News
Tesla and EV-only carmakers are legacy auto’s karma for killing the electric car
Karma could be a cruel mistress. It has a tendency to sneak up from behind before delivering a cruel haymaker to the jaw. Karma takes a while to rev up sometimes, but when it comes, things change, and sometimes these changes can be painful. Considering the state of the auto market, as well as the momentum carried by companies like Tesla, Lucid Motors, and Rivian, it appears that legacy carmakers are finally dealing with some well-deserved karma — for killing the electric car.
The general death of EVs amidst the emergence of the internal combustion engine during the early days of automobiles is understandable. Back then, fossil fuels presented a cheap, efficient way to travel, with vehicles like the Baker Electric and the Porsche P1 taking a very long time to charge. However, the death of the electric car that happened in the late 90s was something that is far more difficult to justify.
During the mid-90s, a modern electric vehicle was created by General Motors, and it could have been the driving force of a change in the motoring world. The vehicle, dubbed the EV1, was on the bleeding edge of tech at the time, with its three-phase alternating current induction motor and lead-acid (later changed to NiMH) battery. It had enough range for inner-city travel, it was fast, and it was sleek. But inasmuch as it was beloved by those who leased it, the EV1 was fated to meet an unfortunate demise.
In a series of events that inspired the creation of the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car,” General Motors decided to discontinue the EV1, reclaiming the car from the leasees and destroying the vehicles. Segments of the acclaimed documentary depicted customers asking GM if they could just purchase the all-electric car, with some even holding demonstrations for the EV. But despite all these efforts, GM let the EV1 die, and most, save for a few, were unceremoniously crushed.
There were many speculations surrounding the EV1’s demise. General Motors insisted that the vehicle was not commercially viable. But the trend of large, gas-guzzling SUVs that followed the EV1 in GM’s lineup contributed to rumors that the electric car was killed because it represented a potential threat to the fossil fuel industry. In a sense, the electric car did die a painful, crushing death in the 90s, and it was not until Tesla came to the picture that EVs emerged as viable alternatives to gas-powered cars once more.
And it’s not like there was no resistance to the emergence of electric cars like Tesla, either. Tesla faced and continues to face strong opposition, and if it weren’t for its dedicated team and Elon Musk’s own stubbornness and resilience, the company could have followed the same fate as the EV1. But with vehicles like the Model S changing the game and cars like the Model 3 disrupting vehicle classes that used to be dominated by the internal combustion engine, it eventually became evident that this time around, it will be far more difficult to kill the electric car.
Amidst the success of companies like Tesla, even legacy automakers are playing catch up. Vehicles like the Jaguar I-PACE and the Chevy Bolt EV are representations of this. But even with these efforts, the pace of innovation in the electric vehicle segment is fast. Companies like Tesla work like tech companies, failing fast and failing forward. And now, legacy auto does not only have Tesla to contend with. Other premier electric cars from companies that are EV-only are coming. Tesla may have put EVs back on the map, but now, more companies are joining the fray.
There’s Lucid Motors with the Air, a hyper-luxury sedan that would likely put the Mercedes S-Class in its place. There’s the Rivian R1T and R1S, which bring luxury and comfort even in places off the beaten path. Even Bollinger Motors is attacking a small niche of rock-crawling vehicles with its no-nonsense, rough-and-tough B1 and B2. These are only the tip of the iceberg as well. Veteran auto is even getting increasingly dedicated to EVs, as evidenced by Porsche’s decision to revamp its entire factory in Zuffenhausen just to get the company ready for more electric vehicles like the Taycan.
It appears that this time around, killing the electric car will not be as simple or easy as before. Unlike the early 1900s, EVs now charge fast and they go the distance, and unlike the 90s, electric cars are now being embraced by mainstream consumers. There’s a demand for them, and EVs are now being noted for their performance. Electric cars are here to stay, and every single one that gets released is additional karma to an auto industry that appears to have dug itself far too deep into fossil fuels.
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
