a thermal/steam perspective - which turbines in conversion is better than photoelectric cells - roughly off the top of my mind in referencing methods now).

I think solar's cool, but the cost is just too high. I mean, if you think about it:

1. Install solar to power your house & charge your Tesla
2. Except you get home from work when it's dark
3. So now you need a battery to store that energy during the day to charge your electric car at night
4. And if anything goes wrong with the wiring or you have a power outage, you can't drive your car because it's got no juice
5. Or if it's raining, snowing, or cloudy, your solar efficiency drops or goes to zero
6. All for a minimum of $30,000 (plus batteries, which wear down after 5 or 10 years)
7. And if you sell back your excess power to the grid, they buy it at wholesale rates and sell it back to you at night for retail rates, haha

Financially, it makes a lot more sense to simply get one of those beefy 48kWh Generac generators that runs off a gas line. I don't think I've ever had a single time in my life when both the gas AND the electricity have gone out at the same time.

 

[mmntech]

Although it's a nice gesture, no one cares.

Electric cars will fail just like they failed 100 years ago. Car makers are not biting FOR A REASON.

There is no easy solution to energy, and electric motor is CERTAINLY not it.

Electrics were very popular at the turn of the century. So was steam. Early gasoline cars were dirty, dangerous, and complex. You could literally break your arm trying to start the damn things.

What really changed things was the Ford Model T. Especially once it started feature an electric starter. The cars were dirt cheap (thanks to mass production) and the fuel was ridiculously cheap. They got about 20mpg, which at the time was very respectable. With a 10 gallon tank, it could drive up to 200mi.

The big problem with fossil fuels is they really are perfect fuels. Best case scenario, gasoline and diesel contain roughly 46x the energy per kilogram than a lithium-ion battery. They are relatively stable and easy to transport. They also aren't as effected by extreme heat or cold. Hydrogen is an even better fuel but it's difficult to handle.

EVs on the other hand have a few issues. The batteries have a preferred operating temperature, and capacity decreases in extreme heat or cold. They need to be armoured, as lithium-ion cells can catch fire if punctured. They also wear out over time, and refueling is time consuming. There's also the added issue of heating the car in the winter, which is a big energy draw from the batteries. Though I think the latter could be solved using a propane or natural gas element.

I think Tesla's Gigafactory will go a long way to bringing the battery cost down. That's really the key right now. Build one that's price competitive with gasoline and hybrid cars, without requiring government subsidies to get there. Nobody is going to pay $30k for a car that only goes 120mi on a good day.

I don't think EVs are going to replace gasoline cars any time soon. The smart thing to do once the costs come down is market them as a commuter vehicles rather than lifestyle ones. A second car. Give them a bit bolder styling so they don't look so dorky (Tesla had done an amazing job with that), and limit the greenwashing in the advertising.

 

[Aharami]

Translation - our technology is not profitable now because large auto manufacturers won't adopt it and the installed infrastructure does not support it. We will try to increase adoption by donating technology to the public. Once adoption is increased, we will kick ourselves and our company will go out of business because we will be subjugated by those who can make and use our technology more efficiently and at lower cost. We might feel good that we brought the world closer to the electric car. But we will be out of business nonetheless.

Oh . . . and our investors will be pissed at us and may sue the Board of directors for recklessly endangering the financial future of the company in favor of a idealistic goal, which has no business driving the bottom line of a company.

I sense a big "DOH" from Elon in the future. And a huge drop in Tesla stock.

Of course you'd view this as a negative. You're a patent attorney. What Musk is doing jeopardizes the foundation of your business.

Kudos to Musk! He's a true visionary.

 

[bradley]

Of course you'd view this as a negative. You're a patent attorney. What Musk is doing jeopardizes the foundation of your business.

Kudos to Musk! He's a true visionary.

Right! just like the electric DC brushless motors jeopardize the foundation of the multi-national petroleum and automobile industry. These corporations are using vast advertising budgets and lobbyists to convince the majority of us be short-sighted for another 100 years.

And yeah, electric cars will be superior to gasoline engines once the right battery chemistry is developed into a cost-effective material.

For those who don't take the show Mythbusters seriously, this episode did more to promote electric cars (using science) than anything in recently memory.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/projects/4264025

 

[Paul98]

The recent work with battery technology to go into EV's is very exciting. Tesla is right there, getting very close to having quality range electric cars for reasonable price. With another boost or two in battery density the range will be good enough for most people. With the gigafactory the price will drop by a good bit. Meaning there will be much better pricing and longer range in the next 5ish years.

Then there will be what happens with major battery breakthroughs. If you get one that uses cheaper materials, charges faster,... you can really make them amazing.

Then not only that but you get all the advantages of an electric car.

 

[MarkXIX]

Funny, patents didn't really take off until the latter half of the century. Good thing Henry Ford didn't patent the assembly line and sue his competitors out of business.

Bottom line, modern patent laws and practices do exactly what he says, they stifle competition and innovation. If a company spends more time researching patents than creating and producing, the system is broke. If a company can be successful only to have some asshole whip out some shit they drew on a napkin and patented and then cause that company to lose money through legal defense instead of pumping R&D, the system is broke.

Its about time someone bucked the system.

 

[Vdubchaos]

And batteries aren't EXACTLY environmental friendly - which defeats the whole "green" movement. Neither does the manufacturing processes that maybe adopted in making them as well.

Correct, also creating more demand on power stations is not exactly env friendly either.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Of course you'd view this as a negative. You're a patent attorney. What Musk is doing jeopardizes the foundation of your business.

Kudos to Musk! He's a true visionary.

No it doesn't. I draft a prosecute patent applications in the chemical, metallurgical, and semiconductor processing arts. I don't give two shits about what someone in the car industry is doing. I just think that this move will come back to bite them in the ass. Electric car technology has proven to be difficult and expensive to develop. Which to me means that a company developing that technology should want to protect it so as to ensure that they have some hope of turning a profit on it. This is not like the fashion industry or mobile apps, where the whims of the consumer public change on a near daily basis and the emphasis is on short term products that turn high profits and the next "big thing."

But hey, there is no doubt that musk has made a shit ton of money doing what he is doing. So maybe he is on to something. I just think it is strange and a bit ass backward that a for profit company would suddenly turn around and say to the public "here, have all this tech we spent millions upon millions of dollars devleoping."

 

[Kaido]

What really changed things was the Ford Model T. Especially once it started feature an electric starter. The cars were dirt cheap (thanks to mass production) and the fuel was ridiculously cheap. They got about 20mpg, which at the time was very respectable. With a 10 gallon tank, it could drive up to 200mi.

Wow, really? I didn't know that. 20 MPG seems incredible for that time period. My last Volvo only got 20 MPG :biggrin:

 

[Vdubchaos]

Funny, patents didn't really take off until the latter half of the century. Good thing Henry Ford didn't patent the assembly line and sue his competitors out of business.

Bottom line, modern patent laws and practices do exactly what he says, they stifle competition and innovation. If a company spends more time researching patents than creating and producing, the system is broke. If a company can be successful only to have some asshole whip out some shit they drew on a napkin and patented and then cause that company to lose money through legal defense instead of pumping R&D, the system is broke.

Its about time someone bucked the system.

I agree with this 100%

Companies are too busy with legal departments, while they should be busy innovating and creating better products.

Another piece to this "stopping innovation" is marketing.......they are just slowing down the engineers.

 

[holden j caufield]

this guy is so forward thinking I'm sure he's thought of the multiple angles that even the smart guys of ATOT don't see yet.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Funny, patents didn't really take off until the latter half of the century. Good thing Henry Ford didn't patent the assembly line and sue his competitors out of business.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm

FWIW - there are good reasons the number of patent applications has increased dramatically since 1990. The main one being the internet, which ushered in unprecedented access to information and the creation of god knows how many business types that simply could not exist prior to its creation.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I agree with this 100%

Companies are too busy with legal departments, while they should be busy innovating and creating better products.

Another piece to this "stopping innovation" is marketing.......they are just slowing down the engineers.

Have you ever worked in a business? Particularly a business that creates new technology? Based on your post I don't think so.

Hell, lets get rid of anything in a business except the engineers. HR department? Nope! don't need that! They make sure everyone gets paid but they require paperwork, taking time away from innovation. CEO? Hell no. He makes demands and yells at everyone, which is bad for morale. And especially to fragile engineer egos. He might hurt the engineer's feelings and slow down innovation. The lawyers? They are useless! Surely they can go right? They make sure the company doesn't get sued and stays on the right side of the law, but they might require attention at some point and thus slow down innovation. and the marketers! Oh the marketers! We don't need those guys! Nevermind that they help the company make money! They detract from innovation (which is false BTW). Axe em! Axe em all!

In sum - your point is ridiculous.

 

[Jeff7]

I agree with this 100%

Companies are too busy with legal departments, while they should be busy innovating and creating better products.

Another piece to this "stopping innovation" is marketing.......they are just slowing down the engineers.

I can't find the right words to properly express my gnarled and frustrated agreement with this statement.

 

[bradley]

Funny, patents didn't really take off until the latter half of the century. Good thing Henry Ford didn't patent the assembly line and sue his competitors out of business

Extremely worthy point. Yes. Good thing Ford wasn't precipitous enough to figure out the revenue stream in patenting the assembly line. Just like, thank God for Westinghouse and for Tesla in making his monumental paradigms and ideas freely available. If not, we would be living in a much much darker world today.

 

[z1ggy]

Have you ever worked in a business? Particularly a business that creates new technology? Based on your post I don't think so.

Hell, lets get rid of anything in a business except the engineers. HR department? Nope! don't need that! They make sure everyone gets paid but they require paperwork, taking time away from innovation. CEO? Hell no. He makes demands and yells at everyone, which is bad for morale. And especially to fragile engineer egos. He might hurt the engineer's feelings and slow down innovation. The lawyers? They are useless! Surely they can go right? They make sure the company doesn't get sued and stays on the right side of the law, but they might require attention at some point and thus slow down innovation. and the marketers! Oh the marketers! We don't need those guys! Nevermind that they help the company make money! They detract from innovation (which is false BTW). Axe em! Axe em all!

In sum - your point is ridiculous.

Lol yeah I got a good chuckle out of that comment.