News
Elon Musk wants the Government to be a referee, not a player in the game of industry and innovation
Elon Musk is one of the most innovative minds to ever exist in the tech community. With his multiple companies providing successful changes in how some industries, like automotive, are looked at, Musk is a proven CEO with a track record to back it up. His many ideas basically changed the idea of what it is like to drive a car, which many of us thought would be dominated by gas and diesel-powered engines for years to come. An innovative mind and a lot of hard work undoubtedly contributed to Tesla’s success, and Musk has no interest in giving credit to anyone who didn’t earn it.
With the election coming to a close and a new Presidential campaign being selected to run the United States for the next four years, Musk was recently asked during an interview with the Wall Street Journal whether President-Elect Joe Biden’s plans to spend big on industry and innovation were a good thing. Musk doesn’t seem to have a problem with the idea, but he is vocal about the fact that the government should do more regulating than contributing. The role of Government, after all, is to enact laws and make sure they are abided by citizens. Additionally, assisting with companies’ innovation is something the Government shouldn’t stick its nose up at. Still, Musk just hopes that it plays more of an administrative role instead of becoming a “player in the game.”
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
“It’s the Government’s role to establish the rules of the game and then ensure that those rules are properly enforced,” Musk said. The CEO even compared the Government’s role to that of a referee in a game of football: Know the rules, enforce them correctly, make sure the game is fair.
What the Government doesn’t need to do is stay out of the way of the big companies who are working to innovate the processes of daily life to benefit them and their objectives. “I think when the Government does not do a great job is when they want to not just be a referee on the field, they want to be a player on the field. This does not end up in a good situation.”
The issue with the Government overreaching into the field of industry and innovation is that they will “pick technology winners and losers” instead of letting companies play out their innovation themselves. This could lead to small companies being undermined even if they have ideas or technology that larger companies don’t have access to.
This scenario, if Government was overly involved in tech and innovation, could have crippled Tesla’s efforts when the company was just starting to churn out vehicles in 2008. Even though Tesla had established itself as a player in electric vehicles, it was a small, relatively unknown company that faced massive problems due to lack of funds. Nearly shutting its doors after issues with the original Roadster, Tesla somehow overcame the adversity and received more investor money.
Now, imagine if the Government would have been a player instead of a referee in this scenario. It would have likely given a large financial assistance package to a well-developed, large scale automaker like Ford or GM to develop EVs. Instead, it stayed out of the innovation portion of the equation and let the players decide the game for themselves. Tesla ended up becoming the leader in EVs, while GM and Ford are failing to catch up. It’s fairly safe to say that without Tesla, EVs would not be what they are today. The legacy automakers that exist in the universe of automotive manufacturing would likely have cranked out one or two low-range models because their primary focus is still on gas-powered cars and not on electrification.
This whole picture perfectly aligns with how Tesla’s story has played out thus far. It is fairly obvious that the Government in 2008 would have sided with a company with proven infrastructure, and not some company who had a shot in the dark to change the entire framework of vehicle manufacturing. This is where Musk made his next point: Make the rules that incentivize the outcome, not the path.
The ultimate goal is to let companies figure out issues on their own. There is no reason to have Government programs essentially hold the hands of private industry. There needs to be more of a focus on the end goal and not the path a company takes to get there. Rarely is the road to success a straight and narrow path. Many companies, Tesla being a prime example, have to fight and struggle to create a new, innovative project. Tesla’s story is perfect evidence that the end goal takes a lot of persistence and it doesn’t need to be filled with hand-holding from large Government entities. While Biden’s plan to pump money into innovation and industry may help some companies get back on their feet in dire times of need, it shouldn’t hold the hands of these large companies whose job it is to figure out the answer to problems.
When large car companies begin to manufacture and deliver electric vehicles that are good for consumers, then they should be rewarded. Riding on the coattails of Government assistance packages that don’t necessarily guarantee innovation is the wrong way to go about things. When companies prove that they are in the business of creating a great product, then the rewards should come in. It’s that simple.
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
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
