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?
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
