Martin Eberhard sues Elon Musk and Tesla Motors

[Arnold Panz]

Wrong.

Musk himself said many times "I started Tesla", "I founded Tesla" etc.
He might have said "I funded Tesla" but got misunderstood. Failing to correct it is now his fault, not Martins. Other repeating it, is Elons fault.

That may be, but ME never cites to any examples of that -- all of his examples are where someone else says it in EM's presence and he doesn't correct them, which clearly isn't actionable under the law.

I forgot to discuss ME's severance claim. Based on what's written in the Complaint, ME is going to have an uphill battle on that issue. He had a pretty clear and strong non-disparagement clause in his severance agreement, and then, according to his own Complaint, went on a website and basically disparaged a bunch of people and TM. The fact that he took the website down is a mitigating factor, but he clearly violated the terms of his severance, so the burden will be on him to prove why he's entitled to it even though he violated the clear terms of his severance agreement.

 

[AnOutsider]

Wrong.

Musk himself said many times "I started Tesla", "I founded Tesla" etc.
He might have said "I funded Tesla" but got misunderstood. Failing to correct it is now his fault, not Martins. Other repeating it, is Elons fault.

How do you figure? If someone puts out an article they have a responsibility to correct every single one of them? Also in some instances it's just not appropriate.

In the Elon Musk thread, someone posted a video with a reporter that got a decent amount of facts wrong, but in situations like that, stopping the reporter to correct their mistakes would really just come off as rude and probably piss them off and ruin the tone of the segment.

 

[Picasso]

hmm

Should we are start writing court tv now to cover this? No fun polls about if this will even hit trial?

 

[WarpedOne]

If someone puts out an article they have a responsibility to correct every single one of them? Also in some instances it's just not appropriate.

It's not the problem that he didn't correct every single one of them. Problem is, hid didn't even try to correct a single one of them a single one time. See the difference?

If you only watch people making mistakes it starts to look like you agree with them.

 

[Arnold Panz]

It's not the problem that he didn't correct every single one of them. Problem is, hid didn't even try to correct a single one of them a single one time. See the difference?

This may make EM look a bit sleazy (which I assume was ME's purpose), but it's not unlawful to be sleazy. There's simply nothing in the law that requires EM to proactively correct someone (particularly the press) in this manner. In order for it to be actionable defamation, EM has to make knowingly untrue statements, which even under the most liberal reading of ME's Complaint, EM didn't do.

For clarification, let me lay out the legal theory that ME is proposing and why he has such an uphill battle. ME needs to prove:

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.

Again, I don't see anywhere in the Complaint, which is ME's best shot at his case, where he alleges EM made false statements, only that he failed to correct others. BUT, even assuming that were true, it's a bit of a stretch to say that EM calling himself the Founder of TM instead of ME causes ME damage in some manner. AND, even if he somehow proves that, he has to show what the cost to him is of being "defamed" in this manner. Even if ME proved points 1 and 2 somehow, he'd likely get $1 in actual damages because it will be impossible to prove what he's lost through the defamatory statements.

As for where this case is going -- it's not going to be that exciting. If I were defending EM (and again, I don't know any facts beyond what I've read in the Complaint), I'd file a Motion to Dismiss the whole case. Even assuming all of the facts in the Complaint are true, some or all of the allegations are simply not actionable under the law. Although EM probably wouldn't win on the whole Motion, he could get some of the causes of action dismissed. I would also try to get rid of TM as a defendant -- I don't see where in the Complaint the Company can be held liable for anything. I assume ME just added them to the Complaint to make it jucier.

I don't know ME's financial situation, or how he's paying his lawyers (I doubt they'd take this on contingency, but you never know), but I'd feel pretty good if I were EM -- TM is likely to pay for EM's defense, and they've got to have deeper pockets than ME. Assuming they can poke holes in whatever causes of action remain, they'll likely be able to avoid trial and get a judge to dismiss the case after discovery. What this all means is that there's very little likelihood there will be a trial, although stranger things have happened.

 

[vfx]

someone posted a video with a reporter that got a decent amount of facts wrong, but in situations like that, stopping the reporter to correct their mistakes would really just come off as rude and probably piss them off and ruin the tone of the segment.

If in a video segment someone standing next to Elon introduced him as a Puppy Killer and the founder of SpaceX he would certainly correct them, "tone of segment" or not. Misrepresentation is a serious legal issue.

It's quite common for the interviewee to correct the host in an introduction. It happens much more than the live feeds you see on air because in a recorded segment it's so easy to just start again.

 

[DDB]

Should we are start writing court tv now to cover this? No fun polls about if this will even hit trial?

How about this poll... what will happen first: trial or Model S on the streets?:tongue:

My vote is trial (at 15 months).

 

[AnOutsider]

If in a video segment someone standing next to Elon introduced him as a Puppy Killer and the founder of SpaceX he would certainly correct them, "tone of segment" or not. Misrepresentation is a serious legal issue.

It's quite common for the interviewee to correct the host in an introduction. It happens much more than the live feeds you see on air because in a recorded segment it's so easy to just start again.

Please watch the video in question, and then honestly tell me it would'nt have been awkward to interrupt and correct the reporter.

 

[vfx]

Please watch the video in question, and then honestly tell me it would'nt have been awkward to interrupt and correct the reporter.

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.

 

[Arnold Panz]

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.

Of course, you're probably right about the fact that EM was more than happy to let these reporters misstate his status as a founder of TM, and he would have quickly corrected the types of statements you're using as examples. But these are much more of moral/ethical issues than legal ones. The law has nothing to do with morals or ethics. There's simply no legal obligation to correct someone else's mistakes. If anything, ME's claim would be against the reporter(s) if they knew that they were knowingly saying something false about him.

It might not seem fair, but I know of no case where someone successfully won a claim of defamation for something someone else said that they simply didn't correct. On this site, I regularly see people pointing out errors in written articles about TM and videos about Tesla, but TM is under no obligation to correct those errors, and they usually don't. The fact that they occasionally do respond to the most egregious misstatements in the media doesn't oblige them to do so for every misstatement.

Again, my point was to not to say who was "right" or "wrong" morally or otherwise. I was simply doing an analysis from a lawyer's perspective about the likelihood of success of the case in court. ME's case seems very weak to me from a legal point of view. Morally, and in the court of public opinion, he may win some points, and that may be his purpose in bringing this lawsuit. But for those who might have been worried that this lawsuit could somehow damage TM or EM financially or otherwise delay production of the Model S, I just don't see it.

 

[AnOutsider]

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 :wink:

 

[vfx]

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

I'm tilting at Wind Turbines?
:biggrin:

 

[bobw]

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]

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]

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 :biggrin:

 

[xcelero.ii]

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 :biggrin:

Agreed! :wink:

 

[Brent]

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]

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 :biggrin:

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! :biggrin::wink:

 

[vfx]

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]

Martin Eberhard, turn around is fair play

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)