The Cannonball Run plot of racing across the US has inspired some drivers to set illegal records -- though the concept was started in 1933 by Edwin "Cannonball" Baker who drove from NYC to LA in 53 hours (and popularized in the 70s as a protest against highway speed limits). We've previously mentioned Alex Roy making the trip in about 32 hours, but more recently, Ed Bolian and a couple other drivers/passengers did it in just 28 hours and 50 minutes. If you've always wanted to drive across country in some insane way, check out some of the records that other people have set.
As you probably know by now, last summer, Elon Musk announced that he was freeing up all of Tesla's patents. He pointed out that he didn't believe patents made any sense, and they especially didn't make sense in the electric vehicle space where they were clearly holding innovation back. Because some investors still couldn't comprehend this -- and assumed (for months!) that there must be some sort of catch, earlier this year Musk clarified that, yes, he really, really meant it, and Tesla's patents were totally free. No need to obtain a license. No need to pay a fee. No need to talk to or tell Tesla about it -- just go and innovate.
Earlier this week, Ford made an announcement claiming that it, too, was opening up its patents -- but the details show that this is a lot more hype and PR than substance. First, unlike Tesla, it's not all of its patents, but rather a specific portfolio of electric vehicle patents. Second, and much more importantly, it's not open. At all. You still have to license them and you still have to pay. This is just Ford announcing "Hey, we have patents, come pay us to use them." That's not opening up those patents. It's marketing the fact that you need to license them. This is the opposite of what Musk did with Tesla's patents.
To access Ford’s patents and published patent applications, interested parties can contact the company’s technology commercialization and licensing office, or work through AutoHarvest – an automaker collaborative innovation and licensing marketplace. AutoHarvest allows members to showcase capabilities and technologies, then privately connect with fellow inventors to explore technology and business development opportunities of mutual interest. The patents would be available for a fee.
And yet, nearly all of the press coverage worked exactly the way Ford intended: claiming that Ford was doing the same thing as Tesla. Here's just a sampling:
That last one is particularly hilarious. The title doesn't reference Tesla, but early in the article it does -- and again falsely claims that Ford's program is free:
If, as basic economic theory teaches, something is worth only what someone or group of people is willing to pay for it, then it seems the intellectual property associated with electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells is worthless.
Ford Motor is the latest car company to make this case. Today Ford joined Toyota Motor and Tesla Motors in making a vast range of patented electrification technologies available to its competitors. All free for serious EV developers.
Second, that's not what basic economic theory teaches at all. It's what ignorant armchair economists think it teaches. I know we have to go through this every few years, but price is not a measure of value. Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand, and can be influenced by a number of different factors unrelated to value. The value to the buyer plays a role in determining the demand curve. Because if the price is less than the value derived, then that's when the buyer is likely to buy. But giving something away does not, in any way, mean that something is worthless.
And, again, this article misses the basic fact that Ford is not giving these away for free.
And people wonder why news publications are struggling to hold onto readers.
Last year, we wrote about two key "corruption indicators" in city and state governments: they ban direct sales models to block Tesla from competing with traditional car companies and they ban Uber/Lyft style car hailing services to protect local taxi incumbents.
It appears that Texas is really trying to wave its anti-innovation flag as strongly as possible as the legislature down there failed to move forward on two key bills that would have made it possible for Tesla to do direct sales in Texas... and to stop local cities from blocking Uber & Lyft to favor taxi incumbents.
A Texas House deadline has come and gone, killing many top-priority bills for both parties — among them one that would allow Tesla-backed direct car sales and another to regulate ride-hailing companies. Midnight Thursday was the last chance for House bills to win initial, full-chamber approval. Since any proposal can be tacked onto other bills as amendments, no measure is completely dead until the legislative session ends June 1. But even with such resurrections, actually becoming state law now gets far tougher.
And, of course, this comes just after the FTC warned Michigan for its blocking of direct sales of cars like Tesla.
The failure to allow direct sales is a much bigger deal than the car hailing stuff, but both are bad. And the response from Texas politicians is really quite disgusting:
Rep. Senfronia Thompson — one of the House's most senior members currently serving her 20th term — said it was the company's own fault that the bill didn't pass.
"I can appreciate Tesla wanting to sell cars, but I think it would have been wiser if Mr. Tesla had sat down with the car dealers first," she said.
Really? In what world is it considered appropriate to force an innovative company that wants to go direct to consumers to first "sit down" with the gatekeepers that are trying to block them? "I can appreciate Amazon wanting to sell books to people, but I think it would have been wiser if Mr. Amazon had sat down with retail store builders first." "I can appreciate YouTube wanting to let anyone upload videos, but I think it would have been wiser if Mr. YouTube had sat down with TV producers first."
That's not how innovation works. At all. And thus, we can cross Texas off the list of innovative states.
The law around car hailing is not quite as big of a deal, but without the new Texas law, various cities within Texas can still create their own rules that would effectively make it impossible for such services to operate there. There are states that create spaces for innovation -- and then there are those that protect incumbents. Texas appears to be making it clear that it's the latter. If I were a startup in Austin, I might consider finding somewhere else to operate.
A little over a year ago, we noted how nice (if somewhat surprising) it was to see the FTC take a stand for Tesla and its direct sales model. Just as states -- generally under pressure from auto dealers who hate competing with Tesla -- were starting to explore laws to ban Tesla from those states, the FTC noted that it felt many of these plans were designed to hold back competition and innovation and it was prepared to step in. A year ago, it said things like this:
Removing these regulatory impediments may be essential to allow consumers access to new ways of shopping that have become available in many other industries.
Shots fired. In response to this (and public outcry), New Jersey and some other states appeared to back down. But not Michigan, home to the big US automakers, who aren't at all happy with this new upstart competitor from California. Last fall, Michigan passed a law that made it even more difficult for direct sales like Tesla. The FTC didn't do anything specifically about that (yet), but there's a new bill under discussion in Michigan that would carve out an exception to the new ban on direct sales of vehicles, but just for a new category called "autocycles," such as those from Elio Motors. The FTC used this opportunity to question why there's a ban on direct sales of vehicles in the first place.
In a letter commenting on the Michigan proposal, FTC staff supports the movement to allow for direct sales to consumers—not only Tesla or Elio, but for any company that decides to use that business model to distribute its products. Blanket prohibitions on direct manufacturer sales to consumers are an anomaly within the larger economy. Most manufacturers and suppliers in other industries make decisions about how to design their distribution systems based on their own business considerations, responding to consumer demand. Many manufacturers choose some combination of direct sales and sales through independent retailers. Typically, no government intervention is needed to augment or alter these competitive dynamics—the market polices inefficient, unresponsive, or otherwise inadequate distribution practices on its own. If the government does intervene, it should adopt restrictions that are clearly linked to specific policy objectives that the legislature believes warrant deviation from the beneficial pressures of competition, and should be no broader than necessary to achieve those objectives.
Opening the door by a crack is a step in the right direction, and we urge policymakers in Michigan to take this small step. But beyond company-specific fixes lies a much larger issue: who should decide how consumers shop for products they want to buy? Protecting dealers from abuses by manufacturers does not justify a blanket prohibition like that in the current Michigan law, which extends to all vehicle manufacturers, even those like Tesla and Elio who have no interest in entering into a franchise agreement with any dealer.
The full letter is below -- and it does a nice point-by-point debunking of the laughable arguments by those who insist bans on direct sales to consumers are necessary. Here's just a snippet:
Those who support a blanket prohibition on direct manufacturer sales have made a number of arguments that FTC staff find unpersuasive. Perhaps the central concern reflected in the current laws regulating the manufacturer-dealer relationship is that government intervention is required to protect independent dealers from abusive behavior by their suppliers. But a blanket prohibition of direct manufacturer sales is not a narrowly crafted provision to protect franchised dealers from abuse in their franchise relationships. Such a prohibition is categorical, going well beyond the many other statutory provisions that protect dealers from such abuse. It extends to every entity engaged in manufacturing, assembling, or distributing new motor vehicles, even a manufacturer that has never entered into a franchise agreement.
Advocates for existing dealers also argue that manufacturers that sell directly to consumers will not provide them with adequate service. This argument presupposes that automobile manufacturers in a competitive environment will act contrary to their economic self-interest. If consumers greatly value post-sale service and would be unlikely to purchase or recommend any automobile without a reasonable assurance of quality future service, then any manufacturer will have an incentive to supply such service or else see its sales decline to the benefit of its rivals. This competitive pressure is a strong motivation for manufacturers to either provide good service themselves or continue to contract with an independent service provider, such as a dealer, to do so.
Finally, advocates for a categorical ban on direct sales argue that direct-selling manufacturers would charge higher prices to consumers. In their view, consumers benefit from the “intrabrand” competition between dealers of the same brand of vehicle. In other words, rival dealers in the same area that sell the same make and model of car compete for business and competition between them can lower prices for car buyers. Manufacturers, they maintain, would not be subject to the same competitive pressures.
This view is inconsistent with modern economic learning and with the Supreme Court’s widely accepted observation that strong “interbrand” competition—competition between rival manufacturers—can suffice as a source of downward pressure on price. Manufacturers in a competitive market face acute pressure to keep prices low to keep buyers from shifting their purchases to a competing manufacturer’s product. Thus, forcing firms to use inefficient distribution methods can result in higher prices and other forms of consumer harm. As described above, this is not merely a theoretical possibility. Statistical evidence shows that states that have placed strong limitations on gasoline refiners’ ability to operate their own retail outlets tend to have higher prices than those that allow refiners to use whatever combination of dealer and company-operated stations they prefer.
A continuing ban on direct sales by manufacturers perpetuates the current closed system of motor vehicle sales in Michigan. The system limits competition among existing, well-established manufacturers, all of whom must sell through the established network of independent auto dealers. A direct sales ban deters experimentation with new and different methods of sales by current auto manufacturers, and also by future entrants to the market. Michigan’s consumers are paying the price of such a dictate. The essential mechanism that drives markets—the interaction between the supply by manufacturers and the demands of consumers—is being curbed. The market is less responsive to consumer preferences and less innovative in anticipating their evolving needs.
It's nice to see the FTC continuing to monitor this situation and to speak out against clearly anti-competitive moves.
Over the past few years, we've highlighted how frightened autodealers have absolutely freaked out about the way in which Tesla sells its cars. If you don't know, rather than having a bunch of independent dealers, Tesla sells direct, where you mainly buy via its website. Rather than dealerships, Tesla has showrooms where you can go check out the cars. The pricing is clear and obvious and it's much lower pressure. Dealers have tried a variety of tricks to actually outlaw Teslas from being sold in their states, even arguing that Tesla's website is illegal. Thankfully, most states aren't falling for this, and even the FTC has supported the Tesla way of selling cars.
Apparently, some dealers are finally realizing that if you can't beat 'em by trying to make them disappear, perhaps you ought to compete. Via Jalopnik, we learn of a dealer in Seattle (who owns both a Honda and a Toyota dealership) who has decided to adopt what he thinks is the "Tesla model" for selling cars -- single price, no haggling, no separate finance department whose there to screw you over on the deal terms, and transparency about the loan rates.
What's more, the dealerships have no F&I managers. Salespeople handle the loans. Learning to do that isn't easy, so Miller and Mohammadi have hired contractors to do some paperwork and walk the salespeople through the process.
Prices are fixed, and so are interest rates. Customers who need financing can refer to a chart on the wall, tracing their finger from their credit score to the amount of the loan.
Of course, the story also notes that this shift hasn't been easy. Most of the existing sales staff left as they couldn't deal with this setup, and sales at the dealership dropped significantly -- though they've since rebounded. And, of course, there have been other dealers in the past that have adopted "one price/no haggling" setups, but studies have shown that many customers don't trust such deals, assuming that the "one price" is likely to be higher than they could get by negotiating, even if they don't like haggling.
While I think it's a smart move to try to compete, rather than ban, innovative competitors like Tesla, it feels a little bit like a cargo cult copying situation, where the focus is on copying the obvious superficial aspects of what Tesla is doing, but not the deeper hidden reasons. In Tesla's case, it's a combination of factors that are selling those cars, including the cool factor, the environmental factor and the overall prestige of the car. Hondas and Toyotas, while recognized as reliable, don't have all of those factors. Plus, since the Tesla sales model is for all Teslas, there is no other option, so no one feels that the single price offering is a rip off. That's not the case when a single dealer does something.
So I think it's good that this dealer is looking for a better model, but it's going to involve a lot of experiments and innovating, beyond just copying some of the superficial aspects of what Tesla does.
We've written a few times about Elon Musk and Tesla's decision to open up all of Tesla's patents, with a promise not to sue anyone for using them. We also found it funny when some reacted to it by complaining that it wasn't done for "altruistic" reasons, but to help Tesla, because of course: that's the whole point. Musk recognized that patents frequently hold back and limit innovation, especially around core infrastructure. Since then, Musk has said that, in fact, rivals are making use of his patents, even as GM insists it's not.
However, as some may recall, when Musk made the original announcement, the terms of freeing up the patents were at least a little vague. It said that Tesla "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." That "in good faith" claim had a few scratching their heads, and pointing out that still gave Tesla an out. We were a little disappointed that the company didn't make the terms entirely clear, believing that the "in good faith" line would likely scare away some companies from actually using the patents. However, recently, at the Detroit Auto Show, when questioned about this, Musk clarified that he really meant to make them completely free for anyone to use, no questions asked, no licensing discussions needed:
Around the three-minute mark someone asks how many automakers have taken Tesla up on the offer to use its patents, and Musk notes:
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.
In other words, Musk is saying what most of us assumed all along was the point. Hoarding the patents and blocking others doesn't help him at all. Letting others expand the market does. And licensing discussions are unnecessary friction and a waste of time.
All good, right?
Well, no. It appears that clueless Wall Street types are absolutely flipping out over this (possible registration wall). Some outfit called "Technology Equity Strategies," which doesn't seem to understand the first thing about how innovation actually works, posted an insanely long and ridiculously misguided note on how this is horrifying for anyone invested in Tesla. The descriptions are hilarious, where you can almost hear these Wall Street types pulling out their hair over this idea of *gasp* actually letting others use Tesla's patents. First, it notes that Musk called them "open source" patents, and spends way too much time detailing the "official" definition of open source, and then says that the patents are now "public domain" (apparently not recognizing that public domain and open source are not the same thing -- though in this case it might not matter). Technology Equity Strategies is very upset about this.
The restrictions in the June 12 blog of "good faith" and "we will not initiate" are over with. They are finished. These patents are either in the public domain, or they have at minimum been rendered unenforceable against all users, "good faith" or not.
Why? Because in their non-innovation minds, all they care about is how do you best value the stock, and giving up patents is giving up an asset. The note first (mistakenly) argues that many areas of the tech industry rely on patents as barriers to entry and that's where their advantage comes in (rather than execution, which is the truth). And so, it thinks now some other company will just come in and eat Tesla's lunch:
Is it possible that the massive capital and labor needed to attain leadership might not be eroded in by imitators in Asia, by large companies with resources to buy market share, by companies whose strengths are manufacturing process, global footprint and scale?
If so, the embedded option on a leader in a new niche in the auto industry and on a shift in the competitive dynamics in the auto industry might indeed be a valuable option.
But Mr. Musk was not interested in that. He is happy to give away the advantages that actually provide great profitability in some sectors of technology. He wants to compete as an auto company, in the brutal and capital intensive way that auto companies compete. More fundamentally, he is willing to eliminate the possibility in the future of competing as a technology company, which depend on the IP protections of patents, copyright, and trade secrets.
Of course, the reality is that Musk recognizes what many in this sector recognize: that sharing the ideas helps speed along innovation, creating greater and greater opportunities, which you can realize by executing well. Musk is confident in Tesla's ability to execute and (as we noted earlier) recognizes that sharing the patents actually helps Tesla by getting more electric vehicles on the market, meaning more overall infrastructure that makes Tesla cars more valuable.
This is the ridiculousness of Wall Street: sometimes it simply can't understand the nature of a non-zero sum game. Giving up any "advantage" is seen as helping others, without recognizing that helping others can also help you out tremendously. Instead, these investor types believe in the myth of intellectual property, that it's patents that make a company valuable:
Intellectual property is an important foundation for valuation technology companies. Funds that own Tesla may not be the same institutions who own GM or Ford, but many will be familiar with Qualcomm and ARM.
IP goes a long way in explaining why Qualcomm has a market cap of $110 billion, and ARM has a valuation of 23 billion (18x trailing revenues) while Nokia and Dell were sold for less than two times revenues. Nokia and Dell did fine work for a while as manufacturers and product companies. There was a time when they too looked like winners based on product execution. But they didn't own core IP, and so when product cycles shifted, they were left with little value.
Yes, ARM and Qualcomm are both patent-focused companies (that dip their toes into trolling all too often). And, yes, companies that don't execute well can lose out in the end, but cherry picking a few companies that have flopped on execution, while pointing to a few trollish companies as success stories, doesn't make a very strong argument. It's basically saying "yes, invest in the companies that don't believe in their own ability to execute, who have a fallback as a patent troll." That's not exactly a strong endorsement. Tesla believes in its own ability to innovate -- and these Wall Street guys think that's a bad thing.
And then there's the rewriting of history:
Let's look at Apple. Apple and Steve Jobs learned the hard way. Some of us will recall that an early Apple (believing that IP wasn't important) opened up its IP to the basic Mac interface with a royalty free license to Microsoft.
This resulted in Microsoft Windows taking nearly the entire PC market from Apple, and nearly bankrupting Apple. In his second chance, Steve Jobs learned about the importance of IP. This is a lesson that Mr. Musk failed to absorb.
Except, that's totally incorrect. While Apple had licensed a few aspects of its UI, that licensing agreement became meaningless by the time of Windows 2.0. Then Apple sued Microsoft and lost, because it was trying to use copyright law to claim things that could not be covered by copyright law. And that's not why the PC took over the market. So this isn't a lesson that Musk failed to absorb, because it never happened.
The Grand Gesture shows the worrisome sincerity in Musk's repeated statements that he is primarily on a mission to get other companies to sell a lot of electric vehicles, not to make money.
A worrisome sincerity? No, it's showing that Musk recognizes that if the market for electric vehicles does not grow massively, then he won't make money. He very much wants to make money, and a good way to do that is to build out the overall market for EVs, allowing Tesla to thrive. And these Wall Street folks first mock the idea that Musk might first invest to grow the market, by then... claiming that Asian makers might do the same thing:
No doubt Mr. Musk believes that if the industry embraces EVs, then Tesla will succeed as part of it. But is this plausible, that everything will just work out for the best. Is it plausible that Musk can succeed as a manufacturer in the U.S. competing against manufacturers in Asia who may take zero margins to grow a business, using Musk's proven designs? U.S. companies have learned over and over that IP is necessary to get a sustained profitable return on their innovations.
Actually, no. Plenty of tech companies don't think that IP is "necessary" to get sustained returns -- they think the opposite. Patents get in the way of profitability. They require lots of lawyer time and threats of lawsuits.
Frankly, Tesla opening up its patents seems like a move that shows how confident it is in its execution abilities, and makes the company a lot less likely to rest on its laurels and become nothing but a "licensing" company down the road. The fact that people who don't understand what a mess patents are and how they slow down innovation are now jumping in making ridiculous claims like Tesla's decision is why Apple can now jump into the EV car market just shows how little some people understand patents. The "myth" of patents as a powerful tool of innovation is still out there, and that's a shame.
Last June, Elon Musk and Tesla made some news in freeing up Tesla's patents, hoping to jumpstart the market for electric cars. As we pointed out at the time, this highlighted how patents can, and often do, hold back innovation -- and we hoped that others might take notice. It's taken a while, but at CES this week, Toyota also announced plans to free patents, focusing on the 5,680 patents (including pending patents) it has on fuel cell drive systems. The details still matter, but Toyota says that the patents are all available, "royalty free." The patents seem to cover the whole stack of things necessary to develop hydrogen fuel cell cars -- including the patents for hydrogen stations.
Of course, the idea, as with Tesla, is that the market needs to be jumpstarted, and that means a lot of companies working together to help build the infrastructure and educate the market. That's done best by sharing the information and letting everyone compete on the actual execution. But, of course, that's what we've been arguing should be the case for lots of technology areas as well. The patents are only serving to hold back so many markets, not allowing companies to build the best possible products they can, and thus limiting overall innovation and adoption.
Hopefully more companies -- and not just automakers -- will start to recognize why this is such a good idea, not just for their own business, but for innovation in general.
Electric vehicles are gaining some increasing acceptance on the roads, as some drivers realize that the vast majority of their trips are less than a 40-mile roundtrip. The "range anxiety" factor is still a concern for a lot of people, but there might be some alternatives to the existing rechargeable batteries in use today. Here are just a few examples of possible solutions to improve the energy storage capacity in electric cars.
Phinergy and Alcoa have an aluminum-air battery that could power a small EV for 1,000 miles. The catch is that when your aluminum-air battery is depleted, you'd have to replace an aluminum-containing cartridge at a special service station (so you couldn't just recharge the aluminum-air battery by plugging it into a standard wall outlet). Still, it would could be a nice way to extend the range of an all-electric vehicle significantly with an energy storage technology that has a not-so-complex, closed-loop life cycle. [url]
If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
The petition is a little misguided but is an understandable response to state after state protecting incumbent car dealerships by attempting to force Tesla to sell through an established middleman. The amount of tax revenue generated by successful dealerships makes it very hard for state politicians to say "no." It's become so common over the past few years that the introduction of Tesla-targeting legislation is a fairly accurate barometer of political corruption.
The petition is simple: force states to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers. The problem is that the Administration can't rewrite state laws on the fly.
Thanks for your We the People petition. We're excited about the next generation of transportation choices, including the kind of electric vehicles that Tesla and others have developed. These companies are taking steps to help spur innovation in the promising area of advanced batteries and electric automobiles. Vehicle electrification and other advanced technologies are vital components of President Obama's Climate Action Plan, and his commitment to addressing climate change and reducing carbon pollution, in addition to reducing our dependence on oil.
But as you know, laws regulating auto sales are issues that have traditionally sat with lawmakers at the state level.
We believe in the goal of improving consumer choice for American families, including more vehicles that provide savings at the pump for consumers. However, we understand that pre-empting current state laws on direct-to-consumer auto sales would require an act of Congress.
So, the problem must be handled through our nation's legislators or at state level in each individual state. Neither option is very palatable. State legislators are in no hurry to lose revenue by obliging an upstart (no matter how much its constituents may desire another option) and legislators in DC are no less likely to cater to established entities and their tax dollars/contributions.
But let's not waste too much more time discussing the low-level corruption that prevents new entrants into markets. Let's hear some more about the administration's exciting Climate Action Plan, because that's cleary what Dan Utech, "Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change," really wants to talk about. (Questions concerning the administration's decision to send an energy/climate change advisor to answer an auto sales regulation petition will also presumably go unanswered.)
We are already making significant progress in promoting vehicle efficiency: new vehicle fuel economy has increased by 12% since 2008 and consumers now can choose from five times more car models with a combined city/highway fuel economy of 30 mpg or more, compared to just five years ago. In December 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that model year 2012 vehicles achieved an all-time high fuel economy, after increasing seven of the last eight years...
Thanks, Dan, but we were hoping you could address consumers' interests being ignored by government—
The President has taken historic action to spur more consumer choice -- saving consumers money at the pump and reducing our dependence on oil. Here are some of the ways we're helping to encourage the future generation of energy-efficient cars…
…and so on for another three paragraphs. Five out of seven paragraphs are nothing more than the administration very sincerely congratulating itself for being so awesome and forward-thinking. Very little deals with the actual petition, but I guess we should be grateful it was acknowledged at all.
The final paragraph attempts to portray the government as innovation's best friend:
As these initiatives show, the Administration is in favor of fostering competition in the market to help spur the kinds of innovation needed to support ongoing U.S. leadership in vehicle manufacturing and a potential range of new technologies.
Maybe the administration (or at least Dan Utech) is truly "in favor of fostering competition in the market," but the government is the government is the government. Consumers want more options, established businesses want consumers to have fewer, and all too frequently the "government," whether it's local, state or national, sides with those on the established side. The administration can't force states to change laws, but it could at least offer something better in response than a press release masquerading as an "answer."
We, like many in the media, already wrote up the story about Elon Musk's announcement that Tesla was opening up all of Tesla's patents, promising not to bring any lawsuits against anyone who uses them in good faith. The "good faith" caveat has resulted in some head scratching and reasonable questions -- and we hope that Musk clarifies this position with a clearer explanation. Some have pointed out that with such vague language, it may really be more of an invitation to negotiate a licensing deal, rather than truly opening up the patents (though, I'd imagine anyone looking to challenge that has lawyers boning up on promissory estoppel). However, I wanted to address one of the "criticisms" that seemed to come out repeatedly about this move: that it wasn't a big deal because it's "not altruistic." That line was used over and over and over again in the press, almost always suggesting that people shouldn't be celebrating this move.
LA Times: "Even if other competitors copy Tesla’s design, Tesla still gets to sell them batteries, and that’s pretty awesome. Tesla’s decision isn’t entirely altruistic."
Seeking Alpha: "The general thinking is that somehow this move is altruistic for the benefit of the EV industry or that this has something to do with parallels like Mac OS X, Wikipedia, and crowdfunding. We disagree. This is simply a strategic move to rapidly expand and monetize the EV market. This move is hard-core strategy and really has nothing to do with altruism."
NASDAQ: Elon Musk and Tesla: Altruistic or Ulterior Motive?
Forbes: "Of course, Musk may have an ulterior motive in addition to his altruistic one."
ValueWalk: "Tesla Motors Inc's open source approach is far from altruistic."
Harvard Business Review: "In sum, Elon Musk’s opening up of Tesla’s patent portfolio might be motivated as much by strategic necessity rather than by altruism."
Market News Call: "Musk may not be successful running two industrial firms like online social media or cloud-focused firms, but he’s also not making decisions entirely out of altruism; he’s just using a non-traditional approach to creating value for his shareholders."
Engineering.com: "I think he [Nikola Tesla] would approve of Tesla Motors’ decision to open its technology to the world, even if the motivation was more business than altruism."
I recognize why everyone feels the need to do this -- especially those sites that claim to be focused on "investors," but it's also somewhat frustrating. Perhaps it's just because we've been writing about this issue for well over a decade, but of course this move is being done because it's good for business: but that's the point. We've become so stupidly brainwashed into believing that locking up and protecting everything is good for business that people seem positively shocked when a company does something that shows that's simply not true. Everyone feels the need to explain what a "crazy" idea it is that not hoarding information to yourself might actually be good for business.
And the worst may be in that first link up there, in which analyst giant Gartner completely destroys what little credibility it may have had when one of its analysts, Thilo Koslowski, pans the decision: "If you open up all your books to everyone, it means you all are fighting a war with the same weapons." Talk about someone admitting their own ignorance of how business and innovation actually works. Opening up your patents hardly means fighting a war with all the same weapons. Everyone still gets to innovate, and many of those innovations are not in the patents themselves.
A further Musk quote in a Business Week piece further outlines what's happening here:
"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."
This is a point that we've been trying to make for years: innovation is an ongoing process, and what matters most is not the single burst of inspiration, but the pace of that process -- which Musk more eloquently calls "the velocity of innovation." Patents on pieces of that ongoing process act as friction or toll booths in that process, slowing it down. Truly innovative companies know that they're going to keep innovating, and others copying what they're doing is the least of their worries.
Of course this move is about innovation and business and will be good for Tesla. But it's depressing that so many people automatically think that needs to be explained. We live in a dangerous world for innovation when a concept as simple as this seems so foreign to so many people. Even the fact that the idea that "doing good" and "building a good business" seem to be contradictory terms is troubling. Whether or not Musk is personally "altruistic" is beyond the point. Increasing the velocity of innovation for electric vehicles can be both good for Tesla and for the world, and that shouldn't be such a crazy idea.
Oh, and in case you haven't seen it yet, go check out what Tesla did to the wall where they used to hang their patents:
Because, perhaps even worse than everyone trying to explain why this isn't "altruistic" are all the people still confused about Musk's All Our Patents Are Belong To You language...