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.
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.