All Our Patent are Belong to You // Tesla Patents 101

Welcome back everyone, I'm Jordan Geesege, and this is The Limiting Factor. After each video I do on a Tesla patent or patent application, I get a number of questions and comments that reveal some fundamental misconceptions about patents in general and Tesla's position on patents. For example, why although Tesla's patents are open source, they still sue companies over intellectual property, or why Tesla has patents even though Elon says patents are for the week. So today I'm going to run you through what I would consider a patents 101 video, but with a focus on Tesla, let's get into it.

欢迎大家回来，我是Jordan Geesege，这是"The Limiting Factor"节目。在每次播放关于特斯拉专利或专利申请的视频后，我都会收到一些问题和评论，这些问题和评论揭示了一些关于专利以及特斯拉在专利方面的基本误解。比如，为什么尽管特斯拉的专利是开源的，他们仍然会起诉公司侵犯知识产权，或者为什么特斯拉有专利，尽管埃隆·马斯克说专利是给弱者用的。所以今天我要带大家了解一下我称之为"专利101"的视频，但重点是特斯拉的专利问题。让我们开始吧。

Before we begin, a special thanks to my Patreon supporters, YouTube members and Twitter subscribers, as well as RebellionAir.com. They specialize in helping investors manage concentrated positions. RebellionAir can help with covered calls, risk management, and creating a money master plan from your financial first principles. To kick things off, what is a patent? A patent gives an inventor what you might call a monopoly on an invention for up to 20 years. During that time period, the inventor has exclusive rights to the invention and all the benefits that emerge from those rights, like the right to advertise, license, and sell the invention.

在我们开始之前，特别感谢我的 Patreon 支持者、YouTube 会员和 Twitter 订阅者，以及 RebellionAir.com。RebellionAir 专注于帮助投资者管理集中头寸。他们可以帮助处理备兑看涨期权、风险管理，并根据你的财务基本原则制定一个资金规划方案。 首先，什么是专利？专利赋予发明者相当于垄断发明的权利，最长可达20年。在这段时间内，发明者拥有该发明的专有权和所有由这些权利衍生的利益，比如广告权、许可权和销售权。

I say it's what you might call a monopoly because there are requirements for and limits on patents, so it's not a monopoly in a strict sense. The requirements are that the invention has to be novel, inventive, and have industrial applicability. Novel means that the invention isn't publicly known. Publicly known can include anything from an article to a product that's on the market to an earlier patent application. Creative means that the invention isn't obvious, and industrial applicability means that the patent application must provide enough information to achieve the results from the invention that the patent application is climbing. If that language seems abstract, you're not wrong.

我说这可以称为一种垄断，但因为专利有一些要求和限制，所以严格来说这并不是垄断。要求是：发明必须是新的、有创造性的，并且具有工业适用性。新的意思是发明在公众中并不为人所知。这包括从一篇文章到市场上已有的产品，再到之前的专利申请。创造性意味着发明不是显而易见的，而工业适用性则意味着专利申请必须提供足够的信息，以实现申请中所宣称的发明成果。如果这些描述听起来有些抽象，你的感觉是对的。

That's why each country has objective criteria to determine whether the requirements are met. However, for the purposes of today's video, we don't need to get that deep into the patenting process. It's enough to know that the patent applications go through well-defined processes to evaluate the invention, and in return gain a patent grant or grants for well-defined rights. That brings us to the social contract of patents and the reasons why they exist. As a society, we've decided that in exchange for sharing details of how the invention works, which are published publicly, the inventor should be granted temporary, exclusive rights.

这就是为什么每个国家都有客观标准来确定是否满足专利申请的要求。不过，在今天的视频里，我们不需要深入了解专利申请的详细过程。只需要知道专利申请会通过明确的流程来评估发明，最终获得专利授权或多项专利授权，这就够了。这引出了专利的社会契约及其存在的原因。作为一个社会，我们决定：为了换取公开分享发明工作原理的详细信息，发明者应该被授予临时的、独占的权利。

Those rights increase the odds that the inventor will profit from their invention, which incentivizes further invention. Meanwhile, the fact that the patents are published publicly also drives further invention. That's because the patents form a public knowledge base that any potential inventor can review to brainstorm ideas for further inventions. Besides the requirements for patenting, I also mentioned that there are limitations on patent rights, like the 20-year life of a patent. Let's take a look at some other limitations.

这些权利增加了发明者从其发明中获利的可能性，从而激励更多的发明。同时，专利的公开发布也促进了进一步的发明。因为专利形成了一个公众可以查阅的知识库，任何潜在的发明者都可以通过这个知识库来集思广益，激发新的发明灵感。除了对专利的要求之外，我还提到专利权也有一些限制，比如专利的有效期是20年。现在让我们来看一些其他的限制。

As I said a moment ago, each country has its own criteria for assessing patents, which is created by an intellectual property office that has jurisdiction in that country. That means by extension, patents are limited by jurisdiction. The Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, does put in place a system for inventors to seek patent protection internationally, but the patents themselves are granted country by country. Therefore, as an example, if a US company has a patent on a product in the US, but not a patent on that product in China, a Chinese company could legally manufacture that product in China.

正如我刚才所说，每个国家都有自己的标准来评估专利，这些标准是由该国家的知识产权办公室制定的。这意味着专利的保护范围是有限于其司法管辖区的。专利合作条约（PCT）确实为发明人提供了一个在国际上寻求专利保护的系统，但专利本身还是需要逐个国家审批。例如，如果一家美国公司在美国拥有某个产品的专利，但在中国没有该产品的专利，那么一家中国公司可以合法地在中国生产该产品。

And patent infringement wouldn't occur unless the Chinese company attempted to import the product into the US. The next limitation is in the scope of the patent. This is often the greatest source of confusion when it comes to patents, and it's why you can often see two different companies using what appears to be the same technology, but there's no patent infringement. For example, suppose two companies want to address the problem of water beating up on camera lenses. One company invents a coating that makes the lens surface hydrophobic or water repellent.

专利侵权不会发生，除非这家中国公司试图将产品进口到美国。下一个限制是专利的范围。这往往是对专利最容易引起混淆的地方，这也是为什么你经常会看到两家不同的公司使用看似相同的技术，但没有专利侵权的原因。例如，假设有两家公司想解决水珠凝结在相机镜头上的问题。一家公司发明了一种涂层，使镜头表面具有疏水性或防水性。

That keeps the lens clear by making the water beat up and roll off. Another company may come up with the idea of making the lens surface hydrophilic, or water loving. That causes the water to form a thin film on the lens that the camera can see through. Each method could be granted a patent for solving the same problem because they solved it in a different manner. That is, with great engineers, a company can often develop a technology that achieves the same end as another technology, but are in fact non-overlapping from a patent standpoint.

它通过让水珠聚集并滚落来保持镜头清洁。另一家公司可能会提出使镜头表面亲水的想法，这样水就会在镜头上形成一层薄膜，摄像头可以透过这层薄膜看到。每种方法都可以获得专利，因为它们以不同的方式解决了相同的问题。也就是说，有了优秀的工程师，一家公司通常可以开发出与另一种技术达到相同目的的技术，但从专利角度来看，它们实际上是没有重叠的。

But of course, what does often happen when two companies are intense competition with each other over a technology is that they may intentionally or unintentionally step on each other's patent rights, and that's where having a strong hand of patents becomes important. If one party has a stronger hand with a certain technology, it has more bargaining power and negotiations. However, bear in mind that even one or a few patents can be enough to stop all competitors from using the technology. Either way, to resolve the issue, patents can be swapped or shared, territories can be established, or licensing fees can be paid. Interestingly, because patents are a kind of legalistic arms race, besides having great engineers, it's also important to have a good patent attorney. That's because the more patents an inventor or company has on worthwhile inventions, and the better the claims are worded, the greater protection and leverage they provide during negotiations.

当然，当两家公司在某项技术上展开激烈竞争时，经常会发生的情况是，它们可能有意或无意地侵犯对方的专利权。而在这种情况下，拥有强大的专利组合变得非常重要。如果一方在某项技术上拥有更强的专利，它在谈判中就会拥有更多的议价能力。然而，请记住，哪怕只有一两项专利，也可能足以阻止所有竞争对手使用这种技术。无论如何，为了解决这一问题，专利可以进行交换或共享，也可以划分使用区域，或支付许可费用。有趣的是，由于专利是一种法律上的“军备竞赛”，所以除了需要出色的工程师外，拥有一个优秀的专利律师也很重要。因为发明者或公司在有价值的发明上拥有的专利越多，且专利权利要求书的措辞越好，它们在谈判中就能获得更大的保护和筹码。

So, to reinforce the point, what all this means is the rights granted by a patent aren't as broad and absolute as many people assume, and it's the biggest misconception that I have to bust in the comments section. When people see another company using the same technology as Tesla, or Tesla using the same technology as another company, they assume foul play, but that's not necessarily the case. There can be more than one methodology or approach to achieve a result that appears the same or similar. Even if there was foul play, odds are that to resolve the issue, it would just be handled quietly out of court with negotiations, mediation, or arbitration, as about 97% of cases are. The rare cases that do go to court are situations where, for example, there's vast sums of money involved, there's obvious and willful infringement, or distrust between the two parties.

所以，强调这一点的意思是，专利授予的权利并不像许多人想象的那样广泛和绝对。这是评论区里我不得不澄清的最大的误解。当人们看到另一家公司使用与特斯拉相同的技术，或者特斯拉使用与另一家公司相同的技术时，他们会认为这是不正当行为，但事实未必如此。实现相同或相似结果的方法或路径可以不止一种。即便真的存在不正当行为，问题的解决往往会通过谈判、调解或仲裁在法庭外悄悄进行，约有97%的案件都是这样处理的。那些罕见的上法庭的情况通常涉及大量金钱，存在明显和故意的侵权行为，或者双方之间存在不信任。

Now that we have an understanding of patents in general, let's take a look at how that plays into Tesla's patent strategy. In June 2014, Elon Musk released a blog post on Tesla's website titled, All Our Patent Are Belong To You, where he made several key points. In the first point of the post, Elon states that Tesla is open sourcing their patents for those who want to use them in good faith. What does Elon mean by using their patents in good faith? Tesla has the answer to that listed on their additional resources page under definition of key terms. I will paraphrase because the language is legalistic. First, Tesla doesn't allow companies that are suing Tesla over intellectual property rights to use their patents. That is, it's a policy of, if you don't sue us, we won't sue you. I imagine this is the reason why a company wouldn't take up Tesla's offer to use their patents. They might not want to submit to Tesla's terms because they'd rather develop their own technology and leave open the option to sue Tesla in the future.

既然我们已经大致了解了专利的概念，那我们来看看这在特斯拉的专利策略中是如何应用的。2014年6月，埃隆·马斯克在特斯拉官网发布了一篇博客，标题为“我们的所有专利都是你的”，其中他提出了几个关键点。在文章的第一点，埃隆表示特斯拉将开放他们的专利，供那些愿意善意使用的人使用。那么，埃隆所说的“善意使用”究竟是什么意思呢？特斯拉在其额外资源页面的关键信息定义中对这一点进行了说明。我将用更通俗易懂的语言解释。首先，特斯拉不允许那些因为知识产权问题起诉特斯拉的公司使用他们的专利。也就是说，这是一种“你不告我，我也不告你”的政策。我猜想这就是为什么有的公司不会接受特斯拉的专利使用提议的原因。他们可能不愿意接受特斯拉的条件，因为他们希望开发自己的技术，并保留下将来起诉特斯拉的可能性。

But as I'll cover later in the video, that won't do them any favors because usually, innovation trumps litigation. The second requirement for acting in good faith is that if a company uses Tesla's patents, they can't just make knockoffs of Tesla's products. That is, other companies are free to use Tesla's patents to solve technology challenges, so long as they add their own element of creativity to differentiate their products from Tesla's products. What these two criteria for acting in good faith mean is that although Tesla's happy to share their inventions, it's a competitive marketplace and they're not a pushover. The question is, why is Tesla offering to share their patents in the first place? To answer that, let's take a look at the second point in the post. Elon states that Tesla's goal is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If they clear the path to the creation of an electric vehicle, but then lay intellectual property landmines that inhibit competition, they're acting in a manner contrary to that goal.

但正如我稍后在视频中会讲到的，这对他们没有任何好处，因为通常情况下，创新比诉讼更有优势。出于诚信经营的第二个要求是，如果一家公司使用了特斯拉的专利，他们不能仅仅复制特斯拉的产品。也就是说，其他公司可以利用特斯拉的专利来解决技术难题，只要他们加入自己的创意元素，使他们的产品与特斯拉的产品有所区分。这两个诚信经营的标准意味着，尽管特斯拉愿意分享他们的发明，但市场是有竞争的，他们也不是轻易被打倒的。那么问题来了，特斯拉为什么一开始就愿意分享他们的专利呢？为了回答这个问题，让我们来看一下帖子中的第二点。埃隆表示，特斯拉的目标是加速可持续交通工具的发展。如果他们清除了制造电动汽车的障碍，却又设置了阻碍竞争的知识产权“地雷”，那就是在违背这个目标。

Furthermore, Tesla was surprised to find that the competition that they originally feared from big auto turned out to be non-existent, and they now had the opposite fear. One of the major automakers in 2014 were seriously pursuing Tesla's lead, and with global vehicle production approaching 100 million vehicles produced per year, Tesla was concerned that they alone couldn't do enough and fast enough to transition the world to sustainable energy. The implication is that by open sourcing their patents, Tesla was hoping to give the competition a leg up to help achieve that goal. Additionally, the post states that Tesla, other companies, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly evolving technology platform. The best example of this is Tesla's North American charging standard, which they open sourced in 2022. Currently, there are multiple charging standards, and certain vehicles can only be charged at certain charging stations. That's resulted in billions of dollars wasted on a worse customer experience.

此外，特斯拉惊讶地发现，他们原本担心的大汽车公司的竞争其实并不存在，他们现在反而有了相反的担忧。2014年，有一家主要汽车制造商正在认真追随特斯拉的脚步，而全球汽车年产量接近1亿辆。特斯拉担心，仅凭他们一己之力，无法足够快地将世界转向可持续能源。其暗示是，通过开放其专利，特斯拉希望能给予竞争对手一些帮助，以实现这个目标。 此外，这篇文章指出，特斯拉、其他公司以及全世界都会从一个共同的、快速发展的技术平台中受益。最好的例子就是特斯拉在2022年开放的北美充电标准。目前，有多种充电标准，某些车辆只能在特定的充电站充电，这导致了数十亿美元的浪费，并带来了较差的用户体验。

Now in the past 12 months, the rest of the auto industry has announced plans to adopt Tesla's charging standard, which will result in greater charger availability for all customers, supercharger installation costs that are 35-75% less, and a much better overall customer experience. The third and final point in the post is that technology leadership is not defined by patents, and the history has repeatedly shown that patents are small protection against a determined competitor. That's because the ability to bring a product to market depends on solving thousands of technical problems, and then more problems to solve to continually improve the product to maintain a competitive edge. So if one company has a patent for a more efficient process or a better device than another company, that doesn't guarantee the company with the better patent wins, because most of the problems that need to be solved don't need a patent or can't be patented, because they don't meet the requirements for patenting. That's why Elon follows up by saying that technology leadership is not defined by patents, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world's most talented engineers.

在过去的12个月里，其它汽车行业的企业宣布计划采用特斯拉的充电标准，这将为所有客户带来更多的充电器可用性、比传统安装费用低35-75%的超级充电站安装成本，并显著提升整体客户体验。帖子中的第三个也是最后一个要点是，技术领导力并不由专利来定义，历史反复证明，专利对于一个有决心的竞争者来说只是微弱的保护。这是因为将产品推向市场的能力依赖于解决成千上万的技术问题，以及在不断改进产品以保持竞争优势的过程中解决更多的问题。因此，即便一家公司拥有比另一家公司更高效的工艺或更好的设备的专利，也不保证拥有更好专利的公司会获胜，因为大多数需要解决的问题不需要专利或不能被专利保护，因为它们不符合专利申请的要求。这就是为什么埃隆·马斯克接着说，技术领导力并不是由专利定义的，而是由一家公司吸引和激励世界上最有才华的工程师的能力来定义的。

And he believes that an open source philosophy strengthens Tesla's ability to do that. How does that work? I'm not sure exactly how Elon thinks about this, but in my view, when a company takes an open source approach, it's a sign that the company has competent leadership that has confidence in its team. The best talent tends to enjoy a creative environment with a free flow of information where competition is viewed as mutually beneficial. It's energizing rather than something to be feared. Regardless of what Elon's exact thinking is here, it's clear that his view is that attracting the best engineers and corporate culture are what matter most for technology leadership, and being open source is part of that. The opposite would be an organization that tries to use patenting and patent litigation as a moat and has an engineering team that's shackled by bureaucracy.

他相信开源理念能够强化特斯拉的这种能力。这是怎么运作的呢? 我不太确定埃隆具体是怎么想的，但在我看来，当一家公司采取开源方法时，这表明公司有能力的领导层，并对其团队充满信心。最优秀的人才往往喜欢一个有创造性、信息自由流动的环境，在这种环境中，竞争被视为互利的动力，而不是令人恐惧的东西。不管埃隆的具体想法是什么，他显然认为吸引最佳工程师和拥有良好的企业文化是技术领导力的关键，而开源正是其中的一部分。与此相反的是，一个试图通过专利和专利诉讼建立护城河，并被官僚主义束缚的工程团队。

As a final note, Elon has made a number of derisive comments about patents, which often leads people to ask the question, why does Tesla pursue patents at all? Or isn't Tesla being hypocritical if they file for patents? The comments that most people frequently cite are, patents are for the weak, they're used like land mines and warfare, and a patent is a ticket to a lawsuit. Let's cover each point. First, Elon says patents are for the weak because in a sense it's true. As we covered a moment ago, having a strong and well-led engineering team that can innovate rapidly is the path to technology leadership. In comparison, patents are more of a defensive move that may encourage a company to rest on its laurels. On that note, second, as for Elon's comment about using patents like land mines, it's true.

最后一点，埃隆对专利发表了许多嘲讽的评论，这常常让人们问，为什么特斯拉还要申请专利？或者，特斯拉申请专利难道不是在自相矛盾吗？大家最常引用他的评论是，专利是给弱者用的，被用来像地雷一样在战争中陷害对手，和专利就是诉讼的许可证。让我们一个个来看这些观点。首先，埃隆说专利是为弱者准备的，从某种意义上说这是真的。正如我们刚才提到的，拥有一支强大且有领导力的工程团队，能够快速创新，才是技术领导地位的途径。相比之下，专利更像是一种防御措施，可能会让公司止步不前。其次，关于埃隆说的专利像地雷一样被使用，这也是事实。

But I don't fault companies for using that strategy. Starting a company or launching a product is brutally hard and you need every advantage you can get. Elon prefers a different approach based on speed of innovation because he's one of the best engineers in the world and attracts the best engineers in the world. But not everyone is Elon. Third, patents can be a ticket to a lawsuit, but that's not always the case. It depends on the technology. Some industries aren't very litigious, but gaining a patent in a newer and highly competitive technology space can be like seizing a piece of land in contested territory. People may want to fight you for it. So how do we square Elon's comments with the fact that Tesla has sought and been granted thousands of patents over the years and is continuously seeking more patent rights? The reality is that Tesla must file for patents because if they don't, other companies are out there using patents like land mines.

但我并不责怪公司采用这种策略。创业或推出产品非常艰难，你需要尽可能多的优势。埃隆更喜欢基于创新速度的方法，因为他是世界上最优秀的工程师之一，并且吸引了最优秀的工程师。但不是每个人都是埃隆。第三，专利可能招来诉讼，但也不总是这样。这取决于技术领域。有些行业诉讼并不多，但在新兴且竞争激烈的技术领域获得专利，就像在争夺的领土上占据一块土地。人们可能会为此与你争斗。那么，如何解释埃隆的言论与特斯拉多年来寻求并获得数千项专利，并且不断寻求更多专利权的事实呢？事实是，特斯拉必须申请专利，因为如果他们不申请，其他公司会把专利当作地雷使用。

That is, despite Elon's criticism of patents, Tesla must pursue patents to ensure Tesla has the rights to use technology that it's invented. That's so that some other company doesn't patent it first and block Tesla from using that invention. To put it another way, it's not hypocritical to criticize the rules of a game that you're forced to play by. With that said, in Elon's typical fashion, he's found a way to make the system work for him. Once Tesla has a patent or patents, they're in a position of strength, and rather than using that position to take a litigious approach or block competition, they're allowing other companies to use their patents as long as it's in good faith.

也就是说，尽管埃隆批评专利制度，特斯拉还是必须申请专利，以确保其发明的技术能被自己使用。这样可以防止其他公司抢先申请专利并阻止特斯拉使用这些发明。换句话说，批评你被强迫参与的游戏规则并不虚伪。在这方面，按照埃隆一贯的风格，他找到了一种方法让这个系统对自己有利。一旦特斯拉拥有了专利，他们就处于有利位置，而不是利用这个位置采取诉讼或阻止竞争，他们允许其他公司在诚信的前提下使用他们的专利。

Strategically that's a win-win because it means Tesla's less likely to get involved in negotiations and court battles over patents and because it gives Tesla more influence over the emerging technology platform for electric vehicles.

从战略上讲，这是一个双赢的局面，因为这意味着特斯拉不太可能卷入专利谈判和诉讼，同时也让特斯拉在电动汽车新兴技术平台上拥有更多影响力。

In summary, the patent system is useful in fostering innovation and protecting intellectual property. But it's not perfect as a competitive moat because it's legalistic and offensive. Elon tends to focus on what could be improved with the system rather than what works, so it's no surprise that most of what he says is critical of the patent system.

总之，专利制度在促进创新和保护知识产权方面是有用的。但它并不完美，作为竞争壁垒有其局限性，因为它涉及法律问题和可能引发争议。埃隆·马斯克更倾向于关注系统中可以改进的地方，而不是运作良好的部分，因此他对专利制度的批评比较多，这并不奇怪。

His approach to building a competitive moat with Tesla and his other companies is to innovate as quickly as possible, to patent what's necessary, and then open source the patents to at a minimum head-off patent turf wars, but more ideally to get everyone using Tesla's technology platform.

他在特斯拉和其他公司建立竞争护城河的方法是尽可能快地进行创新，申请必要的专利，然后将这些专利开放源代码，至少是为了防止专利纠纷，更理想的是让所有人使用特斯拉的技术平台。

As a side benefit, in my view, the open source strategy is also a signal to the best engineers that Tesla's confident in its engineering team, has a company culture that's led by engineering rather than bureaucracy and litigation, and that its mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy is genuine.

在我看来，作为一个额外的好处，开源策略也向顶尖工程师传递了一个信号——特斯拉对自己的工程团队充满信心，公司文化以工程为主导，而不是官僚和诉讼，并且其加速全球向可持续能源过渡的使命是真诚的。

As usual, let me know your view in the comments below. If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting the channel by using the links in the description. Also consider following me on X. I often use X as a testbed for sharing ideas, and X subscribers like my Patreon supporters generally get access to my videos a week early.

像往常一样，请在下方评论区告诉我你的看法。如果你喜欢这个视频，请考虑通过描述中的链接来支持这个频道。也可以关注我在X平台上的账号。我经常在X上分享想法，而且X平台的订阅者和我的Patreon支持者一样，通常可以提前一周观看我的视频。

On that note, a special thanks to Carlos Coyantes, S3399, my YouTube members, X subscribers, and all the other patrons listed in the credits. I appreciate all of your support, and thanks for tuning in.

顺便提一下，特别感谢Carlos Coyantes, S3399, 我的YouTube会员，X平台的订阅者，以及所有在片尾字幕中列出的赞助者。我非常感谢你们的支持，也谢谢大家的关注观看。