News
Tesla had “Faraday” as a backup name before buying “Tesla Motors” trademark for $75k
In a few informative tweets on Saturday evening, Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk revealed some trivia about the company’s naming history: “Faraday” was the alternative name proposed for the electric vehicle manufacturer before “Tesla Motors” was purchased for $75,000. A man named Brad Siewert had filed for the mark in 1994 and maintained its registration until the sale to Musk’s company was made in 2004.
While Musk has expressed admiration for the body of work produced by the famed Serbian-American inventor who would usher in an era of AC induction motors, Nikola Tesla, Musk’s use of the name “Tesla” for an electric car company wasn’t immediately feasible. Due to trademark roadblocks in the US, Europe, and China, registering the simpler “Tesla” name was precluded thanks to ownership by others in those countries. Interestingly enough, however, Tesla Motors, Inc. changed its name to simply Tesla, Inc. in February of 2017.
Tesla history trivia: we didn’t actually come up with the Tesla Motors name. Bought trademark off Brad Siewert for $75k in late 2004. He’d originally filed for it in 1994. Our alternative name was Faraday, which was used by a competitor several years later. https://t.co/zPnrrVash1
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2018
The trivia revelation was in response to a short clip from a recent 60 Minutes interview with the business magnate. An extended clip provided on CBS News also revealed that prior owner Siewert didn’t want to sell the trademark to the vehicle manufacturer, so Musk sent “the nicest guy in our company” to sit on the doorstep until he agreed to make the sale. Obviously, the charming fellow was convincing enough to be successful in his endeavor, although the price tag drove a tough bargain at the time.
It’s tough to imagine this name any differently now.
In the shorter video clip posted with Musk’s original tweet about the trademark purchase, he lightheartedly debated about the correct pronunciation of the electric vehicle company’s name with host Lesley Stahl. He seemed to prefer his “z” sound for Tesla’s “s”, and she preferred the softer “s” version. Other clips provided from the same interview were released previously, one notably airing Musk’s consideration of a GM factory purchase in response to that company’s recent announcement of closures.
Also revealed in subsequent tweets was Musk’s lack of enthusiasm for the TeslaMotors.com website domain, citing an arduous $11 million dollar process lasting over ten years to acquire Tesla.com. A quick search for “Tesla” in the US trademark database alone reveals hundreds of goods and services paying tribute to the scientific genius of Nikola Tesla. With the mark tied into so many products and services, the wonder isn’t why someone would hold onto the domain name, but rather why the specific domain was such an issue given the car company’s market presence. Perhaps, it was simply the principle of the matter.
-
Buying https://t.co/46TXqRrsdr took over a decade, $11M & amazing amount of effort. Didn’t like https://t.co/BsRfMrY9Gm even when we were only making 🚘.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2018
Tesla was founded in 2003 with the purpose of shifting the public’s perception of electric cars and kick-starting a revolution in clean energy vehicles. The Roadster, Tesla’s first vehicle unveiled in 2008, struggled with production demands and reliability, but it found enough popularity to move electric cars out of the “golf cart” status they’d been relegated to and provide the fledgling startup with the tools needed to take the next steps.
Today, the company boasts three other successful models with electric semi-trucks on the way and a 2nd generation Roadster scheduled to begin production in 2020. The original Roadster was famous aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy demo launch with a spacesuit-outfitted “driver” named Starman in the front seat. That vehicle is currently floating over 200 million miles away from Earth.
Brad Siewert now owns the trademark for “Drone Delivery Butler” which was registered in 2017. Perhaps he’s on to something that will be worth another $75,000 once the concept catches on in about ten years, the approximate time Tesla Motors spent under his stewardship. Then again, the name of one of the most famous butlers in pop culture exists in the Iron Man story, a franchise that Musk has already claimed as the “real life” Tony Stark. Jarvis Neural Networks, anyone?
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
