Alpha Motors EV

[FutureBoy]

OK, so here is another new EV company. Alpha Motor Corporation (alphamotorinc.com)

I have to say I like the look of the first vehicle called the Alpha ACE. But here is the thing. The reservation page says that the MSRP is currently between $32k and $39k. So..... I could almost get a single motor CT instead? Seems like functionality-wise CT kicks their ass.

So I'm thinking. Tesla is almost too successful. They have taken off and made their vehicles so functional and at such a low price for that functionality that it's really going to be difficult for new EV companies to actually get started. I really have no sympathy for the large automakers that have partnered hard with big oil. But there are a lot of new little EV companies that I would really like to see succeed. If Tesla ends up inadvertently killing off all the little new ones it would really be a sad side effect.

 

[CyberOwl]

It reminds me of Alpha GTVs from the '70s.
I suspect that was the point.
And of course I like the name.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

A wise man once said, "If you're not first, you're last."

 

[ldjessee]

A wise man once said, "If you're not first, you're last."

There are several examples that are counter to that. The company that came later to the market was able to dominate...

 

[TruckElectric]

Original Cybertruck

 

[Luke42]

There are several examples that are counter to that. The company that came later to the market was able to dominate...

"If you're not first, you're last" was referring to bad advice given to Ricky Bobby by his deadbeat father in Talladega Nights:


This kind of "parenting" leaves our lovable protagonist with a number of deep character flaws, several of which are greatly improved by the events of the movie.

Second-mover advantage is definitely a real thing in business. Less so in faux-NASCAR machismo.

It's a funny movie. But it's no substitute for SWOT Analysis.

 

[FullyGrounded]

Elon did nothing to hide what he was doing. Elon has made all of his patents open-source (free to all). Elon has done all he can to level the playing field. Too bad so many people listened to the legacy auto makers and big oil - electric cars will never work. I still hear that nonsense coming from the cheap seats.

What's going to happen, will happen. It's not Elon or Tesla. It's the billions of other people, often too paralyzed to question and seek a worthy answer. To find comfort on their sofa, and begin training their synapses in their brain to gear toward relaxation, making it easier and easier to do... while doing what's best for them, gets further and further away, making it less and less possible to come back to. So, if you can, get up and work. peace

 

[cybrtrk_maybe]

A wise man once said, "If you're not first, you're last."

2nd place is the first loser.

 

[TruckElectric]

Elon has made all of his patents open-source (free to all).

This seems to be an often mistake many people believe.

Tesla patents are not free to all. There is a catch.

 

[FullyGrounded]

This seems to be an often mistake many people believe.

Tesla patents are not free to all. There is a catch.

Elon stated this himself on Third Row Tesla (pretty sure that was is, but I've watched a lot of Elon through the years). I watched him say it, and he said he did it because if not, China and others would hack them all.

 

[TruckElectric]

Elon stated this himself on Third Row Tesla (pretty sure that was is, but I've watched a lot of Elon through the years). I watched him say it, and he said he did it because if not, China and others would hack them all.

I know but there is more to the story.


https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ca6c332f-2cc5-401b-b80d-36473d0754c7

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


In 2014, Elon Musk announced that he was “open-sourcing” Tesla’s patents. He argued that doing so would allow the electric vehicle market to grow more rapidly. While Musk’s original announcement was short on details, the company has since provided additional information regarding the use of Tesla’s patents in its Patent Pledge. Echoing language from Musk’s announcement, the Patent Pledge states that Tesla “will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith.”

The Patent Pledge provides a potential path for companies to use the technology covered by Tesla’s patent portfolio. Tesla is the assignee of over 350 U.S. utility and design patents covering a broad range of technology, from thermal management systems to door handles. 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.

The second restriction limits a company’s ability to challenge the validity of a Tesla patent. This is similar to language found in many intellectual property license agreements. However, there are a few things to note. First, this restriction applies to any Tesla patent, not only the one that the company is using. Second, the Pledge requires that the company not have any financial stake in a challenge to a Tesla patent. The term “financial stake” could be quite far reaching. For example, Tesla could argue that a supplier has a financial stake in its customer’s challenge of a Tesla patent.

Finally, the third restriction withholds the protection of the Pledge from those who market or sell a “knock-off” or provide material assistance to another party doing so. The Pledge does not provide a definition of “knock-off product,” but it does provide one example: “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.” Hence, a company using Tesla’s patented technology must be careful in its product design to ensure that Tesla cannot assert that it is selling a knock-off.

Tesla’s Patent Pledge presents companies in the electric vehicle field with a tremendous opportunity, but one that also carries some substantial risk. Agreeing to abide by the Pledge could significantly curtail a company’s ability to protect, defend, and assert its own intellectual property. A company should weigh these implications against the benefits of using the technology before deciding to take advantage of Tesla’s offer. If the company does decide to use Tesla’s technology, it should put processes in place to ensure that it does not violate the conditions of the Pledge and, as a result, lose the protections that it provides.

 

[android04]

I like the Alpha Ace and it would be a perfect commuter vehicle for me. I'm wondering if it's stainless steel, or just silver paint. It's the possibility of stainless steel that I'm enamored with.

Edit: just saw from their press release that the silver is just paint ?

 

[FullyGrounded]

I know but there is more to the story.


https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ca6c332f-2cc5-401b-b80d-36473d0754c7

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


In 2014, Elon Musk announced that he was “open-sourcing” Tesla’s patents. He argued that doing so would allow the electric vehicle market to grow more rapidly. While Musk’s original announcement was short on details, the company has since provided additional information regarding the use of Tesla’s patents in its Patent Pledge. Echoing language from Musk’s announcement, the Patent Pledge states that Tesla “will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith.”

The Patent Pledge provides a potential path for companies to use the technology covered by Tesla’s patent portfolio. Tesla is the assignee of over 350 U.S. utility and design patents covering a broad range of technology, from thermal management systems to door handles. 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.

The second restriction limits a company’s ability to challenge the validity of a Tesla patent. This is similar to language found in many intellectual property license agreements. However, there are a few things to note. First, this restriction applies to any Tesla patent, not only the one that the company is using. Second, the Pledge requires that the company not have any financial stake in a challenge to a Tesla patent. The term “financial stake” could be quite far reaching. For example, Tesla could argue that a supplier has a financial stake in its customer’s challenge of a Tesla patent.

Finally, the third restriction withholds the protection of the Pledge from those who market or sell a “knock-off” or provide material assistance to another party doing so. The Pledge does not provide a definition of “knock-off product,” but it does provide one example: “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.” Hence, a company using Tesla’s patented technology must be careful in its product design to ensure that Tesla cannot assert that it is selling a knock-off.

Tesla’s Patent Pledge presents companies in the electric vehicle field with a tremendous opportunity, but one that also carries some substantial risk. Agreeing to abide by the Pledge could significantly curtail a company’s ability to protect, defend, and assert its own intellectual property. A company should weigh these implications against the benefits of using the technology before deciding to take advantage of Tesla’s offer. If the company does decide to use Tesla’s technology, it should put processes in place to ensure that it does not violate the conditions of the Pledge and, as a result, lose the protections that it provides.

I don't doubt this, but I also know that Elon himself stated what I said. I will not go through all the videos to find exactly where, but Elon is known for stating and restating things and positions, and the concepts being a bit more developed each time. He is not fixed in place, he is often moving and adjusting. Yes, likely his legal team likely got in on this one, but his legal team was nowhere to be found when he made the statement about removing the ability of China and other countries to hack his patents. I'm not saying you're wrong; but I'm saying there is other information, not that alters this, but that Elon stated himself. peace