Martin Eberhard sues Elon Musk and Tesla Motors

[WarpedOne]

I don't get your post... what do the the bolded part of the first quote have to do with the second quote? He said he had to be forceful with some of his changes in the first, in the second he says that the items he requested aren't the reason the car went from 25M to 140M....

What's your take on the cost difference between fiberglass and carbon fiber?
What's your take on the cost of designing custom headlights?
What's your take on the cost of designing FOUR different transmissions?
What's your take on the cost of redesigning controller (from analog to digital)?
Etc etc.

On one hand Elon wants us to believe all that comes for free. On the other hand when decisions were made he said "I'll pay, do it". Now he is blaming the costs on Martin. How many brain cells does it take to see this is pure bullshit?

 

[Chris H.]

Here is another excerpt from "Quiet Thunder", the Vanity Fair article that Warped One referenced above:

Musk isn't the one who had the Eureka! moment. That was a slight, gray-bearded, mild-mannered Silicon Valley entrepreneur named Martin Eberhard. Like anyone else in 2003, the then 43-year-old Eberhard knew that billion-dollar markets had grown almost overnight for laptop computers and cell phones. Rivals were spending huge sums on R&D to pack ever more energy into the lithium-ion batteries that powered those devices. One day Eberhard had a simple thought: Why not put lithium-ion cells into cars?

Keep in mind that this article was published about 3 months before Martin was relieved of his duties as CEO. Martin was attempting to keep costs low, while Elon wanted the best (ie, most expensive) features on the Roadster.

Quiet Thunder | vanityfair.com

 

[AnOutsider]

Please... no visions. I hate it when the executive suite starts doing peyote.

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

How many brain cells does it take to see this is pure bullshit?

Ok I think I'll have to put you on ignore. It's sad when folks get so emotionally involved in a situation that it can't be discussed without insults being thrown.

 

[JRP3]

You may not like Warped's tone but his point is valid. Elon seems to have pushed for a number of expensive changes, many of which were really unnecessary and could have been offered as options or improvements in later models. I have to believe that many of his changes drove up the cost of the roadster substantially. We aren't just talking about door locks. The carbon fiber change alone had to have added major cost to production, and except for us few geeks or some cool sound bites no one really cares what the body was made of as long as it looks good. No one decided to buy a Roadster because of the door locks or body material.

 

[AnOutsider]

You may not like Warped's tone but his point is valid. Elon seems to have pushed for a number of expensive changes, many of which were really unnecessary and could have been offered as options or improvements in later models. I have to believe that many of his changes drove up the cost of the roadster substantially. We aren't just talking about door locks. The carbon fiber change alone had to have added major cost to production, and except for us few geeks or some cool sound bites no one really cares what the body was made of as long as it looks good. No one decided to buy a Roadster because of the door locks or body material.

I have no problem discussing the situation, what I DO have a problem with is people who can't seem to just discuss things without getting personal. I asked a simple question as he posted two quotes without explaining them. Apparently I just didn't have enough brain cells to process the message.

As I've said, too many people are taking this whole back and forth to heart. Is ME filling your pockets? Is EM? If not, then it's just a passing matter - and NOT something that these guys need internet keyboard-warriors fighting over. This subject is beginning to turn into a religion/politics debate.

 

[Cobos]

Anoutsider and WarpedOne I beleive your problem is simply communication. There is no doubt where WarpedOne stands on this case but as AnOutsider said what you were trying to say wasn't very clear. I guess you got the same problem as me as a non-native speaker. I like long complicated sentences and that sometimes leads to problems for people reading them trying to parse what I'm actually trying to say. ( see what I did there )

So guys please try to not get so defensive, we should at least try to remain friendly here.

Cobos

 

[Lancelac]

Let's split this thread into two. One for talking about the lawsuit itself, and a second, which discusses the merits/pitfalls of managements styles (ME vs EM). That way I can stop wasting my time looking in this thread expecting to see some actual discussion of the lawsuit...

 

[dpeilow]

I think we have plenty of threads that have discussed the management style. I don't believe we need another one. The management style issues have been discussed ad infinitum. We know where many people here stand on that.

Let's try to keep this thread focussed on the legal issues and try to keep the discussion civil - which it mainly has been up until now.

 

[JRP3]

The question of who actually caused cost overruns and potentially put the future of Tesla at risk seems to be an integral part of this case. If the facts show it was Elon and he's trying to blame Martin that's a problem, as would be the reverse.

 

[Chris H.]

I think we have plenty of threads that have discussed the management style. I don't believe we need another one. The management style issues have been discussed ad infinitum. We know where many people here stand on that.

Let's try to keep this thread focussed on the legal issues and try to keep the discussion civil - which it mainly has been up until now.

Claims are being made on both sides. We are discussing those claims. I think that's reasonable.

 

[dpeilow]

I don't disagree that the causes of cost overruns are part of the case, but this is different to the question of (and a specific thread on) management style. And until more facts come out, I don't think we need another he said/she said thread on the overruns.

 

[Arnold Panz]

The question of who actually caused cost overruns and potentially put the future of Tesla at risk seems to be an integral part of this case. If the facts show it was Elon and he's trying to blame Martin that's a problem, as would be the reverse.

Actually, I would disagree from a legal perspective. Who caused cost overruns, who wanted which door handle, and who was a better steward of getting the Tesla to market is almost completely irrelevant to the legal issues in the case. Unfortunately for ME, that's the key weakness in his case because he's the one suing. In the court of moral authority, he may have a very strong case, but from a legal point of view, it doesn't really matter. Much of what EM discussed in his lengthy blog reply was also irrelevant, other than trying to settle these old scores.

 

[JRP3]

You may be correct. I was looking at it more from a defamation of character standpoint possibly hurting the reputation and future job potential of whoever is being mis characterized. If Martin is seen as having put the company on the edge of going under by mismanagement and cost overruns, and he indeed did not do so, that might hurt his future employment prospects and earnings potential. Obviously I'm no lawyer, so I could be way off.

 

[AnOutsider]

If Martin is seen as having put the company on the edge of going under by mismanagement and cost overruns, and he indeed did not do so,

At the risk of irritating the Martin fans again, doesn't Siry's blog kind of negate that idea?

In trying to win recognition as the rightful founder of Tesla, Eberhard has invited the company to expose what many will conclude is a none-too-flattering record as a chief executive, and he has given his arch enemy the opportunity to detail the circumstances of the company’s founding that many will find ring all too true.

Unless I read it wrong, it seems to indicate that perhaps Martin was NOT made out for the position and this lawsuit may force many hidden details of his reign into the light. Maybe it won't be as drastic as Elon may have you believe, but it certainly indicates that Martin wasn't a shining star either.

 

[JRP3]

I wasn't arguing the validity of Martin's point, just suggesting a scenario where who did what might carry some weight in the case. Some were suggesting that it didn't actually matter if it were Elon or Martin who caused the problems, I'm saying it might, and gave an example of why.

 

[Arnold Panz]

I wasn't arguing the validity of Martin's point, just suggesting a scenario where who did what might carry some weight in the case. Some were suggesting that it didn't actually matter if it were Elon or Martin who caused the problems, I'm saying it might, and gave an example of why.

I covered this in a previous post in this thread, but basically to make a claim for defamation you have to "knowingly make a false statement" about someone. This is a pretty high standard in the law. It's an even higher standard for public figures ("with malicious intent"), but I don't think ME or EM would qualify as such. In any case, even as non-public figures, two guys who work at a company and disagree about who's to blame for what and who cause which cost overruns, delays etc. doesn't even come close to rising to the level of legal defamation. The only possible claim is that EM called himself the "founder" and never credited ME as the "founder". For a variety of reasons (mostly that EM never really said that in public, but didn't correct others (such as the press) who said it), this claim has very little chance of succeeding.

There are other claims in the lawsuit that have a better chance for success, but they aren't as high-dollar as the defamation claim.

 

[AnOutsider]

I wasn't arguing the validity of Martin's point, just suggesting a scenario where who did what might carry some weight in the case. Some were suggesting that it didn't actually matter if it were Elon or Martin who caused the problems, I'm saying it might, and gave an example of why.

Ahh, I misread it as you stating he did not. My mistake :smile:

 

[doug]

David Vespremi's (DavidV) POV:

David Vespremi on Tesla's relevance in bringing EVs to the masses - AutoblogGreen

In his recent contributed blog to Wired's Autopia, entitled "Will the Real Tesla Founder Please Stand Up?" Darryl Siry posits that Elon Musk and Martin Eberhard have, in effect, taken their eyes of [off?] the prize in attempting to set the record straight about which of the two men can rightfully lay claim to founder status for Tesla Motors.

...

 

[DavidV]

David Vespremi's (DavidV) POV:

David Vespremi on Tesla's relevance in bringing EVs to the masses - AutoblogGreen

Thanks for posting, Doug.

Here is another link from Autoblog this morning:

Ex-Tesla communications director Vespremi puts the automaker in historical context

-- DavidV

 

[AnOutsider]

For those interested in the progression, AC Propulsion falls roughly midstream in this sequence: Caltech-> Wally Rippel->Sun Raycer->Aerovironment->Al Cocconi->Impact (and by extension, EV1)->AC Propulsion->Martin Eberhard (rescuing ACP with his investment in capital and the introduction of commodity lithium ion batteries)->Tesla (founded by Eberhard/Tarpenning and principally funded by Elon Musk). What a difference an "o" makes...

The idea for 'an electric sportscar (sic) with excellent range and amazing acceleration' may have stalled with AC Propulsion if Martin Eberhard had not entered the picture with his investment in capital and the introduction of commodity lithium ion batteries.

Is he saying here that ME invested in a struggling ACP and brought about their use of laptop batteries? I thought he came to them after they had already done that and proposed to bring it to market?