[tonipepperoni77]

as it should far better technology. much easier to use, more flexible, less issues.

 

[O. horridus]

That's not how "standards" work. The Tesla connector is a proprietary connector - you can't make it a "standard" by decree or by law. Congress could require a certain standard for government contracts (although for the most part that should be done in the regulation that implements the passed law), but Congress doesn't create technical standards. You can't legislate that Tesla give up their intellectual property, and can't mandate that others need to license it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization

 

[TessP100D]

That's not how "standards" work. The Tesla connector is a proprietary connector - you can't make it a "standard" by decree or by law. Congress could require a certain standard for government contracts (although for the most part that should be done in the regulation that implements the passed law), but Congress doesn't create technical standards. You can't legislate that Tesla give up their intellectual property, and can't mandate that others need to license it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization

Wow… you are correct for once.

 

[O. horridus]

Sorry to disappoint you

 

[atebit]

You can't legislate that Tesla give up their intellectual property, and can't mandate that others need to license it.

Simpsons…err, Elon already did it.
All Our Patent Are Belong To You

 

[O. horridus]

Yeah, maybe read that a little closer. Tesla's connector is still a proprietary design and they are the only ones who control the technical details of the design. They can change it at will, and they can impose license fees on anyone who wants to use it, or even deny use of it to certain parties. They also retain all trademarks and copyrights, so no-one can advertise their vehicle as "Tesla compatible" without Tesla's permission. Etc.

 

[tonipepperoni77]

That's not how "standards" work. The Tesla connector is a proprietary connector - you can't make it a "standard" by decree or by law. Congress could require a certain standard for government contracts (although for the most part that should be done in the regulation that implements the passed law), but Congress doesn't create technical standards. You can't legislate that Tesla give up their intellectual property, and can't mandate that others need to license it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization

correct but in a perfect world the tesla style connector would be used everywhere.

 

[sirozha]

Tesla plug should be the standard in North America (at least US and Canada). However, there are two federal governments you have to fight, and I'm sure that Musk had already fought them all the way by now, and it was not accepted as the standard. There is no reason not to have the Tesla plug as a standard plug in North America because the CCS1 standard used here is different from the CCS standard everywhere else in the world, which is CCS2. The only other country that uses CCS1 is South Korea. Also, because we are separated from the rest of the world by two oceans and from Latin America by drug cartels, there is no compelling reason for us not to have our own plug size, which is much more compact than the CCS plug. Unfortunately, this train left the station a long time ago. We are stuck with the CCS1 plug.

 

[O. horridus]

and it was not accepted as the standard

Again, that's not how standards work. What standards organizations does Tesla belong to, and have they submitted their plug as a draft standard? That would require relinquishing some of their rights to the connector and to the future development of the standard, and allow other companies to contribute - Tesla would potentially have to change their own plug as a result of this standards process.

This is most certainly NOT a case of a federal government dictating a standard and excluding Tesla, and is NOT the result of some grand conspiracy against Musk. The current standard was developed and adopted by a large fraction of the industry and won its dominant place in the market against proprietary connectors like Tesla's and against other less-popular standards like CHAdeMO

 

[O. horridus]

correct but in a perfect world the tesla style connector would be used everywhere.

And in a perfect world we would have all been using Betamax. But Sony kept that proprietary which resulted in VHS (an industry standard), winning that fight. That argues FOR standards in the marketplace, and against what Tesla is doing.

 

[RITVT]

Should we have adopted the Blackberry power cord as the industry standard for charging our personal devices in 2009?

 

[trevtremaine]

Should we have adopted the Blackberry power cord as the industry standard for charging our personal devices in 2009?

Probably, given the number of times those wonderful $25 Apple lightning cords break.

 

[atebit]

Yeah, maybe read that a little closer. Tesla's connector is still a proprietary design and they are the only ones who control the technical details of the design. They can change it at will, and they can impose license fees on anyone who wants to use it, or even deny use of it to certain parties. They also retain all trademarks and copyrights, so no-one can advertise their vehicle as "Tesla compatible" without Tesla's permission. Etc.

I did reread it, and I don’t see charging technology being explicitly excluded. Tesla hasn’t gone after companies like Tesla Tap and others that are clearly using their form factor, signaling schemes, pin outs, etc. to make TLS02 to J1772 adapters, for instance. In fact, David actually links to the “All Our Patents” post on the TeslaTap site.

 

[sirozha]

Again, that's not how standards work. What standards organizations does Tesla belong to, and have they submitted their plug as a draft standard? That would require relinquishing some of their rights to the connector and to the future development of the standard, and allow other companies to contribute - Tesla would potentially have to change their own plug as a result of this standards process.

This is most certainly NOT a case of a federal government dictating a standard and excluding Tesla, and is NOT the result of some grand conspiracy against Musk. The current standard was developed and adopted by a large fraction of the industry and won its dominant place in the market against proprietary connectors like Tesla's and against other less-popular standards like CHAdeMO

Seriously? Who implied conspiracy? Yes,Tesla tried to submit it as a standard. And yes, it’s an open technology that any company can use. Tesla doesn’t charge for it as far as I know.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

http://imgur.com/KKjYdhL

 

[lefkonj]

In Europe I believe they have standardized on the CCS, even forcing Tesla to have it in the model 3. With VW/BMW/MB/Ford/Hyundai/Kia/etc all standing on CCS it is more likely Tesla switches but the us Government won't create the standard since the industry seems to already have accepted it.

 

[sciencegeek]

Standards development is usually industry-driven, by consensus (or at least majority). It's not a top-down thing from government.

 

[SANZCO2]

Standards development is usually industry-driven, by consensus (or at least majority). It's not a top-down thing from government.

In this country but many EU countries mandate EVs use the CCS connector to be sold there.

 

[O. horridus]

Seriously? Who implied conspiracy?

When you portrayed Musk (not Tesla) as bringing superior technology to the table and trying to give it away, but "fighting" against "two federal governments" and losing for "no reason", with no details about what this competition was (a government solicitation for a public charging infrastructure?):

However, there are two federal governments you have to fight, and I'm sure that Musk had already fought them all the way by now, and it was not accepted as the standard. There is no reason not to have the Tesla plug as a standard plug in North America ...

If you didn't mean that this was a personal rejection of Musk by multiple governments in collusion, then I'm not sure what you were implying. It sure sounds to me like you're saying that "the system" didn't want Musk to succeed and that he was rejected for no good reason. Sounds almost the same as the "deep state" to me ...

But again, the federal government does not define the standard. And Tesla's plug isn't a standard - it's proprietary.

Yes,Tesla tried to submit it as a standard. And yes, it’s an open technology that any company can use. Tesla doesn’t charge for it as far as I know.

Citations please. What standards body did Tesla submit their plug to? The design of a plug is only one part of charging - the communication between the charger and the vehicle is another, and Tesla again has its own proprietary communication protocol not shared by any others.

Additional Resources | Tesla

Tesla expects our suppliers to conduct their worldwide operations in responsible manner in adherence of this policy and the principles enumerated herein.

www.tesla.com

Tesla promised not to initiate a lawsuits against people who violate their patents "in good faith". That's a FAR cry from "please take our stuff, unconditionally and free of charge". And we all know that Elon is quite willing to attribute bad faith when he wants to. Twitter. Tesla retains the patents, retains the copyrights, retains the trademarks, and have explicitly NOT said they are granting the rights to these things free of charge to anyone who comes along. One can still "violate" their patents, but if Tesla in their sole judgement decides it's in "good faith" (i.e. in Tesla's interest) then they will not "initiate" a lawsuit. Bad faith in this situation could include not paying what Tesla considers to be a fair licensing fee.

I object to Tesla's co-opting the term Open Source for their policy, but since they are making the comparison remember that Open Source is "free as in speech, NOT as in beer". It is perfectly legal and within the Open Source license to charge for and earn money from Open Source software.