you hate the company or the product? How does someone hate a company the open sourced all of their patents which resulted in creating a ton of competition in a previously dominated market?

I'm a fan of Tesla's patent strategy. However, calling it "open source" isn't strictly correct. Patents are only free to use as long as you also give Tesla rights to all your patents.

That seems completely sane and fair

I agree it’s fair, but I don’t think it’s “open-source”. Open source means “free”; requiring me to give you something in return is transactional.

copy-left is referred to as open source and some even claim it's _more_ open source, but thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of the that detail.

edit: oh it's not copyleft, but specifically quid pro quo so tesla gives you their patents if you give them yours

Yes, it seems we need some kind of designation like copyleft for the context of patents or maybe already exists one.

Quid pro quo is well adjusted for the context.

A copy left style arrangement would require you to not enforce your patents against anyone who signs and upholds the agreement, not just with Tesla. If that was the case, I probably wouldn't have quibbled with the term "open source" being applied.

Some people don't ignore the fraud, the terrible working conditions, the anti-competitive business practices, the unfulfilled promises, the stock price manipulation, and the cult of personality of a highly controversial leader just because of a marketing stunt from more than a decade ago which even Elon admits was not altruistic.

> is not capable of it?

> They issued a 127 page

I am sure they wrote a lot of words. But it kinda seems like they were wrong given the evidence.

Solar city shut down. The evidence shows that it was a poor acquisition.

So this is "I didn't read it at all, but i'm sure it's wrong because it conflicts with my personal view" then?

Quite the opposite. You were the one who brought up how many words they wrote, when we can just look at the glaringly obviously results which were there solar city failed.

I can just point to that huge failure that we can see right now.

? You still haven't pointed out a single thing the judge got wrong, and literally just relied on a bare assertion of your feelings about how it went later, which is, of course, almost totally irrelevant to whether it was fair at the time of purchase

Companies eventually failing does not mean they were bad deals at the time (or even a bad deal later). Not everything succeeds. The question is not "did anyone successfully predict the future" or even "was it a good thing to buy" but instead "was it a fair price and a fair deal at the time they bought it". So i have no idea why you keep bringing up what happened later as it it's relevant at all, and won't tell anyone why you think it's relevant to the past.

Given you refuse to read and cite a single thing that the judge actually got wrong and keep citing the end of solar city as if this somehow changes the past about whether it was fair deal for a fair price at the time, it's hard to believe you are really doing this in good faith, so i'm out.

(FWIW - i was the first solarcity customer in maryland, and given my experience i certainly have no love for them, but you aren't presenting any coherent argument here)