Arnold Panz

They'll also get depositions, which will be statements made under oath (i.e., "sworn") that could memorialize whatever it is Martin wants down on the record.

AnOutsider

I know there are a lot of ME fans here, but I don't think anyone here (aside from maybe TEG since he writes for ME's blog) really knows much more than what the media has reported.

What I'm excited about here (and I'm sure TM is excited about as well) is that we finally get some details as to what each party feels really went down. For TM, this is a great way to publicly address all the speculation that has been going on in a PROFESSIONAL and legal manner.

I bet Rachel is in heaven right now.

TEG

I really don't know anything about this.
I sent him a couple of emails saying "your blog has too many replies, can you post this to start a new topic" and that is the extent of it.

xcelero.ii

Wow. This does, however, seem like it would have happen sooner or later. I hope Tesla emerges from this unscathed and all parties reconciled.

Chris H.

Some interesting claims are included in the complaint:

- Musk was never enrolled in a PhD program in physics at Stanford, as he often claims.
- Musk does not have a B.Sc. in physics from the University of Pennsylvania, as he also often claims.
- Musk was granted an undergraduate degree in economics from U of Penn in 1997, not 1995. This change in dates was necessary to fit with his Stanford story. Musk founded Zip2 in 1995, so it looks like he completed his economics degree after starting Zip2.

This info is from pages 18-19 of the complaint.

If this is true, it means that Musk has been deceiving a lot of people for a long time, which speaks to his character.

__________________
Don't forget about the real world...

raymond

Tesla being valued around $500M and Martin holding 3-5% of the stock, I'd say Tesla's interest is Martin's interest. Ruining things for Tesla is not in Martin's best interest. Ousting an imposter (even a rich one) just may be in Martin's and Tesla's best interest.

Time will tell.

Arnold Panz

I just read through the whole Complaint. I don't know the whole history of the animosity between ME and EM (ironic that their initials are mirror images -- like arch enemies in a comic book or something). I am relatively new to this board and to Tesla in general, and only really got interested when I heard the Model S was on its way. So take what I write below as coming from a complete outsider solely analyzing this from a legal practitioner's point of view -- I have no horse in this race and don't know who is the good guy or bad guy in this dispute.

In any case, solely from a legal point of view ME has a pretty weak case based on the Complaint. Obviously, he and EM don't like each other much, but there's nothing unlawful or actionable in saying things like, "Martin Eberhad is the worst person I've ever met or worked with", which EM allegedly said at one point. Most or all of what EM says about ME is opinion, not knowingly false facts, and that is the standard for a defamation claim.

ME's claim about the "Founder" issue is also weak because most or all of his examples are situations where someone else calls EM the "founder" of TM, and he faults EM for failing to correct them. I mean, if it was EM's (or anyone's) responsibility to correct every false bit of information that the media says, he'd never stop issuing corrections! I know of no case where a court would allow a claim of defamation based on statements by others that weren't corrected by the defendant -- that's too high a burden to place on people. And even if ME were right about the Founder issue, his assertion that because EM wanted to be known as a "Founder" at PayPal seems a bit attenuated, especially because they didn't put a specific dollar value on it.

I think ME's strongest argument is on his car. That's a pretty weird story, and I could see a court giving ME some compensation for the fact that EM may have negligently allowed ME's car to get in an accident before it was ever delivered to him. ME, though, will have a very tough time proving that his car is/was worth "millions", as he claims.

The good news and bottom line (from my perspective) is that this isn't going to take down Tesla, although it clearly could be a distraction and diversion. As someone who does this for a living, I tell plaintiffs and defendants that the only people who win in a lawsuit are the lawyers -- I don't know the whole history here, but it's clearly quite acrimonious, and tragic that their relationship devolved to this point. The one thing I am certain of is that neither EM nor ME will be completely satisfied with the result and it's going to waste a lot of everyone's time.

AnOutsider

Exactly... other than that, it'll give the Tesla haters some ammo, the Elon haters some fuel and still manage to accomplish nothing more than possibly stroking EM or ME's egos

Brent

Yes, exactly. I have the same impression as you. From what I remember from law school, libel cases are pretty hard to win, and truth is always a defense. ME won't get far suing EM over his opinions. I guess the one bit where ME might have a better case is the row about the Roadster's costs being misrepresented; he might be able to prove the statement false. But it's still not a slam dunk.

Yes, he has something to go on, but I seem to recall Siry saying that TM offered to provide him with a brand new car, albeit with some delay. ME chose to take the crashed car instead, for whatever reason.

The way I see it, the strongest case is that he didn't get P2, the second car off the line. TM was obligated to provide that, and somehow EM gave the car to a friend instead. I was a little surprised that ME didn't file some sort of injunction the moment he found out about it, although it may be that filing now has the same effect as then.

Picasso

Dosnt his car say Vin 002? And what about the delay because of cust paint?


Autobloggreen seems to have covered this topic good
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05...ion-car-2-not/