Tesla's High-Tech Lawsuits in Silicon Valley War

An anonymous reader writes "After pressing charges against its chief competitor in the race for the world's first production electric sports car that we broke down here recently, Tesla Motors seems to be shifting from the high-tech company re-writing Detroit's script to another Silicon Valley startup trying to sniff out the competition. So says Engadget's legal analyst in an in-depth column breaking down the legal ramifications. From the article: "This could upset the whole race for major production of an electric car in the U.S., which may be the main result of this whole drama. If anything, that's a win for Tesla. Let's just hope the company that set out to upend the automotive industry achieves its competitive goals in the lab and in the marketplace — and keeps its future fights out of the courtroom.""

Comments

What's the problem?

[Hubbell]

The guy blatantly stole information and scammed them pretty fucking hard.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, this clears it up. I was trying to remember if Tesla was a company we liked, or one we hated, so I could decide what to think about this. I mean, Google and Apple and Microsoft are easy to remember because there is a story about them every day. And anything Torvalds is involved with is easy too. But Tesla..... So your comment clears it up what with the +4 Insightful and all. I mean you use the phrase 'stole information', like Tesla doesn't have it any more, yet you still got the mod. So obviously we like Tesla because they make electric cars and that makes them anti-establishment and we like that. So they can file IP based lawsuits and its all good because we can all picture them flipping off the man with their other hand.

Re:What's the problem?

[Idiomatick]

There is an easy rule to follow. /. will ALWAYS support the little guy. Because the market is so shitty in most areas there is often 1 dominating leader. This eventually leads to garbage due to the lack of competition.
 
Anyways... tesla builds electrics cars that out race porsches how could you think it wouldnt be popular?

Re:What's the problem?

[RobertM1968]

Exactly. The 0-60 time of any car is the last thing I consider. I need to go from 0-60 *once* in any trip I make. How well it copes with being driven flat out for 300 miles is a far more pressing concern.

I'll start looking at electric cars when they can produce one that takes no more than 60 quid to charge from fully flat, can carry four or five large adults plus their luggage plus at least 200kg of equipment, and can average no less than 100mph for 350 miles on a charge. That would be getting close to being able to replace my ordinary car, assuming it's actually nice to drive and doesn't give me a numb backside.

Chrysler just announced such a car at the Detroit Auto Show (aired on TV a few days ago) - up to 250 miles on a charge, all electric, carries 4 plus luggage. They also claim it will be very inexpensive (normal car price for a car of it's class).

Now, if it IS real, I see it as something finally pushing other car manufacturers to follow suit. I'd see such a product forcing them to - IF (even though they announced a planned release year) it ever sees the light of day (which such "concept cars" never seem to).

I have a hard time believing that a startup like Tesla is the only company that could figure out how to get such mileage off an all electric car (especially since there are aftermarket kits that can get close to that mileage without all the fancy new technology using existing car structures). Especially considering that the major car companies spend many times the amount of money on R&D.

I am beginning to believe that 250-300 miles/charge isn't that difficult per se... but that the auto manufacturers have too much invested in their current production lines, servicing, distribution, service center training, etc to WANT to make an electric car for anyone other than the hobbyist (ie: 50 or so miles/charge).

And of course, others have speculated about the tie-ins with the oil/gas industry. (not saying I agree - or not)

And additionally, others have speculated on a (our) government not wanting to see affordable, long-range electric cars because of the large decrease in gas tax revenue that would result (and thus bankrupting most states). (not saying I agree - or not)

For whatever reasons, neither the car, oil, coal or other such industries seem to care about such things. That is evidenced by the ridiculous "Coal Initiative" (or whatever it is called) commercials on TV of late touting how great and clean burning coal is.

Or the recent oil ads I've seen in the paper talking about how oil heat in the home is the way to go - even over natural gas - and how clean it burns... (gee, you can vent many natural gas heaters INTO your house - and the only thing you have to worry about is oxygen depletion (thus the internally vented ones come with an oxygen sensor to prevent such)... anyone want to vent an oil furnace into their house?). Maybe some people have coal heaters in their house? I have no idea what they are comparing it to - cleaner than what? In my area, the choices are oil, propane or natural gas (or a fireplace/wood stove setup - which shouldnt even be in consideration in their scenario).

So in my area it would be natural gas, propane, oil, coal (with of course coal not being something used here for home heating... but that is the only way their claims make sense at all).

But the point is, all these commercials & ads - including the car companies talking about all their "green" initiatives (that we have yet to see bear fruition in any usable form) all seem to indicate no desire on actually getting there, while spinning the hell out of the situation to convince the average consumer that they are doing so well on such issues.

Re:What's the problem?

[Rei]

Lithium polymer? Why? Lithium phosphates, titanates, spinels, etc are far, far superior for automotive applications. Yes, they're also currently expensive (although your estimate on the amount of batteries needed is way overboard), but their raw materials are cheap, so under mass production, they can be expected to be quite cheap.

As for the amount of batteries. Let's go with something like the Aptera at 200Wh/mi. Cars like the Aptera are only 80Wh/mi, but we'll go with 200. That's 70kWh. For the pack to cost 120k, you'd be having to pay $1.50/Wh. While you could possibly pay that much on titanates currently (Altair certainly has their problems), that's not a realistic price, and certainly not realistic for mass production.

90% of it's cost is in it's batteries.

That's an even more ridiculous claim. They use off the shelf laptop cells, which are, what, $0.15/Wh to $0.20/Wh? They have, what, 52kWh packs? That's ~$10k for the cells.

Not a litigious person but,

[Anonymous Coward]

God knows there's a bunch of crap going around in the courtrooms: *AA lawsuits, rediculous IP infringment, submarine patents, etc. Frankly, I'm sick of lawsuits that are practically used as part of SOP business strategy. But, having kept somewhat up to date on this particular case, I can't say that I'm totally against it. Tesla contracted Fisker to help in the design of their electric car. Fisker then turns around and starts his own electric car company. At the very least it looks highly suspicious and rightfully should draw a great deal of scrutiny. As for the article I think it's tripe and can't see how it relates to "another Silicon Valley startup trying to sniff out the competition".

Not quit accurate.

[WindBourne]

Calling Fisker's Tesla's chief competitor is a lot like calling MS IBM's chief competitor. Fisker was a sub-contractor to Tesla and had signed on as just that. Apparently via documents, Fisker was not going to go into car development, just stay in design. During that time, Fisker found out how to build the car, as well as the relatively low cost of doing so (much easier than a gas car) and decided to create his own with a one-off design of the roadster. So he basically delivered less to Tesla than was promised and then used the internal information that he had acquired from Tesla to help design his own, and as well as obtain funding.

Almost certainly, Fisker will have to pay back all the money that they obtained from Tesla. The real question is, can Tesla block Fisker's new car company?

The true loser on this will be customers and the world. In a way, for Tesla/Spacex to be successful, they need to move with speed. Spacex has contractual obligations to meet, and tesla will have to compete against major car companies in about 2-3 years. This lawsuit is taking Musk away from Tesla core AND Spacex. Both of these companies are innovative and are pushing the industry forward. But if he gets bogged down in court, they will stall. It would be far better for Tesla/Spacex, if Musk settles with Fisker quickly and moves on. In addition, the more companies that are doing EV, or even REV, the better it is.

Re:Not quit accurate.

[Aranykai]

Reminds me of some other situations. Windows 3.1 for instance :P

Anyways, just wanted to say I enjoyed your post. Don't have mod points, but it was quite insightful.

Hard to call

[BlueParrot]

Not a chance we can call this ourselves. It will be down to what evidence Tesla has for its allegations. If their claims are true then I have little sympathy for the guy ( forget trade secret laws, fraud and sabotage alone should land him a decent slap if proven true ). If these accusations cannot be proven, on the other hand, then Tesla deserves a great kick up the arse for making such accusations against a competitor without reliable evidence.

Re:Hard to call

[Narpak]

Never the less Fisker has lunched a product in direct competition with one he designed on contract for Tesla. Even if everything is above board and legal he has still kicked his own reputation in the nuts.

Familiar situation

[wrook]

I'm curious. Is Tesla looking for more investment money? TFA has an all too familiar ring to it for me. I've worked in a number of startups before. When you're 90% the way there and you run out of money, one of the tactics I've seen is to:

1. Stop paying your bills
2. Get into a big court case that effectively ties you up until your development has a chance to deliver.
3. Go to potential investors and say "Well, we would have delivered on time if it weren't for our competitors cheating. We're in court with them now. As soon as the court case finishes we'll get a good chunk of cash *and* we'll be in full production.

As wacky as it sounds, it's better than saying "Well, we didn't quite meet the sales window, but we're hoping you'll give us more money so that we can keep working..."

I'm not saying this is what is happening. It's looks very similar to what I've seen on a couple of occasions.

Re:Familiar situation

[iamsamed]

I've never been in that situation but I understand that if you start missing deliverables, the VCs usually have some sort of clause that enables them to throw you out on your ass. You lose everything.

Re:Familiar situation

[WindBourne]

They are delivering their roadster and are backed by a billionare with plenty of money. I doubt that this is the case. I think that the real issue here, is that fiskers delivered an inferior product to Musk while at the same time, stealing Tesla's IP to be able to create their own.

Re:Plug in hybrids not electric only

[loshwomp]

Add a small removable hydrocarbon fuelled generator to an electric car with just enough battery capacity for your daily commute and you have a great system.

People who aren't automotive engineers always trivialize the implementation and think it's a great idea. Actual vehicle engineers realize that in many ways a series hybrid is the worst of both worlds: more complicated than an EV and a gas car combined, less efficient than an EV for short-range driving (because of the extra weight), and less efficient than a parallel hybrid (or even a normal gas car!) on long trips.

Yeah, I realize you said you wanted the generator to be removeable, but that's another fantasy of armchair engineers. Yes, it's possible to engineer your complicated system, but it will add unacceptable weight and cost. At least you didn't say you wanted a removeable (swappable) battery.

Look, we need electric vehicles for short range -- several standard deviations of our vehicular transit. Some applications and some drivers need longer range. The hybridization doesn't have to be in the vehicle -- it can be in the fleet. Gas cars will be around for decades, so you can borrow/rent/own a second car if/when you really need it.

I don't see how electric will work very well for long haul trucks though.

They're called railroads. Many countries use electrified rail for hauling freight. It's the only option that's long-term sustainable. The US is screwed in that respect -- a pathetic rail system and approximately none of it electrified.

Re:Plug in hybrids not electric only

[bbn]

People who aren't automotive engineers always trivialize the implementation and think it's a great idea. Actual vehicle engineers realize that in many ways a series hybrid is the worst of both worlds: more complicated than an EV and a gas car combined, less efficient than an EV for short-range driving (because of the extra weight), and less efficient than a parallel hybrid (or even a normal gas car!) on long trips. The so called series hybrid is very old tech. It used to be called diesel-electric and is what many locomotives use. If it was less efficient, it is curious how it came to be _the_ standard for diesel locomotives.

Yeah, I realize you said you wanted the generator to be removeable, but that's another fantasy of armchair engineers. Yes, it's possible to engineer your complicated system, but it will add unacceptable weight and cost. At least you didn't say you wanted a removeable (swappable) battery. Some not so armchair engineers at Renault decided to implement battery swapping. They have announced to make 500,000 cars with that system. What makes you qualified, to denounce what a real car company like Renault is doing?

Re:Plug in hybrids not electric only

[loshwomp]

Considering that a "serial hybrid" is how diesel freight trains and M1-A1 tanks work, I'm less than convinced of your random dismissal of their potential. Especially with GM pushing exactly that concept as their next fuel design. It's not a random dismissal; I'm an electric vehicle engineer, and I'm less than convinced by your use of GM (or their vaporware product) as an example of success.

Neither locomotives nor the tanks you mention use any type of electrical storage. Rather, the only reason for the the hybrid electric system in those vehicles is to replace what would otherwise be a very complicated ultra-high-torque transmission.

A removable generator is hardly the engineering nightmare you make it out to be. Heck, the darn thing has to be removable ANYWAY, for service/replacement/etc. Throwing in the manual and letting a dedicated owner do it themselves is hardly an engineering problem. Like I said. Fantasy. Armchair engineers. Sure, the internal-combustion engine in your car is technically removeable. Along with the fuel system, exhaust system, cooling system, etc. Making their removal easy and practical for the uninitiated in a consumer product is just crazy.

Quick: how many Americans will buy a car they cannot drive from one end of the country to the next? More than the number of people who have any desire to remove their engine. Economic reality will eventually cause cars in America to approach what they are elsewhere in the world: primarily for short-range travel. $4/gal gasoline has only caused whining. Real behavior change will happen as prices near $7 or $8.

I'm not sure what your point is; that's what gas cars are for. And driving across the country is, by and large, stupid, and it represents an astronomically small fraction of what we do with cars. But for those who want to do it, gas cars will be around for decades. (But no fair whining about fuel prices!)

Electric rail only makes sense if you don't have a more cost-efficient alternative. Even if all the fossil fuels go away and we are forced to produce all our own fuel, I wouldn't assume that hydrogen or artificial hydrocarbons won't be more efficient -- and both are every bit as long-term sustainable as pure electric. Hydrogen is way less efficient, and artificial hydrocarbons are a joke. Electricity is the ultimate flex fuel -- you can make it from anything, and you can use it to power your rail directly with no further conversion or storage. (Round-trip conversion to hydrogen is about 25% efficient.)