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.
Tesla has spent years trying to engineer its way out of the automotive paint shop, one of the most expensive, space-consuming, and environmentally costly steps in vehicle manufacturing. With the Cybercab, Tesla confirmed on X this week that a new reaction injection molding process will embed color directly into the panel itself during production.
“Our new reaction injection molding (RIM) process shrinks Cybercab paint cycles from hours to minutes. This cuts those parts’ manufacturing and supply chain emissions by 35% and eliminating 100% of paint volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in traditional paint methods.” noted Tesla.
While the RIM process isn’t necessarily new and has existed since the 1960s, what makes Tesla’s application notable is how it is being used specifically for exterior body panels that traditionally required a separate paint process after forming.
Tesla’s RIM approach integrates the color directly into the panel material during the molding process itself. The pigment is part of the polymer mix injected into the mold, meaning the panel comes out of the mold already colored, with no separate paint application required. The clear coat or protective layer can be applied at the mold stage or through a much faster post-process than traditional multi-stage painting. Tesla claims this compresses what was a multi-hour paint cycle into minutes per panel.
Tesla’s obsession with killing the paint shop is one of the most consistent threads running through the company’s manufacturing philosophy going back years. As far back as 2018, Musk was trimming paint color options to simplify production, tweeting at the time: “Moving 2 of 7 Tesla colors off menu on Wednesday to simplify manufacturing.” Two years later, in a 2020 Automotive News interview, Musk laid out his broader vision, saying he believed Tesla factories could one day be 1,000 times more efficient than conventional plants, and pointing to the paint shop as one of the biggest sources of waste, cost, and complexity. The Cybertruck was the most extreme expression of that thinking. Tesla chose an unpainted stainless steel exterior partly because it would eliminate the need for a $200 million paint facility at Gigafactory Texas. The stainless approach proved harder and more expensive than anticipated, but the underlying ambition never changed. The Cybercab is what happens when that same ambition meets a manufacturing process that delivers on it.
Lifestyle
Tesla app update makes Robotaxi ownership make a lot more sense
Tesla’s app now shows a live indicator when your car is actively driving itself.
A recent Tesla app update, released last week (4.58.5), gives visibility on whether a vehicle is navigating in its semi-autonomous mode or being drive by a human driver. The updated app now displays a live “Self-Driving” indicator in bright blue text directly beneath the vehicle’s speed readout whenever Full Self-Driving is actively engaged, along with the signature glowing blue navigation path that FSD users see on the main touchscreen. It is a small visual update with meaningful implications for how Tesla owners monitor their vehicles remotely.
The feature was first spotted in the wild by X user Jordan Camina, who shared video of a Hardware 3 Model S displaying the new animation through the app while driving. That detail is significant because it confirms the update is not limited to newer HW4 vehicles. It works across hardware generations, and Tesla confirmed it will eventually support all vehicles regardless of chip platform once both the app and vehicle software are updated. The vehicle side requires software version 2026.20.6.1, which has reached nearly 40% of the fleet so far, as monitored by NotaTeslaApp.
The feature makes the most practical sense when viewed through the lens of Tesla’s expanding robotaxi operation. In a robotaxi context, the owner of a vehicle generating ride revenue has a direct financial and safety interest in knowing whether their car is operating under autonomous control at any given moment. The app’s new FSD indicator gives fleet owners exactly that visibility, the same way a logistics company monitors whether a delivery driver is following the planned route. It also carries implications for Tesla’s insurance model. Tesla’s own insurance product prices premiums in part based on FSD engagement rates, and real-time visibility into when FSD is active creates a feedback loop that could eventually tie directly into policy pricing. For individual owners who have opted their personal vehicles into the robotaxi network, the update effectively turns the Tesla app into a fleet management dashboard, one that tells you whether your car is earning money, whether it is driving itself to do it, and whether everything is operating the way it should from wherever you happen to be.
Tesla expands Robotaxi to Florida, marking its third state for autonomy
As Teslarati has reported, Tesla launched unsupervised robotaxi rides in Miami this summer, a milestone that makes a remote FSD status indicator significantly more practical than a cosmetic feature. When a vehicle is operating as a robotaxi without a driver present, the owner or fleet operator needs a reliable way to confirm autonomy is engaged. The app now provides exactly that.
As noted by NotATeslaApp, The update also arrived alongside a hint buried in the same app version that Tesla plans to use the cabin camera to verify driver identity before FSD can be activated. Pairing identity verification with a live autonomy status indicator points toward the infrastructure Tesla is building for a fleet of driverless vehicles that owners can monitor the way you would track a package delivery.
Elon Musk
California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid
California passed a $135 million EV incentive that rewards Rivian and Lucid while sidelining Tesla
California just drew a line in the EV incentive sand to put Tesla on the wrong side of it. The state recently passed a $135 million program offering first-time electric vehicle buyers a direct incentive with no application required, but the rules were written in a way that leaves Tesla at a structural disadvantage compared to Rivian and Lucid.
The program caps eligible vehicles at $50,000 for new EVs and $25,000 for used ones. That pricing threshold rules out a significant portion of Tesla’s lineup, though some lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y configurations would still qualify. California-based automakers are exempt from the price cap entirely, regardless of what their vehicles cost. Rivian, headquartered in Irvine, and Lucid, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, both benefit from that exemption. Rivian’s R2 starts at roughly $45,000 but has versions above the cap. Lucid’s Air and Gravity start at $70,990 and $79,990 respectively, well above any threshold a non-California company would face.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
Tesla built its reputation and a significant portion of its early market share in California, where EV adoption has consistently led the nation. The company operates its original factory in Fremont, California, and the state was home to Tesla’s headquarters for most of its existence. That changed in 2021 when Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas. Since then, the relationship between the company and California Governor Gavin Newsom has been openly adversarial, with Musk and Newsom trading public criticism on multiple occasions.
California’s EV incentive landscape has shifted repeatedly in recent years, and Tesla has previously lost eligibility for state-level programs as its vehicles exceeded income-adjusted price thresholds. The federal $7,500 EV tax credit, which Tesla models have qualified for and lost depending on policy cycles, is no longer available after it expired without renewal, making state-level programs more meaningful to buyers than they have been in years.
The practical impact for buyers is more nuanced than the headline suggests. California residents purchasing a Tesla under $50,000 for the first time can still access the incentive. But the exemption written for California-based manufacturers is a structural advantage that rewards where a company plants its headquarters flag rather than where it builds its products, and Tesla moved that flag to Texas.
Tesla FSD is about to know your specific house and neighborhood better than any map
The secret behind Tesla’s Cybercab Gold goes well beyond just the color
