Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)qqpublished in(发表于) 2014/6/22 9:37:07 Apple learn from Tesla，
Apple-learn Tesla Tesla, Tesla electric car, Apple-IT news Apple learn from Tesla
Summary: If a company is totally dependent on patents, it means that it's no longer innovative, innovation is the best protection for the company.
Every once in a while, are born, a company that has changed the world. Google is a, which makes the Internet a more populist, the benefit of the billions of users. Facebook, too, it has helped hundreds of millions of users connected. There is Apple, and it set the tone for today's mobile devices.
But it is a pity, Apple is not Tesla. This from "iron man," Yilong·masike (Elon Musk) electric car manufacturer founded by not only good at innovation, and is willing to share innovations.
Open innovation concepts
Until last week, Tesla is also working with Apple quite similar. It not only patent, and tightly controlled by patents, even proud to hang these patents in the headquarters of the paluoaoertuo wall. But on Thursday, Tesla made a surprise move: it was open all his patents. What are the reasons? As the musk at Tesla's official blog said that more important than blocking patents patents:
"We founded Tesla Motors is designed to accelerate the development of sustainable transport. If we are to develop attractive electric car blaze a path, but full of intellectual property behind us mines, prevent other enterprises, it would be contrary to our original intention. Tesla is not going to any good faith using our technology companies launched patent litigation. ”
But musk that is not selfless dedication, he wouldn't sacrifice its own interests at the expense of other enterprises to promote innovation:
"But in the Tesla, we are forced to apply for a patent, because of fears that the big auto makers copied our technology, then use their huge production, sales and marketing ability to defeat the Tesla. This idea wrong very wrong. Opposite: electric vehicle project (or any not with hydrocarbon as fuel for cars) are very small in scale in the large auto makers, some even without the development of such business, Cosco auto sales in their less than 1%. ”
"Our real competitors are not major manufacturers that a small group of other brands of electric cars, but global car factory large fuel line of cars a day. ”
In other words, the competitors were catching up. They have done little to Board. If the Tesla to really grow up, you need to create a dynamic and competitive markets, in order to further develop and sell more electric vehicles. If a customer purchased a low end electric vehicles from other manufacturers, later upgraded into high-end models can increase the probability of Tesla. Therefore, as Mr MASKEY said, a standard uniform, the rapid development of technological platforms will benefit the whole market.
When it comes to Tesla could lose its edge problem, Mr MASKEY said: "the availability of technological leadership, cannot be patented, but whether a company will be able to attract and encourage the world's most talented engineers. In view of this, we believe, in our patent applications in the open source philosophy does not weaken the position of Tesla, it can enhance our capabilities. ”
This is a sensible strategy, and very worthy of Apple.
Mobile patent Marsh
Mobile computing has become a swamp filled with claims and counter-claims. Because of the huge economic interests involved, so Apple, Google and Microsoft all seem to want to use intellectual property rights to protect their market share.
As the most aggressive prosecutors, Apple has since January 2008 to the United States Patent and Trademark Office complained about 350 times. Being the soul of Apple's Steve Jobs (Steve Jobs) once accused Google's Android operating system has committed a serious crime of theft, and has threatened to attack on Google "thermonuclear".
He kept his promise. While before Apple and Google-owned Motorola has reached a settlement in March of this year, canceling the submitted patent lawsuits against each other. Wasted years of time, after all, with Apple and other competitors are still playing up to my ears in similar issues.
Since the first iPhone was released, there have been varying screen sizes of products on the market, and increasing storage space, chips faster and faster, more and more high resolution. All this brings more profits. However, compared with the first generation of the iPhone's touch screen, the real innovation on par with only a few. 2013 in fact has reported that Apple's Board of Directors concerned about the pace of innovation will slow down.
The view was expressed that, due to Apple's existing products have been able to bring huge profits, so it need not continue to launch new products. That profit comes from Apple to some extent constructed using patent steel Teka. For a huge capital for companies like Apple, I am afraid that no one would call it a failure.
Innovation is the best protection
However, we should not praise Apple's patent policy. As Mr MASKEY said last week: "If a company is totally dependent on patents, it means that it's no longer the innovation or innovation speed has been reduced. You definitely want to be able to innovate fast enough, let you apply for patents before irrelevant. ”
Tesla is doing. Apple can do it too. Apple can always use excellent and fascinating products triggered cheers. Just think, if Apple was able to force its own and the industry focused on new technology, rather than simply to liquidate past achievements, we may see more innovation. If Apple can open like Tesla's own innovation, role in promoting the mobile industry as a whole must be large, and its own financial resources still will be continuously expanded.
Decision to open Tesla patents and open source software models are similar. A few years ago, Red Hat CEO jimu·huaitehesite (Jim Whitehurst) has pointed out that open source business models will be tied together the interests of users and manufacturers, forcing vendors "no innovation will die." In the open source world, occurs only when manufacturers continue to improve software, they will need to pay a subscription fee. In other words, only when the manufacturer can deliver real value, they have to pay.
This may be somewhat difficult to accept for Apple. But given its innovative culture, Apple should embrace this model.
赞