40,000 are not enough 'stealing' 1,000 from Tesla

still, they should be free to everyone

 

As public chargers open to EV, they likely qualify for subsidies and grants available for such. That is in general. I don't recall the details, but part of the dieselgate settlement had VW investing so much into alternate fuel infrastructure; mostly chargers but California wanted some for hydrogen. I don't know how that affects VW's eligibility for charger incentives in the US, if at all.

 

Some people are focusing on the word "free" while some are focusing on minutia regarding how the (roughly) $10,000 per car subsidies gets into the Tesla coffers. Some are arguing that Tesla is structured in such a way that NO money from subsidies ever goes into supercharges, as if there is some magic that stops the money from Tesla's coffers from being spent on certain projects if it comes from certain sources.

And lastly there are all the folks who think that they are entitled to be the only ones in line for a space at the charger. Those are the ones who think that the charger spots are being "stolen" from them. My grandad taught me that for something to be fair, you had to be satisfied with the deal even if the terms were reversed. Would it be OK for Germany to ban all Teslas from all other public charging stations?

Let's be realistic. If you are "free to use" a supercharger on a par with other car owners, that means that you pay similar costs for similar services. Not that the service is free.

If there are subsidies, they are to either increase sales, allow higher prices or to reduce costs and you can't separate that from normal income when it comes time to build a charger. It's akin to when you were a kid and not allowed to spend your allowance on candy. All you had to do is spend your lunch money on candy and your allowance on lunch in order to be in compliance.

 

This is precisely how government funding to Planned Parenthood works. Along with funding for specific projects being done by agencies that also have general funding. Such accounting also happens in the commercial sector.

Would it be okay to force all the private gas stations to open to the public?
How about the chargers installed at homes? Some of those got government subsidies.

Why not ban the business model of Costco and Sam's Club? You have to pay a membership fee in order to shop in those stores and get the lower gas price at their pumps. This is literally the same business model the Superchargers work on. It just happens the membership fee is ownership of a Tesla car, which lets the owner get charging rates that are cheaper than the public charger networks.

If forcing Superchargers up to the public is good, then so is opening up any business that has a membership system to the public is good.

 

i don't understand the point.

how can government subsidies require a company or person to offer their product or service to every and anyone, unless it is part of the bill written for the subsidies?

sure germany can ask tesla to let others use it, but they probably can't make them. if they or any country wants to subsidize charging infrastructure available to everyone, they should put it in the bill

 

You are asserting that you are actually buying the supercharger access for $40K to $100K, and getting a free tesla? Even you can't think that is true.

BTW... there is a new Tesla charger installation being installed at the local Lowes. IIRC, it has a handful of fast DC chargers and a couple of level 1 / level 2 chargers. It was not in service 2 months ago when I first noticed it. I wonder if they will be open to the public, or only to Teslas?

 

if tesla built it, it should be only for tesla, unless they choose to open it to others

 

I'm saying Tesla is free to limit who patronize their Superchargers, just like Costco is, as long as it isn't in a discriminating way.

Now, Costco does sell to non-members through their website. They do have to pay an additional charge; something like 10%. If Germany lets Tesla charge non-Tesla cars a higher rate, there shouldn't be any problem with making Superchargers public. After all, Tesla was willing to let makes on if they paid into the network.

If not, it's a problem. Part of the reason to get a Tesla was to get access to lower charge rates through Superchargers. If Supercharger rates have to increase for everyone, then that hurts Tesla. If the rates stay low for everyone, then lines will likely form at Superchargers.

 

Courts have ruled that the impact of restricting sale of a product to only those who can afford a luxury car is discriminating by nature. But let's not go there.

Let's instead look (once more) at the oft quoted "Tesla was willing to let makes on if they paid into the network". While true on the surface, that's ignoring the very large requirement that the other company has to share their proprietary information with Tesla AND agree not to sue Tesla for use of proprietary information. Talk about a loophole! The relevant section of the "generous" public offer has been quoted in other threads, so no need to rehash here.

 

Every time people look into specifics of your claims, they turn out to be false.
You then do some hand waving and deflection and make other questionable claims.
You have hurt your own credibility and I won’t be taking anything you say as true without references.

 

When are all those private country clubs going to close?

Got a copy of these terms?

So when are going to call for the opening of all private gas stations to the public, and the abolishment of member fees to Costco and Sam's Club?

 

Here you go. The pledge itself is at Privacy & Legal | Tesla



And the following is a legal expert's interpretation of the drawbacks and loopholes. It quotes the pledge.

A Closer Look at Tesla’s Open-Source Patent Pledge - Lexology

However, companies considering whether to use Tesla’s patented technology should carefully review several key restrictions found in the Pledge.

As quoted above, Tesla’s agreement not to sue a party for patent infringement extends only “for so long as such party is acting in good faith.” The Pledge goes on to state that a party is acting in good faith as long as they have not:

1. asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;
2. challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or
3. marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.

These conditions could have significant legal and business implications for a company using Tesla’s patented technology.


First, the Pledge states that those acting in good faith will not assert any patent or intellectual property right against Tesla. Note that a company using Tesla’s patented technology is not only giving up the ability to bring an action against Tesla for patent infringement, but any form of intellectual property infringement. This includes trademark and copyright infringement, as well as trade secret misappropriation. Thus, for example, if Tesla copied a company’s source code line-for-line, that company would be required to forfeit the protection provided by the Pledge in order to enforce its rights.


Of potentially even greater consequence, the Pledge states that a company is not acting in good faith if it has asserted “any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment.” Therefore, before using technology from a Tesla patent, a company must determine whether it is willing to agree not to assert its own patents against any company operating in the electric vehicle market anywhere in the world. This may be a trade-off that a company is willing to make, but it is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Among other implications, this decision may have a significant impact on the value that investors place on the company’s IP. If competitors are able to use the patented technology of the company, it may be difficult to establish a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

 

If I was going to allow you to connect to my network of chargers, I'd jolly well want to be sure your technology wouldn't harm my chargers. So I consider cross licensing patents and designs relating to charging as fair play as well as making them a precondition for use by your products. Going beyond that is absurd and deserves what legal sanctions are allowed.

 

The point you are referencing is about Tesla sharing patent information.
It does not address the topic of sharing the supercharger network.
In that offer it is Tesla that may share some patents (but that wouldn't be required).
You continue to distract from the actual topic and refuse to actually address anyone that counters any of your points.

 

In order to use the superchargers, you have to use tesla proprietary designs. Otherwise you can't plug in, you can't handshake. that makes the part I posted quite relevant.

But I'm no longer finding the official offer from tesla to other companies that would allow them to share the charging network after a buy in. Where is that? Can you prove that Tesla is still claiming that it will allow other cars to charge at superchargers? I can't.

 

I guess by this same logic, since the government subsidized about ⅓ of our solar panels - then, they can take their ⅓ of the juice ....... oh wait ..... it's NOT IN THE contractual AGREEMENT !
.

 

I really don’t like ‘ignoring’ users. In general, I feel we learn the most from people that don’t agree with us.
However, there are cases where someone constantly dodges issues, uses fallacious arguments even when pointed out and just won’t logically engage in discussions.
So in this case, yes, I have added my 4th (?) person to my ignore list

 

it usually happens when you're on the losing side of an argument, but refuse to say 'no mas'.

typical internet pattern