Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#91

Post by jacquesm » Thu, May 03, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #88

atonse wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still shouldn't be patentable. I understand if you're trying to prevent counterfeit. But Tesla trucks aren't trying to pass off as Nikola trucks or whatever vaporware that company has. Pure patent troll rubbish.

The fact that Samsung phones were not trying to pass themselves off as Apple phones didn't protect them from being successfully sued over Apple design patents, so I'm not sure why the same thing would protect Tesla from Nikola.

They're both American companies this time around. If Apple had been Korean and Samsung American I would not have bet on the same outcome.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#92

Post by jacquesm » Thu, May 03, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #87

NeutronStar wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even look the same, it's square and goes up to floor level for Tesla, Nikola's is round and doesn't go all the way down. And they barely patented it like a week ago. This is pure trolling.

> And they barely patented it like a week ago. The patent applications were filed on Dec. 30, 2015. Patent applications aren't granted overnight.

For all the review they get they might as well be. I rarely see a patent where I think 'wow, that was deserved'. And when I do they are almost always on some deep technical subject that took a long time to research, validate and implement.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#93

Post by JustSomeNobody » Thu, May 03, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #40

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are design patents. They can't be bogus if they are sufficiently original. The Tesla design looks pretty damn similar to the Nikola.

Aerodynamics are aerodynamics, I'd argue it's an attempt to patent part of well-known physics. Likewise, Tesla already has full windshield design in their other vehicles, and it's logical they'd extend that to other vehicles in their fleet of offerings. On a side note, I don't know what patents Nikola has. They obviously don't have the brand recognition of Tesla and Elon Musk, and so they're clearly scared. I feel fo…

> Aerodynamics are aerodynamics

How is this at all true? So you're saying to reach,say, a certain coefficient of drag, there's only one design?

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#94

Post by DannyBee » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

LukeShu wrote: post #64

DannyBee wrote: post #42

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.

Am I correct in thinking that since a design patent protects ornamental design, then if a design is necessary for functional reasons, the design patent doesn't protect it? That you couldn't design patent a wheel looking like a circle, because that is a necessary part of its utility? Because the filed complaint itself seems to admit that the protected fuselage shape is necessary to achieve the ~0.37 drag coefficient t…

That is correct, it does not protect functional portions, but it's fairly nuanced.

https://www.wintechblog.com/2016/04/functional-features-in-d... is some recent caselaw on this

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#95

Post by jacquesm » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

TFortunato wrote: post #73

jacquesm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>"who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this" I mean, apparently some large companies like Anheuser-Busch, (people who actually buy trucks) have heard of them, if they announced they are buying up to 800 of them from Nikola... That said, I do agree that these (and a LOT of design patents) are questionable at best, but I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to the trucking industry.

With 0 risk they could state they will buy 10000 of them and it would be worth just as much. You can go on their website and reserve 100 of them with absolutely no commitment on your end. And it's anybody's guess what will happen three years down the line (which is when they say they will start delivering vehicles, small detail, they still need to build a factory, but they did have a functional prototype).

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#96

Post by loceng » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #72

loceng wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aerodynamics are aerodynamics, I'd argue it's an attempt to patent part of well-known physics. Likewise, Tesla already has full windshield design in their other vehicles, and it's logical they'd extend that to other vehicles in their fleet of offerings. On a side note, I don't know what patents Nikola has. They obviously don't have the brand recognition of Tesla and Elon Musk, and so they're clearly scared. I feel fo…

> Aerodynamics are aerodynamics Boeing has been patenting the design of its aircraft since the late 1920s...

All aircraft have a cone-shaped nose, no? Are all aircraft with similar cone-shaped noses paying royalties to Boeing?

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#97

Post by loceng » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #93

loceng wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aerodynamics are aerodynamics, I'd argue it's an attempt to patent part of well-known physics. Likewise, Tesla already has full windshield design in their other vehicles, and it's logical they'd extend that to other vehicles in their fleet of offerings. On a side note, I don't know what patents Nikola has. They obviously don't have the brand recognition of Tesla and Elon Musk, and so they're clearly scared. I feel fo…

> Aerodynamics are aerodynamics How is this at all true? So you're saying to reach,say, a certain coefficient of drag, there's only one design?

There will be optimal designs based on other design factors that need to be taken into account.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#98

Post by kamaal » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #72

loceng wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aerodynamics are aerodynamics, I'd argue it's an attempt to patent part of well-known physics. Likewise, Tesla already has full windshield design in their other vehicles, and it's logical they'd extend that to other vehicles in their fleet of offerings. On a side note, I don't know what patents Nikola has. They obviously don't have the brand recognition of Tesla and Elon Musk, and so they're clearly scared. I feel fo…

> Aerodynamics are aerodynamics Boeing has been patenting the design of its aircraft since the late 1920s...

I guess the point GP was making about Aerodynamics is that you can't exactly patent the bernoulli's theorem.

If you wish to build an Airplane some things are going to look quite similar to how others build it. The same goes with rockets too. May be F1 cars etc. Things like that.

At some point your design will look as physics wants it.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#99

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 03, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

mlevental wrote: post #31

maccard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they're suing us because the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because the way it looks, or because going to wraparound windshield or whatever. Please." Whether that's true or not, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the lawsuit.

doesn't it? does this kind of thing depend on exactly whether whatever characteristic was copied/stolen is actually responsible for any of the revenue/purchasing?

[deleted]

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#100

Post by Bartweiss » Thu, May 03, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

LukeShu wrote: post #52

Bartweiss wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what the origin of "patent troll" is, but common sources (e.g. Wikipedia) certainly don't say it's limited to non-practicing entities. Patent trolling is an attempt to secure patents for the purposes of making money via lawsuits or licenses far in excess of the patent's actual value, using the threat of legal costs or hefty infringement penalties. This is particularly true when the patented trait is inci…

> Their suit claims 'damages' which are a large fraction of ... They have 6.3 billion revenue worth of pre-orders on the Nikola One. > A quick check of the side door patent ... "is not a non-obvious advance on what exists" It is a design patent, which covers non-functional ornamental design. Think of it as more similar to a trademark than to a regular patent. It doesn't have to be an advance on what exists, it just h…

> They have 6.3 billion revenue worth of pre-orders on the Nikola One.

Yes, and their suit seeks $2 billion in damages - a large fraction of their lifetime revenue.

> It doesn't have to be an advance on what exists, it just has to be aesthetically distinctive.

Good point, my discussion of non-obvious was mistaken, and this probably does justify the wraparound window - it's not the first but it's a distinctive look. I'm still not clear on how the side door patent was granted, since it appears basically identical to designs in production many years ago, but it's not clearly unjustified.