zlacker

>>gkober+(OP)
So an informal non-aggression pact is nice, but absolutely no automobile manufacturer would rely on that when a new car costs a significant fraction of a billion dollars to bring to market. (If I were a cynical man, I might think this didn't escape their notice.)

If it were me, and the true intent was to distribute the Tesla patents as widely as possible, I would have said "Tesla pledges to license its entire patent portfolio, on a worldwide non-exclusive no-royalty basis, to any interested party. We will ask for consideration in the amount of $1 for a 99 year license. Your lawyers and accountants can reassure you that these sort of symbolic commitments hold up in court. They'll also no doubt ask to see the full terms, which are about as boring as you'd expect, and which are available from our Legal Department."

>>patio1+9e
It seems to me that this press release was meant to invite interested parties to contact Tesla's legal department, though it didn't say so explicitly. If I ran a car company and saw this, that's what I would do, which I'm sure also didn't escape Tesla's notice. This press release seems more about announcing and explaining Tesla's intentions rather than acting as a binding agreement for a multibillion-dollar megacorp.

>>chc+Zf
Exactly. The car companies are all adults. I think this signals, "Let's go down a road where we don't wind up suing each other like the internet companies" This doesn't diminish the impact of what they're doing, but there's a practical side.

>>mathat+HF
You say this like the people working for and running "the internet companies" aren't adults. Being over an age threshold doesn't have any connection to acting as a benevolent member of society, and all companies, including Tesla and Comcast and Apple and Wawa and Chipotle, are in business to make profits.

>>akerl_+6G
Quoting a good but dead comment for visibility:

citrik 10 minutes ago | link [dead]

I don't think the "in business to make profits" part is entirely true. Apple and Tesla are both leading examples of companies that are out for something other than profits first. You can say that shareholder interests and publicly traded companies require ... but at the end of the day those are two companies that don't let capitalist dogma drive their path. I wish there were more than a handful.

-----

>>nitrog+mJ
I've always thought that Apple is driven by wanting to control its own destiny and not have the short term interests of the market dictate its decisions. That's why it is stockpiling cash and hesitating to pay it out to its shareholders.

Apple and Tesla just want to make great stuff. Not just great, esoteric stuff, but products that are also accessible to the mainstream. The profits are just a way of keeping score and giving them options for the future.

They're kind of like the Beatles, who as an organization always knew how to do things big commercially. But commerce is never what drove The Beatles. They understood that winning in the marketplace gave them more leeway to dream bigger and bigger.

It's easy to say, "why would a company want to exist besides to make profit?" But I think a company can be a creative outlet for its employees and shareholders, just like any other medium. The profits just ensure they have more creative control in the future.