Arnold Panz

That about sums up EM's defense of the underlying claim that ME, not EM, was the true "founder" of Tesla.

Arnold Panz

True, although his pitch to them would basically be, "Guys, I'm going to have to produce these e-mails anyway as part of my defense of the lawsuit, so better to reproduce them in this manner so they are taken in the proper context instead of being filed with a bunch of other documents in court with no explanation for the general public."

I tell clients all the time that for every e-mail you write in the work context, you should consider how it is will look on a giant screen in front of the subject(s) of your e-mail, the press, a judge, and/or a jury of your peers. Even though e-mail feels like a conversation, I tell clients that the "Delete" button is short for "saved forever on a server or hard drive somewhere". These e-mails will become part of the record anyway, so EM's use of them for this post isn't inappropriate, although I do hope that he gave them the courtesy of letting them know he was publishing this post.

AnOutsider

That was my thought as well. It would easily turn into a bunch of side-taking and drama. Why have that on the company site?

Haha, I know right!

Someone mentioned previously that a package or benefits recently ran out for ME? If so, that could also be a motivator.

Of course it did. For the right or wrong reasons (either ego or the fact that his baby's rep is being tarnished) I fully expected it. I was surprised he hadn't had an outburst in the press already.

Arnold Panz

Yes, TM was apparently paying for his COBRA, which is the extension of his company health insurance, for a period of time after his termination of employment (COBRA allows you to continue on your company's health plan for 18 months (or 24 in some limited circumstances), although employees generally have to foot the whole bill unless agreed to otherwise with the Company).

I agree that this was probably the motivating factor, along with pent-up frustration by ME at the additional positive publicity he was receiving, and allusions to EM as the "founder" of Tesla in the press. But the implications of EM's comment could have a negative impact on a judge's view of ME's case, so it's a smart theory for EM to throw out there even if it isn't ME's true motivation.

James

Broadening the definition of "founder" to include key early contributors like JB is likely a good strategy. Referring to a "founding team" then begins to make the definition of "founder" a bit more confusing.

In the eyes of a jury at trial, this is all going to seem really silly and they are not going to take it seriously. I have been on a jury and I have been a plaintiff. The jury is likely to award about $1 in damages on this issue at best.

To me, the real meat of the case is the damage to Martin's Roadster. That is an established legal issue for cars in accidents. I believe it is "diminished value". When your new car is in an auto accident, even if it is fixed perfectly, the car has diminished value because it is known to have been in an accident. A potential buyer looking at two identical used cars, if the buyer knows that one was in an accidenct and the other was not, the potential buyer will always choose the used car that has never been in an accident. Thus the damaged car has "diminished value". Insurance companies have to pay this all of the time when challenged on the issue. It has been litigated so often and proven so many times that it is now common law.

However, I think that Martin was offered the choice of a new Roadster or accepting his fixed #2/#3 Roadster. If he accepted the fixed one, that might be an issue that affects this "diminished value" claim. Our local lawyer Arnold might have an opinion on that.

I think the real issue of substance in the lawsuit is still the four monthly severance payments and the stock options that were in the severance agreement. That is really the money in dispute here.

All of the issues with who founded the company are just for drama.

__________________
Tesla Roadster Foundry aftermarket accessories

The Roadster Foundry Mobile Connector (RFMC)

Arnold Panz

Cogent analysis, James, which means you've had too much time in the legal system

Yes, diminished value matters for the value of cars, which is why those "car fax" ads are so ubiquitous. However, those cases usually involve cars that are in serious accidents and suffer extensive damage, such that even when repaired, it never functions like an identical car that wasn't in a serious accident. This is why ME made it sound like a catastrophic crash, and EM makes it sound like a minor fender bender (which wouldn't trigger a diminished value claim).

An additional hurdle for ME is that, unlike most cars on the road, it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to determine what the diminishment of value has been for a Roadster, let alone the #2 (or #3) Roadster. There is no set market for the price of regular used Roadsters, let alone Founders' series Roadsters (i.e., what premium they draw), nor can we know how much "less" ME would receive because of the accident than someone with a similar car (Founders series) that didn't (allegedly) have a serious accident. Without a reasonable way to estimate damages, it's a very difficult claim for ME to win on.

The cutoff of ME's severance has always been ME's strongest claim, relatively (grading on a curve). Even though TM has a solid legal case (and that claim is solely against TM, not EM because that is who his employment and severance agreement were with), judges and juries will often bend over backwards to accommodate the "little guy" over the "big bad corporation". From a purely legal perspective, and according to his own Complaint, ME clearly violated the terms of his severance agreement by disparaging TM. Nonetheless, if I were TM's lawyer, I would advise that that claim has some risk, and therefore value to settle, although probably not nearly enough to satisfy ME. The big bucks are with the defamation claim related to the "Founders" issue. The severance and car issues are, relatively, not worth much money and therefore unlikely to drive any settlement.

Lancelac

You are right on, James. I see things the same way. The only viable claim(s) in ME's complaint are the issues specifically related to his employment contract (severance/ownership). The rest of it, correct or not, are not issues of law.

Serge

Thank you .
I agree it is high time to bring this issue to a close. In my mind, reaching an equitable resolution is imperative for Tesla Motors as an entity.

Not taken personally; I just wanted to share what I knew.

Serge

In post-EV1 era the whole idea of building a viable business by commercializing an electric vehicle was as crazy, bold, risky and revolutionary as the technical idea itself. Many stars had to be aligned to bring the idea to fruition. With vision, leadership and plain guts they were.

Kardax

Ouch.

I've followed Tesla since they came out of "stealth mode" way back in June 2006, and I have to say that nothing in the document conflicts with what was publicly known at the time. It actually fills in quite a lot of gaps, for me.

I'm eager to see Martin's reply to this. I'm especially interested in hearing his side regarding the alleged concealment of the numerous problems with getting the roadster to production... it's a very nasty claim that will shape the rest of his career...

-Ryan