Connect with us

News

Pablo Escobar’s brother wants $100 million in Tesla shares for Not-a-Flamethrower dispute

(Image: The Boring Company)

Published

on

Elon Musk is no stranger to taking on powerful forces that stand in the way of his Earth-changing missions, but drug lord families still seem like an odd addition to the list. Despite the improbability, infamous cartel founder and cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar has recently been linked to the serial entrepreneur over The Boring Company’s Not-a-Flamethrower, specifically through Escobar’s brother. Roberto Escobar claims Musk stole the Flamethrower design from him and plans to sue over it – unless Musk agrees to hand over $100 million dollars in either cash or Tesla shares, that is.

“Elon we both know you stole from me, I am OK to settle this right now for $100 million. Tesla shares is OK or cash. I will win in court, and you will lose more than $100 million,” Escobar said in a statement to The Next Web. “Maybe I will make myself new Tesla CEO with the courts?… Let’s settle this like gentleman. Send me the Tesla Shares to Escobar Inc.”

Someone associated with Musk’s business activities reportedly spent time with Escobar (the living brother, not the deceased drug lord) in the summer of 2017 wherein an Escobar Inc. toy flamethrower concept was discussed, according to a report originally published by TMZ. The Boring Company’s Flamethrower, announced in January 2018, apparently was a dead ringer for Escobar’s idea design-wise, leading cartel leader’s brother to angrily conclude that his idea had been stolen. Musk later responded to TMZ‘s report on Twitter, saying “It’s Not a Flamethrower, Mr Escobar.”

Elon Musk’s response to Roberto Escobar… Notice the ‘Inception’ factor here? The article in Musk’s tweet is referencing that same tweet.

The dispute is interesting and unusual, to say the least, but we can be sure there’s one thing Boring clearly did not get from Escobar Inc. – the flamethrower’s purpose.

“I want the people to be able to burn money, like me and Pablo used to do. I burned probably a couple of billion dollars over the years. Literally burning the money. For many reasons,” Escobar was quoted as saying about the device.

The Boring Company Not a Flamethrower vs. the Escobar Inc. Flamethrower | Image: The Boring Company & Escobar Inc.

Escobar is now weighing his legal options against Musk, although it’s not clear what options are exactly available.

Prior to 2013, if an inventor could demonstrate their invention predated someone else’s patented invention for the same thing, they could sue and work out a financially retroactive deal to be compensated for their work (more or less). However, with the enactment of the America Invents Act, the United States now has a “first to file” system that only gives inventors one year from public disclosure of their invention to file for patent protection. In Escobar’s case, he’s basically too late to file for a patent where it would matter most to Musk – in the United States. The only other legal workaround would seem to be a lawsuit over a non-disclosure agreement, which doesn’t appear to have happened here. It’s not enough that there were witnesses to the discussion, and it also doesn’t seem like there was even a handshake-type understanding over any claims to the design.

Advertisement

Another thing worth mentioning is that if The Boring Company has already filed for patent protection of its Not-a-Flamethrower design, it doesn’t appear to have published yet based on patent database searches. Since the idea was disclosed in January 2018 (or even 2017, based on Escobar’s claims), it’s now considered ‘prior art’ and renders any other highly similar patent filings ineligible for protection. It would appear that Escobar’s best bet for legal protection would have been to file for a patent right after Musk’s flamethrower was announced so both devices would have been in that muddy one-year window and open to a court fight. Alas, it’s all water under the bridge now.

The Boring Company had a few options to pursue here, actually. First, the tunneling venture could have filed for a design patent which only protects what their flamethrower looks like. These types of patent applications usually issue to full patents quickly unless the patent examiner objects to it based on similar designs. If Boring went this route, we should see a patent show up shortly if one was filed around the time of the product announcement in January 2018.

The infamous Pablo Escobar. | Image: GlobalResearch.ca

A second option The Boring Company could have taken was to file for a utility patent, meaning there was some sort of technical merit to the Not-a-Flamethrower’s design. These publish 18 months after filing unless non-publication is specifically requested. If Boring went this route, well, there are so many timelines that could have been taken, it’s hard to say whether we’ll see anything until a patent issues, assuming one issues at all. Regardless, the patent route was Escobar’s only real route for lawsuit-driven compensation, and he seems out of luck.

Perhaps in response to recent publicity, the Escobar Inc. Flamethrower just went on sale for $250, and according to its company website’s History page, 20,000 units will be produced. This, of course, is the exact amount the Boring Company sold at the original price of $500. Among other interesting news items, one of the gems from that same History page reads, “2004 – Roberto de Jesus Escobar Gaviria is freed from Itagui Prison based on excellent behavior.” This important moment in the Escobar Inc. chronicles is surely only matched by the successful launch of Escobar Inc.’s Flamethrower for burning cold hard cash in cocaine kingpin fashion.

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Comments

News

Tesla scores major court win as judge rejects race bias class action

The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla scored a significant legal victory in California after a state judge reversed a class certification in a high-profile race harassment case involving 6,000 Black workers at its Fremont plant. The ruling means the 2017 lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action because plaintiff attorneys were unable to secure testimony commitments from at least 200 workers ahead of a 2026 trial, a threshold the judge viewed as necessary to reliably represent the full group.

No class action

In a late-Friday order, California Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon concluded that the suit could not remain a class action, stating he could not confidently apply the experiences of a much smaller group of testifying workers to thousands of potential class members. His ruling reverses a 2024 decision by a different judge who had certified the case under the belief that a trial of that size would be manageable, as noted in a Reuters report.

The lawsuit was originally filed by former assembly-line worker Marcus Vaughn, who alleged that Black employees at Tesla’s Fremont factory were exposed to various forms of racially hostile conduct, including slurs, graffiti, and instances of disturbing objects appearing in work areas. Tesla has previously said it does not tolerate harassment and has removed employees found responsible for misconduct. Neither Tesla nor the plaintiffs’ legal team immediately commented on the latest ruling.

Tesla’s legal challenges

Advertisement

While the decertification narrows the scope of this particular case, Tesla still faces additional litigation over similar allegations. A separate trial involving related claims brought by a California state civil rights agency is scheduled just two months after the now-vacated class trial date. The company is also contending with federal race discrimination claims filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alongside several individual lawsuits it has already resolved.

For now, the reversal removes the large-scale exposure Tesla would have faced in a unified class trial, shifting the dispute back to individual claims rather than a single mass action. The case is Vaughn v. Tesla, filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

@teslarati With a pedestrian in the crosswalk, Tesla Full Self-Driving shows off its courtesy. Human drivers? Not so much. #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ AMERICAN HEART – Maxwell Luke
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Holiday Update is incoming, and the wishlist is Merry and Bright

There are a handful of big wishes, and we’ve seen a lot of different requests out there based on what owners are saying on social media. Nevertheless, what Tesla should bring and what Tesla will bring are two different things.

Published

on

Tesla’s Holiday Update is going to be on its way soon, and although we have no idea what the company is planning to implement into vehicles with the 2025 iteration.

However, the wishlist is extensive, and owners are hoping to get a vast array of new features, both useful and artificial. That’s the fun thing about owning a Tesla — not everything is necessary, and it’s okay for your car to be fun.

There are a handful of big wishes, and we’ve seen a lot of different requests out there based on what owners are saying on social media. Nevertheless, what Tesla should bring and what Tesla will bring are two different things.

In past years, Tesla has brought both useful things and fun things with the Holiday Update. The Custom Lock Sound, new Light Shows, and even High Fidelity Park Assist have all come in past updates, among many other things. But for 2025, people want even more, and here’s what we have seen most frequently thus far:

More Streaming Platforms

This is a personal request of ours, and it’s something that we feel is long overdue.

Sure, Netflix, Disney+, and Hulu are all great — but there’s a lot of meat left on that bone. HBOMax, Paramount+, and even YouTube TV would be a great option for those of us who have subscriptions and want to watch Live Events while Supercharging or eating in our cars.

The fact that Tesla has not added more platforms to its in-car Theater in a few years has been, dare I say, disappointing?

Full Self-Driving for Europe

This is something not even Santa can help with. Although his Elves are known for their high productivity, we’re not even sure they could convince European regulators to open the door for FSD’s entrance into the market.

Tesla deploys Unsupervised FSD in Europe for the first time—with a twist

FSD is definitely capable of handling European driving conditions, but regulators are truly dragging their feet through the mud with the approval process. Tesla has tested FSD in several countries in Europe, but nothing has been set in stone yet.

Deeper Grok Integration

Many owners have said something about how Grok is truly not super in-tune with the vehicles. This is something any owner will experience.

It seems Grok should be capable of handling all in-car requests; everything from changing the A/C to a specific temperature to adding a stop within the Navigation should be handled by Grok.

Instead, Grok cannot handle those things currently. You have to speak to the car itself using the microphone button on the steering wheel.

Interestingly, some vehicles already have the Grok logo replacing the microphone. It is likely the most realistic request of all.

‘Learn’ Mode for Full Self-Driving Arrival Options

Although it is great for public destinations, FSD still does not allow you to choose a set parking spot at your residence. It also does not allow you to choose preferences for parking in large parking lots.

Renters, and even those who live in purchased townhomes, often have assigned parking spots. Full Self-Driving v14 has done a great job of doing half the work, but there have been too many times when I’ve arrived home, the car pulls me into a spot, and I’m forced to manually back out and park in my assigned space.

Many people also do not like to park toward the entrance of a store, me included. Parking away from the front of a store eliminates parking congestion and usually is a safer bet for your vehicle to keep from being dinged by careless drivers who swing their doors open.

Navigation Adjustments

Sometimes you don’t want to turn left on the street the navigation chooses. Maybe you want to go a block down and check out that new Portuguese restaurant that just opened on the way to your next destination.

This is only possible currently by inputting a waypoint that would take you that way. Instead, the center screen could be opened, and the driver should be able to select an alternative route by simply touching a street they’d rather travel on.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla wins $508 price target from Stifel as Robotaxi rollout gains speed

The firm cited meaningful progress in Tesla’s robotaxi roadmap, ongoing Full Self-Driving enhancements, and the company’s long-term growth initiatives.

Published

on

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer/X

Tesla received another round of bullish analyst updates this week, led by Stifel, raising its price target to $508 from $483 while reaffirming a “Buy” rating. The firm cited meaningful progress in Tesla’s robotaxi roadmap, ongoing Full Self-Driving enhancements, and the company’s long-term growth initiatives. 

Robotaxi rollout, FSD updates, and new affordable cars

Stifel expects Tesla’s robotaxi fleet to expand into 8–10 major metropolitan areas by the end of 2025, including Austin, where early deployments without safety drivers are targeted before year-end. Additional markets under evaluation include Nevada, Florida, and Arizona, as noted in an Investing.com report. The firm also highlighted strong early performance for FSD Version 14, with upcoming releases adding new “reasoning capabilities” designed to improve complex decision-making using full 360-degree vision.

Tesla has also taken steps to offset the loss of U.S. EV tax credits by launching the Model Y Standard and Model 3 Standard at $39,990 and $36,990, Stifel noted. Both vehicles deliver more than 300 miles of range and are positioned to sustain demand despite shifting incentives. Stifel raised its EBITDA forecasts to $14.9 billion for 2025 and $19.5 billion for 2026, assigning partial valuation weightings to Tesla’s FSD, robotaxi, and Optimus initiatives.

TD Cowen also places an optimistic price target

TD Cowen reiterated its Buy rating with a $509 price target after a research tour of Giga Texas, citing production scale and operational execution as key strengths. The firm posted its optimistic price target following a recent Mobility Bus tour in Austin. The tour included a visit to Giga Texas, which offered fresh insights into the company’s operations and prospects. 

Additional analyst movements include Truist Securities maintaining its Hold rating following shareholder approval of Elon Musk’s compensation plan, viewing the vote as reducing leadership uncertainty.

Advertisement
@teslarati Tesla Full Self-Driving yields for pedestrians while human drivers do not…the future is here! #tesla #teslafsd #fullselfdriving ♬ 2 Little 2 Late – Levi & Mario
Continue Reading

Trending