Martin Eberhard sues Elon Musk and Tesla Motors - Page 6

AnOutsider · 06-12-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vfx

He is allowing her to misrepresent him. Lack of action on his part is tacit agreement. It's his job to make sure she has the facts right. It's her job to make it smooth.

Adj. 1. tacit - implied by or inferred from actions or statements; "gave silent consent"; "a tacit agreement"; "the understood provisos of a custody agreement"
understood, silent
implicit, inexplicit - implied though not directly expressed; inherent in the nature of something; "an implicit agreement not to raise the subject"; "there was implicit criticism in his voice"; "anger was implicit in the argument"; "the oak is implicit in the acorn"

Again, he would have interrupted if she said the car goes up to 40 miles on a charge.

Pick your battles.. some things are worth contesting, others aren't. Kinda like this back and forth

vfx · 06-12-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnOutsider

Pick your battles.. some things are worth contesting, others aren't. Kinda like this back and forth

I'm tilting at Wind Turbines?

bobw · 06-12-2009, 01:04 PM

I don't know what went on at Tesla Motors or what is going on now.

I really don't see an upside in this for Martin.

Yes, perhaps he gets to tell his story. He could probably write a book to do that. It could be "as told to", or "with...". As long as he could document what he says, let Elon sue him. After the book comes out, he could go on the interviews.

Could that be it? Might all the evidence for who did what to whom be proprietary Tesla documents and eMail that Martin can't get now?

The biggest downside to a lawsuit can be summed up in two words:

Billable hours.

rolosrevenge · 06-12-2009, 01:34 PM

I think this is all about publicity. Think about it, isn't Martin writing a book about the Tesla founding? He alluded to it. If the book is ready, how do you get the cheapest advert? Pay a lawyer the 4 hours to put this law suit together and then make it public. The media jumps all over it, and then when he releases his book, they jump over that as part of the drama. Smooth strategy if you ask me.

johnr · 06-12-2009, 02:14 PM

This is interesting reading, seeing everyone's perspectives on the lawsuit. I have nothing extra to offer here, but I want to express my appreciation especially to Arnold Panz for the legal insights. Your analysis clears up a lot of my questions - thank you! I'm glad we have lawyers here on the forum

xcelero.ii · 06-12-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnr

This is interesting reading, seeing everyone's perspectives on the lawsuit. I have nothing extra to offer here, but I want to express my appreciation especially to Arnold Panz for the legal insights. Your analysis clears up a lot of my questions - thank you! I'm glad we have lawyers here on the forum

Agreed!

Brent · 06-12-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnold Panz

1. EM made knowingly false statements about ME
2. Those false statements (that EM was "a" or "the" founder of Tesla, which means by implication that ME was not) cause damage to ME.
3. Those damages to ME are quantifiable in some manner.

If we assume EM said, outright, "I founded TM," does that say something defamatory about ME? The statement doesn't mention ME at all, except by implication, and may well be true in some legal sense.

(I could go around muttering that I founded TM, too -- an outright lie -- but I doubt ME would have much of a case against me.)

I wonder if ME would have a stronger case if he could find an EM statement like, "ME did not found TM." That statement would be more clearly directed at ME, and more demonstrably false.

I think ME's more interesting defamation arguments revolve around EM's statements that ME was responsible for production delays and misrepresented the car's cost.

Arnold Panz · 06-12-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnr

This is interesting reading, seeing everyone's perspectives on the lawsuit. I have nothing extra to offer here, but I want to express my appreciation especially to Arnold Panz for the legal insights. Your analysis clears up a lot of my questions - thank you! I'm glad we have lawyers here on the forum

You're welcome! It's one of the rare occasions that I can add useful insight on this site, and one of the very rare occasions that it isn't a liability in a conversation to be a lawyer!

vfx · 06-13-2009, 11:41 AM

Other more subtle ways Elon takes credit are his answers in interviews when asked about things that were decided before he arrived. (from memory) Q: Why the name Tesla? A: Well I suppose we could have called it Marconi. Q: Why a sports car? Well we thought a sports car would be a better way to go.

Subtle yes but making it sound like he was there when these decisions were made is misleading.

NUAETIUS · 06-13-2009, 12:51 PM

I feel bad for Eberhand, he started the company, and the Electric Lotus was his. But in the end the one that pays the bills is the one that get's to set the rules. Without Mr. Musk having put up his personal fortune, and time, Telsa would be just another low run electric conversion company like Advanced Mechanical Products with it's Saturn Sky.

-Eberhand Tesla would not have got the Electric Smart contract
-Diamler would not have purchased a 10% stake in Eberhand Tesla.
-Eberhand Tesla would not have just delivered it's 500th vehicle this month
-Eberhand Telsa would not be this close to a DOE loan
-Eberhand Tesla would not have had the Model S designed by Franz von Holzhausen

Martin Eberhand = Tim Paterson (programmer of DOS)
Elon Musk = Bill Gates (Gates got the IBM contract that Peterson would have never got)