News
Pablo Escobar’s brother wants $100 million in Tesla shares for Not-a-Flamethrower dispute
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
