Would you pay for privately owned superchargers?

[Larry Chanin]

The patent angle is a bit of a red herring. Patents are not specs. There is no way to build a Supercharger just by looking at patents. You need detailed engineering specs for handshake communications, etc. and an engineering agreement such that when specs are updated, you get notified so you can update your own Supercharger firmware.

Right. I take what Elon says to mean "If you reverse engineer a Supercharger and use it to create a viable charging network Tesla won't go after you to obtain revenue from the patents".

I agree that in a practical sense you would need more than the patent documents to build anything useful, but how do you go about reverse engineering a Supercharger if Tesla doesn't give you access to one? You just can't buy one and take it apart.

As I see it a company interested in building Superchargers and charging a fee are going to have to first sit down with Tesla and hash out a legal agreement. Then if they meet Tesla's terms Tesla will provide all the additional technical documentation needed.

Larry

 

[igotzzoom]

I know a lot of public chargers have both CHAdeMO and J1772 Combo plugs. I imagine at some point, as more Teslas get on the road, you'll see a Tesla cord as well. For now, owners can use adapters, but if Tesla becomes the predominant EV on the road, I could see it becoming the de facto standard.

 

[scaesare]

I agree that in a practical sense you would need more than the patent documents to build anything useful, but how do you go about reverse engineering a Supercharger if Tesla doesn't give you access to one? You just can't buy one and take it apart.

As I see it a company interested in building Superchargers and charging a fee are going to have to first sit down with Tesla and hash out a legal agreement. Then if they meet Tesla's terms Tesla will provide all the additional technical documentation needed.

Larry

Folks have already tapped the chargeports in their cars and figured out the physical and logical layer operation. They then sniffed the data exchange with the car.

I suspect a DC fast charger using the Supercharging protocol can be(and already has been) implemented.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Folks have already tapped the chargeports in their cars and figured out the physical and logical layer operation. They then sniffed the data exchange with the car.

I suspect a DC fast charger using the Supercharging protocol can be(and already has been) implemented.

Even if that were as easy to do as you seem to suggest, I am of the opinion that Tesla would have legal recourse to impose their terms before such a use would be legal.

Larry

 

[scaesare]

Even if that were as easy to do as you seem to suggest, I am of the opinion that Tesla would have legal recourse to impose their terms before such a use would be legal.

Larry

Well, I've read some of the threads and seen some of the video. :wink:

But please note what I said: folks are using the protocol in order to build their own DC fast charger to talk to their own Tesla. This is not implying theft of services from a Tesla Supercharger.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Even if that were as easy to do as you seem to suggest, I am of the opinion that Tesla would have legal recourse to impose their terms before such a use would be legal.

Larry

Well, I've read some of the threads and seen some of the video. :wink:

But please note what I said: folks are using the protocol in order to build their own DC fast charger to talk to their own Tesla. This is not implying theft of services from a Tesla Supercharger.

Please note that my comment didn't say anything about theft of services from a Tesla Supercharger.

I am referring to Tesla having the right to apply their patent rights. I'm simply saying that a party that builds a product that uses Tesla's intellectual property better first have worked out a contract with Tesla that has a Covenant Not to Sue clause if they wish to avoid the potential for legal action. In such a contract Tesla may impose certain terms for the product's use and may even impose fees for use of the intellectual property.

Larry

 

[jgs]

Please note that my comment didn't say anything about theft of services from a Tesla Supercharger.

I am referring to Tesla having the right to apply their patent rights. I'm simply saying that a party that builds a product that uses Tesla's intellectual property better first have worked out a contract with Tesla that has a Covenant Not to Sue clause if they wish to avoid the potential for legal action. In such a contract Tesla may impose certain terms for the product's use and may even impose fees for use of the intellectual property.

Larry

I agree that if you infringe a patent without license (or other agreement as you have wanted to distinguish them) you're risking legal action.

I don't agree that Tesla could impose a fee for use of their patents without reneging on their public commitments. You've stated they could but haven't supported that view AFAICT.

(Just curious -- are you a lawyer? I am not although I have some professional and business experience with patents and other intellectual property.)

 

[Larry Chanin]

I don't agree that Tesla could impose a fee for use of their patents without reneging on their public commitments. You've stated they could but haven't supported that view AFAICT.

I agreed that it would not be good public relations for Tesla to charge a fee. Although the implication was there by making references to the Open Source Movement, I don't believe that Tesla ever stated outright that it would be free. Regardless, the point that I am making is that they have the legal right to do so even if there is a non-assert clause. More importantly I believe that it is likely that Tesla will impose other terms of use which do not involve compensation.

(Just curious -- are you a lawyer? I am not although I have some professional and business experience with patents and other intellectual property.)

No, I am not a lawyer.

Larry

 

[Twiglett]

I agreed that it would not be good public relations for Tesla to charge a fee. Although the implication was there by making references to the Open Source Movement, I don't believe that Tesla ever stated outright that it would be free. Regardless, the point that I am making is that they have the legal right to do so even if there is a non-assert clause. More importantly I believe that it is likely that Tesla will impose other terms of use which do not involve compensation.



No, I am not a lawyer.

Larry

I seem to recall that they were talking about one of the conditions of supercharger use was that the other manufacturer could not charge for its use, so that any supercharger, tesla or otherwise, would be free to use.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I seem to recall that they were talking about one of the conditions of supercharger use was that the other manufacturer could not charge for its use, so that any supercharger, tesla or otherwise, would be free to use.

If that turned out to be true we are wasting a lot of time debating the topic of this thread. :biggrin:

Do you have a source for your recollection?

Larry

 

[GSP]

I know a lot of public chargers have both CHAdeMO and J1772 Combo plugs. I imagine at some point, as more Teslas get on the road, you'll see a Tesla cord as well. For now, owners can use adapters, but if Tesla becomes the predominant EV on the road, I could see it becoming the de facto standard.

At one of Tesla'a European events, an executive for a DC charger manufacturer stated he would like to offer Tesla DC charging in addition to ChadeMo and CCS plugs, and asked for Tesla's help. Tesla execs were not enthusiastic, but I don't remember their exact response.

If that turned out to be true we are wasting a lot of time debating the topic of this thread. :biggrin:

Do you have a source for your recollection?

Larry

I have the same recollection about Tesla wanting all Superchargers to be free to use, even third party ones. That would be less "confusing" to customers. However I don't remember the source. It likely was Q&A at some event, maybe the same European event I refer to above.

GSP

 

[Twiglett]

If that turned out to be true we are wasting a lot of time debating the topic of this thread. :biggrin:

Do you have a source for your recollection?

Larry

I wish I did, tracking EM's off the cuff statements seems like a full time job
[edit]
I knew I wasn't going nuts - well maybe not, but anyway
Tesla Will Open Its Supercharger Patents To Promote EVs - Gas 2
Specifically "Tesla wants any manufacturer that uses its patents to agree to the same business model of free charging. They will also be expected to contribute to the cost of the SuperCharger network in exchange for access to the Tesla technology secrets."

{Edit # 2]
Got the source from Engadget
Journalist: Is that sort of aimed towards the superchargers and allowing other car manufacturers to use your charger network?
Musk: That was already said. Actually we've already said that. The intent of the Supercharger network is not to create a walled garden. Any other manufacturer that's interested in using them, we'd be happy to accommodate. It's just that they need to be able to accept the power level of the Superchargers, which is currently 135kW and rising, so any car needs to meet the Supercharger standard. And they'd also need to agree with the business model, which is we don't charge people on a per-charge basis. They'd need to contribute to the capital costs proportional to their fleet's usage of the network. So we think that's pretty fair.

 

[jgs]

Got the source from Engadget
Journalist: Is that sort of aimed towards the superchargers and allowing other car manufacturers to use your charger network?
Musk: That was already said. Actually we've already said that. The intent of the Supercharger network is not to create a walled garden. Any other manufacturer that's interested in using them, we'd be happy to accommodate. It's just that they need to be able to accept the power level of the Superchargers, which is currently 135kW and rising, so any car needs to meet the Supercharger standard. And they'd also need to agree with the business model, which is we don't charge people on a per-charge basis. They'd need to contribute to the capital costs proportional to their fleet's usage of the network. So we think that's pretty fair.

Thanks for chasing that down! The quote seems to pertain specifically to other auto manufacturers wanting to be able to charge at Tesla Superchargers though. It's a bit of a stretch to see it as Tesla telling other people that if they want to build their own Supercharger-compatible chargers, they have to provide access to them for free.

I'm not saying Tesla wouldn't do that, although I hope they wouldn't since it's pretty silly. I'm just saying it doesn't seem to me to be supported by the quote. Lacking any example of someone who's actually tried, it's impossible to know for sure, of course.

 

[Twiglett]

indeed - it does seem to point to Tesla never giving up ownership of the network.

 

[N4HHE]

Thanks for chasing that down! The quote seems to pertain specifically to other auto manufacturers wanting to be able to charge at Tesla Superchargers though. It's a bit of a stretch to see it as Tesla telling other people that if they want to build their own Supercharger-compatible chargers, they have to provide access to them for free.

Also note Musk didn't say Supercharging is free. What was said was, "And they'd also need to agree with the business model, which is we don't charge people on a per-charge basis." Supercharging is not free, we paid essentially $2000 up front for a lifetime subscription.

 

[beeeerock]

Also note Musk didn't say Supercharging is free. What was said was, "And they'd also need to agree with the business model, which is we don't charge people on a per-charge basis." Supercharging is not free, we paid essentially $2000 up front for a lifetime subscription.

I think that's key. The way I interpret the statement, if someone else wants to sell an EV and build out an equivalent to the Supercharger network prepaid or subscribed in some way, Tesla would be happy to work with them. From that, I would infer that the two networks would be compatible and that the smart end of the chargers would note whether a Tesla or a Brand Z car was connected. There would be an accounting done regularly to ensure that one company wasn't taking undue advantage of the other. That is, ensure Tesla pays for their power consumed on the Brand Z superchargers, and vice-versa.

The obvious benefit to both drivers is an larger number of available chargers.

 

[jgs]

It was (and still is) plain to me that what the quote means is "if you want to let your cars charge at our chargers, we're open to that. You'll have to pay us for it of course, and we're not interested in a pay-per-drink model."

None of this relates to the original question of whether a third party could offer pay-per-drink Supercharging.

 

[David99]

Elon opened up the patents. If someone wants to make and produce their own Supercharger based on the technology, they can. Other manufacturers could theoretically build their own charger that is 100% compatible with a Tesla Supercharger and charge money on a per-use basis. In reality, I'm pretty sure no one will do that.
Question remains, would someone be able to buy the Supercharger hardware from Tesla and then run it on a per-use basis. I don't think Tesla would want that.

 

[MichFin]

If you think about it right now you see thousands of cars stop at highway gas station and there are several stations at each exit. These are not local residents they are almost all travelers and each car takes 5 minutes to fill up.

16 million new cars were built last year so imagine if Tesla builds 500,000 of them that would be about 3% and this doesn't even include the other brands. Anyone that thinks 10,000 super charger stalls (5 times what they have today) are going to service that many cars is not seeing the whole picture. Also, keep in mind that the cars charging are generally going to spend 6 times more time at the charger than anyone at a pump.

 

[Larry Chanin]

None of this relates to the original question of whether a third party could offer pay-per-drink Supercharging.

I will have to disagree with you on this point. The statements clearly show that Tesla is not in favor of a pay as you go business model. Therefore, it is likely that they would invoke their patent rights to prevent someone from using Tesla technology in that manner.

Larry