Elon Musk Remains Exactly Correct About Patents: They’re For The Weak
from the competition-guides-innovation dept
While we’ve been criticizing some of Elon Musk’s actions and statements lately, we still stand by what we’ve said for years: that his view on patents is entirely, unquestionably, correct. In 2014, he pledged to open up all of Tesla’s patents. And when some investors insisted he didn’t really mean it, he clarified that he absolutely mean that anyone should just use anything they find in Tesla’s patents.
Musk: We actually don’t require any formal discussions. So they can just go ahead and use them.
Reporter: Is there a licensing process?
Musk: No. You just use them. Which I think is better because then we don’t need to get into any kind of discussions or whatever. So we don’t know. I think you’ll see it in the cars that come out, should they choose to use them.
There was a funny flurry of articles pointing out that this wasn’t an altruistic move, that it actually benefited Tesla, but, uh, yeah, that’s the point.
It’s good to see that Musk is still standing by that view, and not just for Tesla, but for SpaceX as well. Jay Leno just took a tour of SpaceX’s “Starbase” facility in Texas with Musk for Leno’s TV show, and they had a brief discussion on patents, where Musk made it clear that patents are stupid.
During the tour, Leno asked if SpaceX had a patent on the material used to build its ships. Musk replied that his spacecraft manufacturer ”[doesn’t] really patent things.”
“I don’t care about patents,” Musk told Leno. “Patents are for the weak.”
In Musk’s opinion, patents are “generally used as a blocking technique” that are designed to prevent others from innovating.
“They’re used like landmines in warfare,” he says. “They don’t actually help advance things; they just stop others from following you.”
You can see that brief bit of the segment in the video with this tweet:
It’s good to see him still making this point. As we’ve discussed for years, innovation leaders rarely actually need the patents other than to try to pull up the ladder behind them and stop competition. But history has shown that the way that new markets advance is when there are multiple competitors pushing each other to innovate. We’re finally seeing that with electric vehicles, and perhaps a bit with private space flight operations as well. Let the competition drive innovation, not have patents block off that innovation.
That said… for all of Musk’s talk about all this, that hasn’t stopped Tesla from going after EV competitor Rivian, claiming the company was “stealing trade secrets” after it hired a bunch of former Tesla employees. You can try to argue that trade secrets are different than patents, but if Musk’s underlying reason for freeing up Tesla’s patents was to encourage more competition and better develop the EV space, as he claimed, it’s hard to square that with the aggressive lawsuits against Rivian.
Filed Under: competition, elon musk, innovation, jay leno, patents
Companies: spacex, tesla
Comments on “Elon Musk Remains Exactly Correct About Patents: They’re For The Weak”
Other point that was made elsewhere recently.. part of the desire to not patent things is to actually “protect” the technology.
Given the documentation requirements around patents, makes it easier for those inclined to care less about them rip the design details off.
We’re finally seeing that with elective vehicles...
I am not sure what these “elective” vehicles are. Maybe “electric” instead???
Don’t you just hate when you mistype and auto correct gets it totally wrong?
Thermonuclear
Hearing this, Steve Jobs will be turning in his round-cornered slab like coffin.
That’s prolly the reason he thinks stealing memes is okay.
consider trade secrets as training
Just because allowing free access to patents doesn’t mean Tesla must also train your workforce
Re: Exactly
He’s actually upset about that, and probably feeling betrayed by those employees, but that doesn’t make for much of a legal case, especially with new laws which allow employee poaching/mobility (depending upon ones perspective).
Re:
That workforce never had any ideas of it’s own on how to get things done, it all emanates from The One.
Let’s check whether this guy, who always tells the truth, patented anything
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=elon+musk
Summoning a vehicle? that’s obviously not an idea that anyone can think of could think of if an autonomous vehicle exists
Why would someone patent the shape of a connector? Obviously someone who is against patents wouldn’t care if another company copied the shape to use the same chargers, right?
Re:
first to file vs first to invent
if you invent, but someone else files, you can be SOL
Re: Re: Right On
If someone else files, you can be SOL .
With the cash for the patent fees and lawyers to make sure as many claims as you can think of survive, Your use of your own invention might survive Waco.
Suck it up, Mike. And thanks
Re: Re: Re: Musk was luckier than the rest of us
GM/Chevron sued Toyota for “their” NiMH battrie, and the guy who developed the EV-1 3-phase AC motor was restricted from ever using the design, or anyone else using the design for a decade. Inexplicably, GM failed to renew their plethora of 23 EV patents in 2000, allowing humans on Earth a tiny chance of specie survival.
Disclaimer: In 1995, Jay Leno rolled up on an ancient Harley pan head hardtail to my shop & ask what happened to “Hog Heaven”? Mike, the Hells Angel owner had put everything in a shipping container, gave me the key, grabbed his child daughter and flew back to New Zealand. I was star-struck, the hog was Loud, i figured Leno was a e-car groupie and bit my lip:(
In 2000, I bought two wood crates, each with complete controllers and GM/Hughes 15kva motors for $300 in surplus
Challenge Accepted...
Ok Mike, I argue that stealing trade secrets is a thing worth defending against and that trade secrets are a different animal than patents. There’s a fairly wise man who frequently points out that copy cat entrants to a market often miss the mark in that they cannot “(re)capture” the “how” when they seek to mimic a popular product/service. This fellow typically points to how difficult it is to replicate the details pertaining to “the how” and in that failure only are able to create a hollow replica mostly focused on surface level or appearances in said product/service and missing the nuance or truly unique features that created the original. While patents are supposed to be a means of locking down “the how” they really don’t have a large impact on the success of innovators as truly great idea/process will nearly always be popular/successful with or w/o some patent.
However trade secrets are rather literally “the how” of a successful operation be it product or service. The people, the capital tools, together their ideas and execution are things that separate the original from the knock-offs. If there are a relative few of these trade secrets perhaps due to the simplicity of the product/service than the better the success of the copying profiteers. Thus the importance of branding and marketing type endeavors and pursuits.
If only I could remember that clever fellow’s name….
On a Musk related note: A few days ago (I live in Tasmania) a piece of flashy carboard appeared in the letter box from Starlink. It was almost totally bereft of any information except to say that Starlink was now available and a supposed testimony about wonderful the service is from an Australian customer.
Went to the Starlink site (https://www.starlink.com/)and at the top is:
” Order Starlink. High-speed, low-latency broadband internet in remote and rural locations across the globe. A$139/mo with a one-time hardware cost of A$924.” That’s Aust. dollars.
Then further down was the information about the overly expensive hardware cost:
“Easy self-install. Your Starlink Kit arrives with everything you need to get online in minutes including your Starlink, WiFi router, cables and base.”
Not only do you have to fork over almost $1,100 just to get started but you get the fun and joy of setting it up yourself. I only have two words to say to Starlink: The second word is “off!” so it’s easy to guess what the first word is.
Re:
Hmmm.
Depends on the alternatives, that kind of cost could be actually reasonable. At least in my part of world, that is. I don’t know about typical high-speed internet monthly cost in Australia but in certain rural parts of Canada, $120 per month is not uncommon.
That roughly $800 (about $900 of your dollars) cost for the hardware may sound high, but for two years contract which is not uncommon in Canada this would work out to be like $155 per month which is bit high but not outrageous. And that is assuming the hardware is going to be only used for two years. And this is forgetting that you can sell the hardware eventually to recoup part of the cost for the hardware.
If you must have your Netflix HD stream in the boonies and you have no good options for high speed internet… well, that Starlink option could sounds good.
Who said Musk was consistent???
lol…see Musk and his on-again, off-again acquisition of twitter!
The open patents come with restrictions.
The pledge is that anyone can use the patents and Tesla will not sue them – UNLESS they sue Tesla. Not that this is unreasonable. It already killed one law suit against them – Nikola motors sued for $2 billion (with a “b”) because the Tesla semi’s driver door was a little like the Nikola downhill glider’s door. Another ridiculous design patent… However, just about anyone building electric vehicles is using something Tesla patented and Nikola was no exception. The Tesla countersuit blew them out of the water.
Rivian lawsuit.
To me the core of this lawsuit – and what justifies it – is that Tesla employees who were hired by Rivian walked out the door with files containing proprietary Tesla information and proceeded to use that information at Rivian.
Hiring people for what’s in their heads is one thing. Hiring people for what’s in their briefcase is another thing entirely. Rivian made use of information that was literally, physically, stolen from Tesla (or so Tesla claims).
Musk doesn’t hate patents because they’re “for the weak”. He hates them because they force you to put your trade secrets into writing:
“We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China. If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book.”
– Elon Musk
https://insights.greyb.com/spacex-patents/
In other words, the purpose of SpaceX not patenting their technology is SPECIFICALLY TO BLOCK COMPETITION (from competitors that ignore patent law).
Re:
Interesting to note that he’s doing a ton of business in China then, to the point where he wrote pieces of pro-China propaganda for the CCP…
Re: Re:
He’s treading a fine line. SpaceX doesn’t want competitors in China to copy them, but Tesla needs products from suppliers in China and access to the Chinese EV market.
Re:
Patents don’t force you to disclose trade secrets. I would recommend against patenting a trade secret – if a competitor can’t reverse engineer an invention, then why disclose it in a patent? It’s better to keep trade secrets secret forever than it is disclose it in a patent and receive a 20-year monopoly.
The “Intellectual Property” thing is a joke as a system for promoting innovations. Musk knows it, I know it. Sorry, but the Emperor has no clothes on. Patents when it comes to medicine and essential foodstuff cost in term of human lives. 1000% markup for certain life saving medicine, that’s not only just ridiculous but pure evil. Patents like Copyright are evil. They work against welfare of the unprivelged especially in third-world countries.
Ideas should not be owned by individuals but should be shared. Sharing is caring. Get rid of patents to make room for a less evil and more enlightened innovation promoting system.
Re:
New drugs cost millions to develop. Without patents, companies would not be willing to invest such large amounts in developing new drugs because they would know that a competitor could just copy theirs as soon as it goes on the market. Yes, patented drugs are more expensive, but that’s just the way the supply and demand works.
Re: Re:
No. Supply and demand has little to do with it. Patented drugs are not more expensive because of the costs of R&D or the cost to make them. The monoploy rents being charged make it more expensive. The prices of patented drugs have little relation to the cost of R&D and manufacturing cost. They charge what their captive market can bear. It has nothing to do with supply and demand.
Patents are not necessary for development of new drugs. And Investment money does not have to come from Big Pharma. It even does not have to come the private sector. There are other venues of investment and business models that don’t need patents to innovate. They can be promoted instead.
Futhermore some of the claimed costs of developing new drugs are certainly grossly inflated. When big money and monopolies come in play, efficiency of R&D go out of the window. It resembles Hollywood Accounting. The blockbuster model of Big Pharma is broken. You might be amazed with the stuff people come up from shoestring budgets even for developing new drugs. Big Pharma likes to skew people’s perceptions of costs of developing drugs, this propaganda is to justify their monopoly rents “because R&D cost is so high”.
Elon Musk is right as to patents and I don’t think drugs are exception. I know for a fact, patents block avenues of innovation when it comes to drugs as well.
Another thing, patents limit accessibility of life-saving drugs to the wealthier people who can afford the monoploy rents. Governmental edicts in name of patents when it comes to life-saving drugs has cost human lives perhaps more than they save lives, especially where third-world countries are concerned. Covid-19 vaccines are latest example. This is a good reason to reject patents even if you think patents are such a great innovation promoting system. In my opinion, patents need to go the way of the dinosaurs to make room for a more efficient innovation-promoting system that is also more equitable as to accessing to the benefits of innovations as well. It can happen just people need to take their heads out of the box called Intellectual Property and start to think out of that box.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Exactly - the weak do need patents
Big companies with big bucks can do whatever they want, including destroying any new innovators. A new innovator with a patent at least has a fighting chance to survive (although even then it is an uphill battle). The patent system is complicated and depending on who you are and what you want, your opinion about it can vary. But he is quite right – the weak do need patents.
Re:
In the US, a patent, does the Individual little good if a large company sets out to destroy them It will cost more than they has to bring a patent case to a successful conclusion, or defend against patent cases bought against them.
Re: Re:
Agreed, but without a patent they have no chance at all. Zero. Nada. Zip. Some chance is better than nothing.
why
Big companies do not like other people’s patents because it can force them to pay dues to other innovators, whom they could otherwise just steal from. One scenario is the basement inventor who spends their time and money to develop an innovative idea, only to have it stolen from them by a larger company with greater means. Big companies love their own patents. So don’t be fooled when big companies knock patents. It is ironic that the world’s richest person is worried about having to legitimately pay some licensing fees for something made by someone else (which might slow him down from making more money? Oh right, he is trying to save the world).
A major purpose of patents is to reduce the likelihood of trade secrets by giving you a limited monopoly in exchange for sharing your innovations, so that others can build on it. Trade secrets do not promote innovation.
But again, it is all very complicated. But something needs to be done to encourage innovators (small and large) and this seems to be one of the better ways available (if still imperfect).
Patented rights
First, they need to patent it so others don’t. Worst action, getting sued for something you created.
That said, looking at the cross over of employees, there’s a difference in a raw patent and the methodology of implementation.
There’s a hundred billion ways to make a BSD platform. Even with the same tools the methods are different. What’s on top is different. How it’s ordered is different.
Playing advocate here, the legal argument is possible in not the actual items themselves, but the trade practices of implementing them. From the computing standpoint that’s partly why a countable chunk of “open source” software still has licensing restrictions.
The same goes not for the parts used, but the method of use.
Reverse-Engineering
Anyone know if Telsa gets anal about people reverse-engineering the software in Tesla cars for enhancement purposes?
Risky business
If I were to enter the EV market, I would not use any of the patented Tesla technology without a formal, written, licensing agreement. Elon has declared Tesla’s patents open for use, with no set end date on that, and with nothing in writing. Yes there is a record of Elon saying that they’re open for use. But, what’s to stop him one day declaring that Tesla’s patents are no longer open for use, allowing Tesla to go after the competitors using the patented technology? If Elon was serious about this, he’d be happy to put the licensing agreements in writing.