-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If that were the case, then siry's mentioning of ACP as the beginners of the trend would be inaccurate no? Basically ME's idea is what ACP used for the T-Zero so that would basically make him the grandfather of that idea in that particular situation.
It would also mean that whether they had to redo Martin's work or not, he DID bring the base idea (well, expedite its use), which is commodity Li ion cells
It would also mean that whether they had to redo Martin's work or not, he DID bring the base idea (well, expedite its use), which is commodity Li ion cells
I'm not trying to say "I told you so" (really, I'm not...), but I did mention this in post #164 on this thread...
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/31396-post164.html
I would not necessarily reach that conclusion. If by "trend" you mean "idea", then his statement:
appears to be "technically" true. On the other hand, the following statement:
Omits the history (at least the "version" that is documented) behind incorporating commodity li-ion cells into t-zero prototype.
We are in agreement here. In fact, I would be curious to know how large of a factor this was in EM's decision to fund ME and MT's venture versus starting his own, which seems to be more typical of him.
Last edited:
Indeed you did. I think I glossed over that as a couple of the posts surrounding yours didn't look familiar either.
Probably much, but maybe moreso the fact that ME had the idea and technical know-how too. By his own admission EM was busy with SpaceX and left most of the Tesla day-to-day to ME. I wonder if a proper CEO or CFO had been hired and ME has been left to tinker if things would've gone smoother and EM and ME would still get along today.
It seems a lot of the animosity came about when it was "discovered" that ME had made some mistakes as CEO. Ah if time could be rewound.
siry
Member
Re: the idea for using commodity li-ion cells for the t-zero - I researched that point when I wrote the piece for Wired and ACP sources told me directly that it was their idea and that they had already been experimenting with li-ion commodity cells. They said Martin's investment helped them implement it, but the idea was theirs.
For those who missed the irony here - Siry takes great pains in his article to highlight that titles don't really matter. But, in the same piece he annoints himself as the former "Chief Marketing Officer" of Tesla -- a title that he never held. Siry's last title at Tesla was SVP of Sales, Marketing & Service. Could you provide an explanation of your use of titles, Darryl?
Who cares about titles? You can give yourself whatever title you want. That and $4 will get you a latte at Starbucks.
I don't doubt Darryl Siry having multiple titles. SVP and Chief of whatever is a fairly common dual title to have. The regular VPs are not CTO, CIO, CFO or COO or a C level title. It is common for a C level executive to also be a senior vice president within the corporate structure.
It is common for the CFO to also have a title of SVP of Finance.
It is common for the CIO/CTO to also have a title of Senior Vice President of Technology (or Information or both).
The titles that people use are just marketing for your resume.
Last edited:
AnOutsider,
I don't know if you've had the opportunity to read the whole Fortune Magazine article referenced by Serge ("Tesla's Wild Ride"), but it is certainly worth reading if you have the time.
Tesla's wild ride - Jul. 10, 2008
I don't know if you've had the opportunity to read the whole Fortune Magazine article referenced by Serge ("Tesla's Wild Ride"), but it is certainly worth reading if you have the time.
Tesla's wild ride - Jul. 10, 2008
siry
Member
@rogerred here's my explanation:
"CMO" has 3 letters.
"SVP Global Sales, Marketing and Service" has 33 letters and is very unwieldy.
If CMO were somehow a bigger role than my actual role, you might have something, but its not.
And in any case, I agree with James. Who cares?
"CMO" has 3 letters.
"SVP Global Sales, Marketing and Service" has 33 letters and is very unwieldy.
If CMO were somehow a bigger role than my actual role, you might have something, but its not.
And in any case, I agree with James. Who cares?
Darryl - thanks for the explanation. I think a lot people would not agree that lying about your title is okay because you feel that you performed the duties of a person with such title. Some people may disagree, but most will see it for exactly what it is and what you've admitted it to be - a fraud.
Can we please keep the discussion civil and not resort to throwing around insults.
For what it's worth, I recall at least one use of that title in an article prior to Darryl's departure.
For what it's worth, I recall at least one use of that title in an article prior to Darryl's departure.
As I have been writing code all day and really don't want to read those documents (no matter how many lines they've spaced), I'll wait patiently for a summary 
I haven't read the motions, but Wired seems to have the most comprehensive summary.
Tesla Fires Back In Eberhard Lawsuit | Autopia | Wired.com
A few others:
Tesla Fires Back at Founder, This Time in Court Calling for Dismissal - earth2tech
Suit charges defamation | San Francisco Examiner
Tesla files motion for dismissal of Eberhard lawsuit - AutoblogGreen
Tesla Fires Back In Eberhard Lawsuit | Autopia | Wired.com
A few others:
Tesla Fires Back at Founder, This Time in Court Calling for Dismissal - earth2tech
Suit charges defamation | San Francisco Examiner
Tesla files motion for dismissal of Eberhard lawsuit - AutoblogGreen
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
As I have been writing code all day and really don't want to read those documents (no matter how many lines they've spaced), I'll wait patiently for a summary
That's what I'm here for! :biggrin::tongue:
There's really nothing surprising in the responses from EM and TM. Of the two documents, the first one (the "Demurrer" -- which is a fancy way of saying they're pressuring testing the validity of the Complaint) is arguing a lot of technical points regarding whether ME's claims are for "wages" or not. We should all ignore this -- it's a highly relevant legal question because if any of the money allegedly owed ME are "wages", the amount he could receive is much greater under California law because there are greater penalties for failing to pay a "wage" as opposed to a contractual amount owed (such as severance). (n.b., California law is totally insane on this stuff -- in the employment law field, we call it the "People's Republic of California" because these employment statutes are so difficult for employers to comply with). TM's arguments are fairly strong on these points, although as they note, much of this discussion is "arguendo", meaning that it only comes into play if ME is owed anything at all, which is a threshold question that needs to be addressed before determining any damages.
There are a couple of interesting arguments in the Demurrer -- first, that ME isn't entitled to his severance or stock options because (as he admitted in his Complaint) he disparaged TM and EM in his blog post. His severance agreement had a non-disparagement clause, so therefore he isn't entitled to his remaining severance payments or stock options. As discussed previously, TM and EM are on fairly solid legal ground on this argument, but it's kind of a dick-ish move (technical legal term :wink
over one blog post that was fairly promptly removed upon request. A judge looking to throw a bone to the plaintiff might read into such an agreement a reasonable "cure" provision, meaning that it's not a breach if ME promptly cured the problem by deleting the post (which he apparently did). It will really depend on how hard-ass the judge is and whether s/he will rule on the strict letter of the contract and law, or try to give ME something by ruling for him on this issue. The Demurrer also argues that the drive train was already upgraded, so there's nothing for ME to really claim here, other than sour grapes. That's a pretty solid legal argument.
The anti-SLAPP document is much more interesting -- I had forgotten about California's strong anti-SLAPP law, and this was an excellent use of it by EM and TM's attorneys. Basically, the anti-SLAPP law says you can't file a lawsuit against someone for exercising their free speech rights about something important to the public interest. Without counter-suing, EM has put the pressure back on ME because there are damages against ME if he is found liable for violating the anti-SLAPP law. In order to qualify under the anti-SLAPP law, the statements had to be about something "in the public interest." That's a fairly broadly defined term, and the production of the first EV vehicle of its type and range probably would qualify.
In addition, EM takes the opportunity to "set the record straight" from his perspective by telling a lot of seemingly irrelevant (to the legal case) facts about the founding and buildup of TM and the Roadster, and ME and EM's roles in that. I'm sure it was cathartic for him to make that declaration and get these facts "on the record."
EM's lawyers may have overlooked something on the defamation claim -- they assume that ME is a "public figure", which places a much higher burden on them to prove that EM's statements were defamatory because they then require "malice". They do not provide a fallback argument of "even if ME isn't a public figure, it's still not defamation because ....", which I definitely would have done if I were them. Strategically, that was probably a mistake, because I'm not 100% certain that they can prove that ME was a "public figure" (think of the typical "public figure" being a movie star with a defaming story in the National Enquirer). If I were ME's lawyers, I would immediately pounce on this and say ME is not a traditional "public figure" and a lower standard applies, and because EM didn't address that standard in his response, that claim should survive.
However, EM then makes his strongest legal arguments on why no defamation occurred -- (1) the statements alleged weren't made by EM (which was a glaring weakness in ME's Complaint), and (2) some of the alleged false statements weren't about ME, but about EM (such as when he graduated college). Technically, ME put that in the Complaint to demonstrate EM's propensity for lying, but that's a fairly weak argument to make and was an easy softball for EM to hit in this motion. Finally, (3) EM argues that many of the alleged defamatory statements are opinion and not fact, and/or (4) are not categorically false statements.
All in all, this is a thorough response, and gives EM and TM the decided advantage in the case, with the burden weighing heavily on ME to prove his case. With TM paying the bills (EM didn't even bother getting separate counsel -- Wilson Sonsini is representing both he and TM), I predict it will be a very long, hard slog for ME to pursue and win anything substantial on these claims, and he faces the legitimate possibility of having to pay EM/TM and/or their lawyers as a matter of course in having the Demurrer granted in whole or in part, or through the anti-SLAPP law. I imagine even a small payment would be a giant slap in the face to ME under these circumstances.
Kardax
Member
Thanks for the legal breakdown
Apparently the anti-SLAPP thing was expected, so presumably ME's lawyers have a strong counter-counter-argument prepared.
I wonder how long they can go back and forth like this before something meaningful happens?
-Ryan
Apparently the anti-SLAPP thing was expected, so presumably ME's lawyers have a strong counter-counter-argument prepared.
I wonder how long they can go back and forth like this before something meaningful happens?
-Ryan
johnr
Member
I must have missed something. I thought the main goal of ME's lawsuit was to show that he is entitled to "founder" status, and that EM has harmed his reputation with false statements about his character. So, if this is indeed what happened, how is that an exercise of EM's right to free speech about something in the public interest? How is ME's status relevant to the public interest?
First, it looks like you made a typo here, but I can't quite place it. The statement just doesn't make sense. Maybe you meant to say "not defamatory"?
Secondly, I would agree that ME is not necessarily able to be considered a "public figure". Out of the general population, I doubt anyone knew who he was except for us "EV geeks" and the few in the business.
I wonder if there's a chance for ME to argue that the non-disparagement clause was null and void and a tactic to suppress his right to free speech? Just curious as to his options there.
Similar threads
