News
Tesla’s Elon Musk tells managers to correct him if needed: “Sometimes, I’m just plain wrong!”
A recently leaked email from Tesla CEO Elon Musk has highlighted the executive’s unique management style once more. While Musk is known as a boss that demands much from his employees, the leaked email revealed that the CEO is more than willing to be corrected — if the situation calls for it.
The emails were recently retrieved and shared by CNBC, which noted that the messages were sent to Tesla employees in the first week of October. Tesla had just ended its most historic third quarter yet then, delivering a total of 241,300 vehicles from July to September. With this in mind, Musk made it a point to highlight what he wants to happen when he sends explicit directions.
Musk’s email may sound stern, with the CEO noting that Tesla managers are only allowed to take three actions when they receive directions. The CEO noted that if his instructions are vague, managers should ask for clarifications. And if managers believe that the instructions are wrong, Musk noted that managers should send a message to him telling him why his instructions are incorrect. “Sometimes, I’m just plain wrong,” Musk wrote.
Following is Musk’s email to Tesla employees:
To: Everybody
From: Elon Musk
Date: Monday October 4 [time redacted]
Subj. Please Note
If an email is sent from me with explicit directions, there are only three actions allowed by managers.
1. Email me back to explain why what I said was incorrect. Sometimes, I’m just plain wrong!
2. Request further clarification if what I said was ambiguous.
3. Execute the directions.
If none of the above are done, that manager will be asked to resign immediately.
Thank you,
Elon
The contents of the leaked email paint a rather different picture of the CEO, who has been characterized as a brash leader who has a tendency to simply push for what he wants. As the message reveals, Musk may be a strict leader, but he openly admits to making mistakes. The CEO may be confident, but he seems to be fully aware that he is not infallible.
Another leaked email showed a lighter side to the CEO’s management style. In the message, Musk noted that a Tesla associate had reached out to him asking if they could use one earbud to listen to music while they worked. Musk responded positively to this suggestion, even noting that ambient music from speaker systems is completely fine, provided that workers agree on what type of music should be played.
Following is the leaked email:
To: Everybody
From: Elon Musk
Date: Sunday October 3 [time redacted]
Subj. Music in the Factory
Just wanted to say that I very much support music in the factory, as well as any little touches that make work more enjoyable.
An associate just sent me a note asking if we could have one earbud for music so the other ear can listen for safety-related issues. That sounds fine to me.
Also, ambient music from speakers is also totally cool so long as there is reasonable agreement among your colleagues as to the music choices.
If there are other things that you think would improve your day, please let me know. I care very much that you look forward to coming to work every day!
Similar to the other leaked email, this message also breaks a stereotype that has been painted of Tesla and its workers. Tesla critics and even some mainstream reports have alleged that the company’s employees are worked to the bone with very little conveniences, but as noted by Musk in his message, he does want to make work as enjoyable as possible.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
Tesla is reportedly designing its Cybercab production line to manufacture hundreds of the autonomous vehicles each week once mass production begins. The effort is underway at Gigafactory Texas in Austin as the company prepares to start building the Robotaxi at scale.
The details were reported by The Wall Street Journal, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter.
According to the report, Tesla has been adding staff and installing new equipment at its Austin factory as it prepares to begin Cybercab production.
People reportedly familiar with Tesla’s plans stated that the company has been growing its staff and bringing in new equipment to start the mass production of the Cybercab this April.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s upcoming fully autonomous two-seat vehicle designed without a steering wheel or pedals. The vehicle is intended to operate primarily as part of Tesla’s planned Robotaxi ride-hailing network.
“There’s no fallback mechanism here. Like this car either drives itself or it does not drive,” Musk stated during Tesla’s previous earnings call.
Tesla has indicated that Cybercab production could begin as soon as April, though Elon Musk has noted that early production will likely be slow before ramping over time. Musk has stated that the Cybercab’s slow ramp is due in no small part to the fact that it is a completely new vehicle platform.
Tesla’s Cybercab is designed to work with the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system and support its planned autonomous ride-hailing service. The company has suggested that the vehicle could cost under $30,000, making it one of Tesla’s most affordable models if produced at scale. Musk has confirmed in a previous X post that the vehicle will indeed be offered to regular consumers at a price below $30,000.
Musk has previously stated that Tesla could eventually produce millions of Cybercabs annually if demand and production capacity scale as planned.
News
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Tesla Vice President Bonne Eggleston explained the latest updates in a trade secret theft case the company has against a former manufacturing equipment supplier, Matthews International.
Back in 2024, Tesla had filed a lawsuit against Matthews International, alleging that the firm stole trade secrets about battery manufacturing and shared those details with some of Tesla’s competitors.
Early last year, a U.S. District Court Judge denied Tesla’s request to block Matthews International from selling its dry battery electrode (DBE) technology across the world. The judge, Edward Davila, said that the patent for the tech was due to Matthews’ “extensive research and development.”
The two companies’ relationship began back in 2019, as Tesla hired Matthews to help build the equipment for its 4680 battery cell. Tesla shared confidential software, designs, and know-how under strict secrecy rules.
Fast forward a few years, and Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.
Now, the latest twist, as this month, a Judge issued a permanent injunction—a court order banning Matthews from using certain stolen Tesla parts or designs in their machines. Matthews is also officially “liable” for damages. The exact amount would still to be calculated later.
Bonne Eggleston, a VP for Tesla, said on X today that Matthews is a supplier who “exploited customer IP through theft or deception,” and has no place in Tesla’s ecosystem:
Buyer beware: Matthews International stole Tesla’s DBE technology and is now subject to an injunction and liable for damages.
During our work with Matthews, we caught them red-handed copying our technology—including proprietary software and sensitive mechanical designs—into… https://t.co/Toc8ilakeM
— Bonne Eggleston (@BonneEggleston) March 10, 2026
Tesla calls this a big win and warns other companies: “Buyer beware—don’t buy from thieves.”
Matthews hit back with a press release claiming victory. They say an arbitrator ruled they can keep selling their own DBE equipment to anyone and rejected Tesla’s request for a total sales ban. They call Tesla’s claims “nonsense” and insist their 20-year-old tech is independent. Both sides are spinning the same narrow ruling: Matthews can sell their version, but they’re blocked from using Tesla’s specific secrets.
What are Tesla’s Current Legal Options
The case isn’t over—it’s moving to the damages phase. Tesla can:
- Push forward in court or arbitration to calculate and collect huge financial penalties (potentially $1 billion+ if willful theft is proven).
- Enforce the permanent injunction with contempt charges, fines, or even jail time if Matthews violates it.
- Challenge Matthews’ new patents that allegedly copy Tesla’s work, asking courts to invalidate them or add Tesla as co-inventor.
- Seek extra damages, lawyer fees, and possibly punitive awards under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law.
Tesla could also refer evidence to federal prosecutors for possible criminal trade-secret charges (rare but serious). Settlement is always possible, but Tesla’s fiery public response suggests they want full accountability.
This isn’t just corporate drama. It shows why trade secrets matter even when Tesla open-sources some patents, confidential know-how shared in trust must stay protected. For the EV industry, it’s a reminder: steal from your biggest customer, and you risk losing everything.
News
Tesla Cybercab includes this small but significant feature
The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.
Tesla Cybercab manufacturing is strikingly close, as the company is still aiming for an April start date. But small and significant features are still being identified for the first time as production units appear all over the country for testing and for regulatory events, like one yesterday in Washington, D.C.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.
This was for everyone, including the disabled, who are widely reliant on ride-sharing platforms, family members, and medical shuttles for transportation of any kind. Cybercab aims to change that, and Tesla evidently put a focus on those riders while developing the vehicle, evident in a small but significant feature revealed during its appearance in the Nation’s Capital.
Tesla Cybercab display highlights interior wizardry in the small two-seater
Tesla has implemented Braille within the Cybercab to make it easier for blind passengers to utilize the vehicle. On both the ‘Stop/Hazard Lights’ button and the Door Releases, Tesla has placed Braille so that blind passengers can navigate their way through the vehicle:
The hazard lights button will be used as an emergency stop. Smart pic.twitter.com/vkYBioqmKm
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 10, 2026
We have braille on the interior door releases as well
— Eric (@EricETesla) March 11, 2026
This is a great addition to the Cybercab, especially as Full Self-Driving has been partially pointed at as a solution for those with disabilities that would keep them from driving themselves from place to place.
It truly is a great addition and just another way that Tesla is showing they are making this massive product inclusive for everyone out there, including those who have not been able to drive due to not having vision.
The Cybercab is set to enter mass production sometime in April, and it will be responsible for launching Tesla’s massive plans for an autonomous ride-sharing program.
Tesla Cybercab production line is targeting hundreds of vehicles weekly: report
Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case
