So in order to take advantage of Tesla patents, you can't be suing anyone else on EV-related patents of your own?
That actually sounds like an interesting and positive side-effect, or am I missing something here?
That actually sounds like an interesting and positive side-effect, or am I missing something here?
How do you normally sue over a patent violation? Some estimation of damages in comparison to a hypothetical world where the patent wasn’t violated, then multiplied by some number so that it’s not worthwhile to violate patents constantly given that the court can’t prosecute every case?
It would seem as if the good-faith clause is basically asserting there aren’t damages in comparison to a world where the patent isn’t violated (or that usage is actually positive so long as it’s not used by someone who is collecting rent on their own patents.)
Once they had done so, it would be a standard patent infringement lawsuit between Tesla and Toyota.
This could be one path where you could enforce good-faith, IMHO IANAL.
If I cam granting use of my patent to you, I could request you put on a red fedora every day -- and if you fail to do so, then I will revoke you right to use the patent. You have to chose, put on that fedora, or don't use my patent. I guess you could chose to use the patent and be sued...
In any case, I am sure a document worded just right would either prevent that patent being used by a company who does not want to comply, or a lawsuit for violating the patent.
It could be simply put -- if you use this patent you may do so given the following. 1) You grant others the right to use your patents free of charge. 2) You don't sell your patents to any 3rd party.
I am sure there is some other things that might need to be covered.
Independently invent something. Turns out it's already patented, within this good faith consortium. Now the only way to use it is by participating. Normally, this kind of thing results in getting sued for royalties.
You have answered it. Free patent, GPL or not, you'd have this problem. And it's even worse on "normal" cases.
I've contributed quite a few patches to open source projects, and sometimes if I'll review other patches I cannot tell the difference between code I've written or that others had written.
I find it a smart move. Not sure what it really bears though: "for the greater good of the industry" incentive or just a PR move with a string attached.
Of course as a company late to the automotive game it benefits Tesla to neutralise the legal quagmire of patents. But fair enough I say. If their patents are valuable enough, they might get some traction.
License full text here for MS-PL:
https://www.copyleftlicense.com/licenses/microsoft-public-li...
What you states is true, but you also cannot assert "any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla"; with no restriction in terms of relation to EV or whether or not it is a patent. You use one of Tesla's patents? Now they are free to use any of your trademarks, use the software you wrote for your sound system, etc.
It really is a PR item for Tesla that is impossible for any company to take advantage of.
To make some rough strawman examples: If a smaller/startup company gives away patents under a "good-faith" condition, it may at best help other startups try to come up to develop the market - perhaps that was Tesla's intent at the time.
If a larger company does this, I'm a bit more confused on intent - perhaps it might be seen as an 'option' in addition to traditional licensing. Where one can either pay for a license or optionally get a free license in exchange for not asserting patent rights against the larger company later on.
I've seen cases where a smaller company may exert patent rights on something seemingly obvious on the industry (they filed the patent, and some judge in Marshall, Texas enforced it), and ends up becoming a method of sharing patent rights with other companies in the industry (e.g. smaller company exerts patent rights, larger company discovers smaller company is infringing on their patents, lawyers end up sitting down and negotiating some license for license agreement). This may be changing a bit with the changes in how patent holders choose courts (see https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-te... )