News
Tesla’s disruption is making Germany’s elite automakers very tense about the future
There was once a time when Germany’s largest automakers looked on with amusement as Tesla, a small Silicon Valley electric car maker, purchased a gigantic car factory in Fremont, CA to produce its first ground-up premium sedan. Today, amidst the Model 3’s disruption and the impending arrival of the Model Y, it appears that no one in Das Auto is laughing anymore.
Electrification is something that used to be scoffed at, especially among the industry’s serious players. When Tesla was starting out, the transportation sector was still fully committed to the internal combustion engine. And in this era, Germany’s elite three — Daimler, Volkswagen, and BMW — reigned supreme. Their vehicles were sought after, and they were known for their power and pedigree. That was, at least, until upstart companies such as Tesla entered the picture.
Tesla represented everything that legacy auto was not. Instead of relying fully on a vast dealer network, Tesla sold its cars on its own. Instead of relying on a network of suppliers, Tesla adopted a vertically-integrated model. Instead of spamming its cars with all the plush amenities found in traditional luxury cars, Tesla’s EVs were spartan and minimalistic. These little differences, coupled with the fact that its vehicles are unlike any other on the road in terms of performance and tech, made the electric car maker a brand to watch among consumers looking to purchase a vehicle.
What really makes Tesla a pretty concerning opponent is the company’s dedication to its mission — to accelerate the advent of sustainability. This means that the company is about so much more than just profits. It’s a company that is legitimately trying its best to change the world, and it is beckoning everyone for support. And support it has gained. Among automakers, Tesla currently stands supreme according to social media presence. Today, the Model 3 is outselling mainstays like the BMW M3, and the arrival of the Model Y could end up disrupting a market previously held by cars like the Porsche Macan.
Today, Tesla stands as a leader in the EV market, with vehicles that have advanced driver-assist features such as Autopilot, a Full Self-Driving suite that includes capabilities like Smart Summon, and a system that constantly improves through free over-the-air updates. With these, Tesla’s electric cars such as the Model S and Model 3 have dominated their respective EV segments.
So how did Tesla end up disrupting the market even if Das Auto had all the resources all along to beat Tesla at its own game years ago? Perhaps it’s hubris, or maybe it was simply an honest mistake. Nevertheless, Tesla has now reached a point where it would be very difficult to reach and overtake, especially when it comes to the tech and batteries of its vehicles. This was highlighted when Volkswagen reportedly got its hands on a Mid Range Tesla Model 3. After tearing down the vehicle, the veteran automaker was reportedly shocked at how advanced the vehicle was.
Sajjad Khan, a Pakistani-born Daimler executive who is a member of the divisional board for CASE (Connected, Autonomous, Shared, Electric) at Mercedes-Benz, believes that this does not need to be the case. In a recent town hall meeting, Khan told an audience that the time is nigh for Germany’s auto sector to get a wake-up call.
“We need a wake-up call. We have to change fundamentally — as individuals, as departments, as a company, as a country. If we don’t, we’re going to be facing tough times ahead. We need to rebuild the mentality that made the economic miracle (in postwar Germany) possible. And we can’t wait until we have fallen on our faces to do this,” he said.
Fortunately, it may be too premature to dismiss Germany’s veteran automakers and their EV efforts. Porsche proved to the world that it can match and perhaps even exceed the performance of Tesla’s flagship sedan with the Taycan, though it had to make do with significantly less range and a far higher price. Volkswagen, for its part, is spending large amounts in its efforts to produce electric vehicles. The company is looking to conduct its ramp quickly, to the point where it would no longer sell diesel and gasoline cars by 2040.
That’s what one could call the end of an era.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
