61–70 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume they’re going to settle for $0, as Tesla will litigate until Nikola exhausts their runway.
> as Tesla will litigate until Nikola exhausts their runway. Because Tesla has all kinds of money to burn on lawsuits?
How is this a patent troll? Nikola isn’t a non-practicing entity. They have their own competing product. Was the Apple-Samsung patent litigation “patent trolling?”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not Yes it does, the key characteristic of patent "trolling" is that the patent owner is not practicing. I had heard of Nikola before this, because they have been featured on this site, and in other news outlets catering to EV-enthusiasts. Many patents seem to me to be dumb, or for completely non-novel, obvious things ("one click ordering", etc), but the patent o…
I assume they’re going to settle for $0, as Tesla will litigate until Nikola exhausts their runway.
Just to note: These are design patents, not utility patents. They protect look and feel. IE you'd only infringe by having a windshield that looks the same, not a windshield that does the same thing or operates the same way, but looked different than the protectable parts.
Because the filed complaint itself seems to admit that the protected fuselage shape is necessary to achieve the ~0.37 drag coefficient that both vehicles have, which it also admits is necessary to attain appropriate range on EVs of this class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. That is at best a question of damages, not infringement.
I think, for most people, the damages are all that matter. Whether you are theoretically infringing on something is not what you lose sleep at night over. It's whether you're going to be sued and lose a lot of money.
They certainly aren't all that matters legally, because damage awards aren't the obly remedy in patent cases, injunctive relief is available.
> It's whether you're going to be sued
While damages effect the risk that you will be sued, Tesla is in fact being sued here.
> and lose a lot of money.
Sure, but damages aren't the only costly outcome. In this case, an injunction that forces a non-infringing redesign would be expensive for Tesla even before considering any damage award.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How the side door is patentable is beyond me. Apparently trucks have never had side doors before. The others just look generically futuristic & maybe aerodynamic versions of a current semi.
All 3 are design patents, which are patents on non-functional ornamental design of functional items. They aren't patenting side doors, they are patenting the way the side doors look.
Pure patent troll rubbish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I thought, but towards the end of the article, the author explains himself. With supporting research which I appreciated: > But now I cannot get behind them at all after such a clear case of patent trolling. > [...] > A wrap windshield on a truck? That has been around for years before Nikola Motors or Tesla Semi: > [picture of MAN truck with similar design] > Those types of concepts, like a mid-entry door…
These are design patents, not utility patents. It's not a patent on all wrapped windshields, it's a patent on windshields that look like nikola's. The fact that someone somewhere made wrapped windshields once is irrelevant here (but would not be in utility patents) To use a slightly crappy analogy, it's like patenting your ui, not your algorithm.
To use a less crappy analogy, it's like the patents on smartphone case shape and layout that were at issue in Apple-Samsung.
How is this a patent troll? Nikola isn’t a non-practicing entity. They have their own competing product. Was the Apple-Samsung patent litigation “patent trolling?”
It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not: they are still clearly using their patents in a trolling fashion. After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this, (2) these patents are too dumb for words, (3) good luck showing $2B in damages and (if any) and (4) if you really believe that Nikola is now associated with Tesla because of battery fires then you're silly. These people are patent trolls…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this Previous discussion of Nikola on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11683508 I think most people who follow electric vehicles at all seriously have heard of them.
Sure, but that's a very small group of people. If you had taken a straw poll of 10 truckers three weeks ago I highly doubt any of them would have been able to name them.
How is this a patent troll? Nikola isn’t a non-practicing entity. They have their own competing product. Was the Apple-Samsung patent litigation “patent trolling?”
It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not: they are still clearly using their patents in a trolling fashion. After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this, (2) these patents are too dumb for words, (3) good luck showing $2B in damages and (if any) and (4) if you really believe that Nikola is now associated with Tesla because of battery fires then you're silly. These people are patent trolls…
Wait, what? "Screw you small company, -we've- never heard of you, so why should you be able to defend your patents?"