Can Tesla Keep Rivian Out

[s4wrxttcs]

There is already no NEVI funding for chargers that don't have a CCS connector... The only way to get NEVI funding for NACS is when it is paired with a CCS connector on the same charger. (Which it has been that way from the start, nothing has changed.)

That is exactly how it currently is, but I think there are those that are trying to change that at the federal level. It would be silly to have federal funding go to an obsolete standard.

My point is that's not going to happen unless NACS is a truly open standard the way CCS is.

Sponsored

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Two things:

1) Elon is not allowing them. It's an agreement between Tesla and F and GM. It makes business sense.

2) Rivian's right to do the same??? What right? Rivian, like F and GM must negotiate terms. Charging is not a right. It's a transaction. None of us have the "right" to charge our EVs anywhere.

To be fair I have a right to charge my EV at my house.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

There are two elements here:

1. Use of the NACS connector
2. Access to the Supercharger network

They have offered the NACS as an open "standard", therefore they could not prevent Rivian from using the connector in their cars and RAN stations.

However, the Supercharger network was developed with a significant capital investment. The GM and Ford deals likely included a capital investment in additional stations. This was a negotiated deal(s). So if Rivian and Tesla were unable to negotiate a deal, they Tesla could legally keep them out of the network that they spent huge sums of money to put into place.

I am not an atty but this is my understanding of it as well.

 

[Craigins]

They have offered the NACS as an open "standard", therefore they could not prevent Rivian from using the connector in their cars and RAN stations.

Read the actual website, not Elon's tweets.

One could argue that Tesla's lawsuit against Rivian means that they do not see Rivian as acting in "Good Faith". Which then means the tesla IP would not be open to Rivian.

 

[COdogman]

There are two elements here:

1. Use of the NACS connector
2. Access to the Supercharger network

They have offered the NACS as an open "standard", therefore they could not prevent Rivian from using the connector in their cars and RAN stations.

However, the Supercharger network was developed with a significant capital investment. The GM and Ford deals likely included a capital investment in additional stations. This was a negotiated deal(s). So if Rivian and Tesla were unable to negotiate a deal, they Tesla could legally keep them out of the network that they spent huge sums of money to put into place.

That is not accurate. Just like calling their plug the “North American standard” when they are the only company using it, calling their patents “open” is a PR stunt. They did this in 2014 and not a single company has been crazy enough to use any of those patents because their “pledge” to not sue is worth less than the paper it’s printed on. No lawyer would recommend their client take advantage of it because it’s an empty pledge.

Patent Pledge
On June 12, 2014, Tesla announced that it will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use its technology. Tesla was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport, and this policy is intended to encourage the advancement of a common, rapidly-evolving platform for electric vehicles, thereby benefiting Tesla, other companies making electric vehicles, and the world. These guidelines provide further detail as to how we are implementing this policy.

Tesla’s Pledge
Tesla irrevocably pledges that it 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. Key terms of the Pledge are explained below.

Definition of Key Terms
"Tesla Patents" means all patents owned now or in the future by Tesla (other than a patent owned jointly with a third party or any patent that Tesla later acquires that comes with an encumbrance that prevents it from being subject to this Pledge). A list of Tesla Patents subject to the Pledge will be maintained at the following URL: https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-list.

A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

• 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;
• challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or
• 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.

https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge

 

[DuoRivians]

That is not accurate. Just like calling their plug the “North American standard” when they are the only company using it, calling their patents “open” is a PR stunt. They did this in 2014 and not a single company has been crazy enough to use any of those patents because their “pledge” to not sue is worth less than the paper it’s printed on. No lawyer would recommend their client take advantage of it because it’s an empty pledge.



https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pledge

And what do you know, the NACS patents are on the list of “good faith” covered patents. Colored me shocked ?

https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-list

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD694188S1/en

 

[COdogman]

And what do you know, the NACS patents are on the list of “good faith” covered patents. Colored me shocked ?

https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-list

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD694188S1/en

Nah, it’ll be fine! Elon is a very trustworthy person who I’m sure many here would want to date their daughters and he never behaves impulsively or irrationally at any time….

 

[SASSquatch]

There are two elements here:

1. Use of the NACS connector
2. Access to the Supercharger network

They have offered the NACS as an open "standard", therefore they could not prevent Rivian from using the connector in their cars and RAN stations.

However, the Supercharger network was developed with a significant capital investment. The GM and Ford deals likely included a capital investment in additional stations. This was a negotiated deal(s). So if Rivian and Tesla were unable to negotiate a deal, they Tesla could legally keep them out of the network that they spent huge sums of money to put into place.

Which is exactly why I don't want Tesla to immediately be handed over a monopoly by adopting only their charging standard.

 

[Sgt Beavis]

If Tesla kept anyone out, they wouldn’t be eligible for Federal Subsidies. Tesla stands to make a fortune be having everyone using NACS.

 

[MP3Mike]

If Tesla kept anyone out, they wouldn’t be eligible for Federal Subsidies. Tesla stands to make a fortune be having everyone using NACS.

You're assuming that Tesla is going to apply for any NEVI funding. I've seen no evidence that they are. (They haven't put their name in the hat for any of the Oregon NEVI funding yet.)

And even if they did, they would only have to open the ones that were funded by NEVI, not the whole network.

 

[dfx]

You're assuming that Tesla is going to apply for any NEVI funding. I've seen no evidence that they are. (They haven't put their name in the hat for any of the Oregon NEVI funding yet.)

And even if they did, they would only have to open the ones that were funded by NEVI, not the whole network.

They did in NY which was their first state I believe.
It's free $ for them for the most oart. They'll take it

 

[MP3Mike]

They did in NY which was their first state I believe.
It's free $ for them for the most oart. They'll take it

• First, you can't get any money for something already built.
• Second, not a single Tesla Supercharger anywhere qualifies for NEVI funding at this time.
• Third, NY hasn't even started taking proposals for NEVI funding.
• Fourth, not a single cent of NEVI funds has been granted to anyone by any state yet. (Ohio looks to be the first state, they are planning on awarding contracts on July 17th, if they aren't delayed again.)

 

[azbill]

They did in NY which was their first state I believe.
It's free $ for them for the most oart. They'll take it

They did not get Nevi funding in NY, those were old installations that added magic dock. Nevi is only for new installations.

 

[dfx]

They did not get Nevi funding in NY, those were old installations that added magic dock. Nevi is only for new installations.

Got it. Thanks

 

[CharonPDX]

CAN they? Sure. They can just have no mechanism for non-approved EVs to start a charge session. Right now, at the overwhelming majority of Superchargers, only Tesla vehicles can charge. There is literally zero mechanism for a non-Tesla vehicle to start a charge session. All Tesla vehicles use a form of "plug and charge." The billing information is held by the vehicle via the Tesla account, and the Supercharger and the vehicle communicate with each other to authenticate and start the session.

For current Tesla Superchargers that do allow third-party vehicles (CCS2 vehicles in Europe at Supercharger stations that allow third-party CCS2 vehicles; and CCS1 vehicles in North America using one of the few Supercharger locations equipped with a "Magic Dock",) Tesla still controls 100% of the process via the Tesla app. Users must start the charge session via the Tesla app for their non-Tesla vehicle.

Moving forward, for Ford and GM (so far) the vehicles will use Tesla's authentication, billing, charge-start method. Either natively for NACS-equipped vehicles, or via the Tesla-designed adapter. The billing will happen via Ford's "Blue Oval" system (which they use for EA Plug-and-Charge now) and GM's similar system.

It is entirely possible that Tesla will *only* allow vehicles to use a "plug and charge" type billing, which would absolutely require the carmaker have the agreement with Tesla.

I assume Tesla will offer an adapter to individuals who own vehicles made by companies without an agreement to charge at them the same way current European and "Magic Dock" North American Superchargers allow - by entering your billing information in the Tesla app and starting the charge that way. Presumably if they do this, they won't have any say any more. If you have an adapter, you can charge. If the vehicle doesn't have plug-and-charge, Tesla has no way of knowing what vehicle it is, they just know it's a vehicle using an adapter.

One big note is that Tesla has *ZERO* say on non-Supercharger locations. If EA or EVgo adopt NACS (presumably they will,) Tesla won't be able to stop THEM from charging a Rivian.

Also, one of the presumed reasons Tesla is doing this is to get federal money for Superchargers. To do that, they can't restrict access.

Sponsored