The End Of Ownership: Tesla Software Updates Giveth... And Tesla Software Updates Taketh Away...

from the you-don't-own-what-you've-bought dept

A few years back, we wrote about how Tesla automagically extended the range of Teslas in Florida as a hurricane was approaching. While this sounded good, we warned that this wasn't a good thing, when you realized it meant that what you bought could magically and secretly be changed without your permission or desire. In the Florida case, it was for a good purpose, but that wouldn't always be the case. So, it's little surprise that approximately half of all Techdirt readers decided to send me this story from Jalopnik of how Tesla remotely disabled its Autopilot feature on a 2nd hand Tesla Model S after it had been sold:

Tesla officially sold the car to the dealership on November 15, a date I’ve confirmed by seeing the car’s title. On November 18, Tesla seems to have conducted an “audit” of the car remotely. The result of that audit was that when the car’s software was updated to the latest version in December, the Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self Driving Capability (FSD) were removed from the car.

The Jalopnik story is very, very thorough. And, just to be clear, because this is important: Autopilot and Full Self Driving capabilities are not subscription services. It's a one-time payment and the car is supposed to have it for life.

This is all very puzzling. Alec bought the car from a dealer based on a set of features that the dealer understood the car to have when purchased at auction. If Alec saw that the car had Autopilot and FSD when he paid for it, how, exactly, did he not pay for those features?

Those features together are worth $8,000, but as they were already on the car when he bought it, it’s hard to understand how he somehow didn’t pay for them?

I realize that these are software features, but they act like any physical feature of a car. You don’t pay a subscription for FSD or Autopilot, you pay a one-time fee, just like you would for an electromechanical cruise control system on any other car.

If you buy, say, a used Ford Ecosport (not my first choice, but you do you) that has lane keeping assist and active cruise control, and Ford somehow thinks you didn’t pay for those particular features and sends over a service tech to physically remove them from your car, I think we’d all consider that pretty wrong. We might even consider that theft. I’m not clear how what Tesla did here is any different.

The article notes that the purchaser, Alec, then even tried to find out if Tesla would remove such a feature if he wanted a cheaper sale price on a used Tesla, and the company told him it would not. What's even worse is that Jalopnik points to other cases of this happening as well.

In an update to the original post, the dealer who sold the Tesla to Alec says that this isn't even the first time he's seen this kind of thing happen:

I sell dozens of Teslas a year, and sold my father in law a Model X P90D with ludicrous speed package. 60 days after the purchase of the car, Tesla removed his ludicrous speed package. Upon complaints to them they said he never paid for it. We have video evidence and multiple pictures of the vehicle with it. They even removed the line under the P90D. I am still shocked at these acts.

Tesla's only response at the time of writing this is that the car was "incorrectly configured." But, remember, Tesla itself sold the car to the dealer, who then resold it to Alec. And throughout this process, the car clearly showed that it had these features enabled. So, for Tesla to change that after the fact seems like it would dip into outright fraud. Indeed, I'm surprised lawsuits have not been filed.

On a related note, it also opens up a possibly sneaky business model for Tesla: if it takes back out of lease Teslas, or Teslas it's bought back, that had these expensive features enabled, and then disables them before resale, it could double sell these features to new owners who want them. That also seems pretty crappy.

But all of this just highlights how the very concept of ownership is eroding in a world where everything can be software updated automatically. While this has some potentially cool side effects (improvements on the fly!), it can also be used to remove features you paid for, without any obvious recourse. That should concern everyone.

Filed Under: autopilot, cars, elon musk, ownership, software, updates
Companies: tesla

Elon Musk And SpaceX Just Backed Down From Earlier Promise To Release SpaceX Photos To The Public Domain

from the this-is-disappointing dept

Well, this is very disappointing. Back in 2015, you may recall that there was an effort to get SpaceX to put its photos into the public domain. As you hopefully know, all NASA photos, as works of the US government, are in the public domain -- which let us post photos like this one:

But as more and more spaceflight gets privatized, there were concerns that future space photos may increasingly get locked up behind copyright.

After an initial outcry, SpaceX initially agreed to use a Creative Commons license, but one that restricted usage to non-commercial efforts. As we pointed out at the time, that really wasn't good enough. Why does SpaceX need copyright as incentive to take photographs?

After people pointed this out to Elon Musk, he said that they had a good point and that he changed SpaceX's policy to dedicate all the photos to the public domain. And that's how it's been for over four and a half years.

Until now. As Vice's Motherboard reports, SpaceX has now gone back to a more restrictive Creative Commons license, one that says no commercial use is allowed. While using CC is better than going all out with full restrictions, this is still a very disappointing move. The company has told reporters that news organizations can still use the images, and many will have to rely on that promise. While Creative Commons has put a lot of effort into "clarifying" what is meant by "non-commercial" in recent years, including highlighting that for profit news orgs should still be able to make use of such works, that's not really been tested in court.

And, considering that Elon Musk has an occasionally antagonistic relationship with the press, you could see an unfortunate situation in which he decides to go after a journalism organization that upsets him by claiming that they were misusing the "NC" part of the license on a SpaceX photo.

So, once again, we have to ask: why is SpaceX doing this? Why is it going back on Musk's earlier promise that all SpaceX photos would be in the public domain? Why does SpaceX need the restrictions of copyright as an incentive to take photos? Isn't just being able to get to space enough incentives to take some photos?

Filed Under: cc licenses, copyright, elon musk, photos, public domain, space, space images
Companies: spacex

Space X May Soon Give The US Broadband Sector A Much Needed Kick In The Ass

from the competition-is-a-good-thing dept

Could Space X finally give the busted US telecom sector a much needed kick in the ass? Since 2017, Musk's Space X has been promising that it would launch 800 low orbit satellites capable of delivering cheaper, lower latency broadband to large swaths of the United States by 2020 or 2021. By and large Musk and company appear to have been successful sticking to that promise, insisting recently that this proposed timeline was "pretty much on target." That said, Musk had to fire some folks to ensure that the project was meeting its goals, which itself suggests they may not have been.

More recent government filings indicate that the company may be able to accelerate the deployment of fast low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites across broad swaths of the Southern US. The company says that a number of improvements were discovered in the wake of launching 60 LEO satellites back in May. In a filing (pdf), the company says an adjustment in orbital spacing and other efficiences may bring the service (which will be sold under the "Starlink" brand) online sooner and more broadly than expected:

"This adjustment will accelerate coverage to southern states and US territories, potentially expediting coverage to the southern continental United States by the end of the next hurricane season and reaching other US territories by the following hurricane season.

...SpaceX has demonstrated the effectiveness of its revolutionary deployment process and confirmed its ability to populate three orbital planes with a single launch. By then reorganizing its satellites at their already authorized altitude, SpaceX can place coverage and capacity more evenly and rapidly across more of the US."

Obviously it's way too early to know what kind of pricing we're talking about, but the smaller, mass produced satellites are expected to cost significantly less to deploy and maintain, meaning service pricing should be notably less than the heavily capped, throttled, and expensive satellite services we all know and love. There have been some rumblings that the service could clock in under $50 a month, but it's too early to know if that's going to be doable, or whether the service will be rife with annoying usage limits, throttling, or other restrictions (ensuring it's not a truly symmetrical competitor to something like fiber to the home).

All of that said, there are still reasons to keep expectations in check. This being Musk, hype could be overshadowing reality. The service could also launch with a number of the same arbitrary, cash-grabbing restrictions we've seen developing in the cellular space, something that could get worse in the wake of the death of net neutrality and FCC authority. It's also worth noting that there have been a laundry list of similar efforts that have been just as aggressively hyped that have gone absolutely nowhere, thanks to the complicated economic factors involved in, you know, space:

The history of satellite internet, however, is defined by failure, including one of the largest corporate bankruptcies in history. This was a reality Elon Musk candidly acknowledged to reporters ahead of the Starlink launch. “No one has ever succeeded in making a viable low Earth orbit communication constellation right off the bat,” Musk said. “I do believe we’ll be successful, but it is far from a sure thing."

The other x-factor is AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, companies that have a thirty year history of doing everything in their power to stifle newly emerging alternatives to their expensive, unpopular services. The three companies all but own countless state legislatures and a significant portion of Congress, who'll all be doing their best (as they have for decades) to ensure that nothing disrupts the existing, uncompetitive cash cow that is the US residential broadband market. Space X will also have to do battle with a number of other deep-pocketed giants (like Amazon) that have been eyeing the space as a potential disruption play.

Still, the promise being made by low-orbit satellites is hard to ignore. But given the power of entrenched players and telecom history, it probably makes sense to keep enthusiasm in check until we have actual, widespread commercial deployment at a price point that's actually appealing to the millions of Americans desperately craving more, better broadband options.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, elon musk, leo satellites, satellite interent
Companies: spacex

Elon Musk May Have Talked His Way Into A Pretty Serious Defamation Lawsuit

from the no-slapp-issues-here dept

So many defamation lawsuits that we see are so obviously bogus on their face that often it feels like we should reconsider the rules for defamation in the first place. Over and over again we see defamation lawsuits that are obviously SLAPP suits, in which the powerful seek to silence those who criticize them. This lawsuit is one of the rare cases where it does not appear to be a SLAPP suit at all -- and, Elon Musk almost seemed to force the hand of Vern Unsworth into suing him for defamation. Musk, who is a visionary innovator, but who has been involved in increasingly bizarre behavior of late, kicked a bunch of this off with a tweet back in July calling Vern Unsworth a "pedo guy" after Unsworth criticized his submarine plan.

If you somehow missed all of this, there were 12 children trapped in a cave in Thailand, and Musk got intrigued by the rescue attempts and very quickly worked with his own engineers to design and prototype a small submarine that might be used to help rescue the kids. There were a lot of mixed reports on all of this, from some thanking and appreciating Musk making such an effort (he even flew to Thailand with the sub) to others mocking him for shoving himself into the rescue efforts. Wherever you stand on that debate, it really makes no difference for what came next. While some of those involved in the rescue thanked Musk for trying (even though his sub wasn't needed), Unsworth, who had spent years mapping the caves and was widely credited for both bringing in the more experienced divers and for helping the rescuers find the kids in the first place, was unimpressed by Musk's sub and said so. Specifically, he called it a PR stunt, said it had no chance of working, and said "he can stick his submarine where it hurts."

Musk -- quite understandably -- didn't appreciate those comments. However, his response calling Unsworth a "pedo guy" really seemed to come out of nowhere, followed up by Musk later betting a Twitter follower "a signed dollar" that it was true. However, soon after, Musk semi-apologized saying:

... my words were spoken in anger after Mr. Unsworth said several untruths & suggested I engage in a sexual act with the mini-sub, which had been built as an act of kindness & according to specifications from the dive team leader.

This is still slightly odd, as I don't think anyone thought Unsworth was legitimately suggesting Musk "engage in a sexual act with the mini-sub," but whatever. The issue appeared to be over, but Musk apparently just couldn't let it die. In August, when someone reminded him of his comments, Musk suggested he actually stood by his original comments by implying the lack of a defamation lawsuit suggested the original statements were true:

You don't think it's strange he hasn't sued me? He was offered free legal services.

Ryan Mac, a reporter at Buzzfeed, then wrote about how Unsworth had not only lawyered up (weeks before Musk's tweet) but also sent Musk a letter warning him of the impending lawsuit (again, sent well before Musk's tweet). In response to this Musk engaged in a truly bizarre series of emails with Mac, in which he not only reiterated some of his claims about Unsworth, but went even further, claiming Unsworth had moved to Thailand "for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time" and also telling Mac to "stop defending child rapists."

Musk didn't supply any evidence to Mac, despite being asked directly if he could back up those claims. Mac's own reporting also failed to turn up evidence to back up those claims, and also debunked the lesser claims by Musk that Unsworth was "banned from the site" of the rescue divers.

And, that takes us to the actual complaint filed against Musk in federal court in California. The complaint is pretty thorough. It lays out the specific statements that it says are false and defamatory and rebuts them. Ken "Popehat" White notes that some of the statements are pretty clearly not defamatory -- as they're either opinion or hyperbole. But the emails to Buzzfeed with the direct statements including claiming Unsworth took a minor bride certainly appear to go over the line. White notes that there are defenses to this -- including a lack of actual malice (i.e., when Musk said those statements he believed them to be true and had no reason to think they were false). That... might actually fly. But, as White also notes, it seems highly unlikely that Musk can get this dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law, as at least a few of these statements involve direct statements of fact and (at least on their face) don't appear to be supported by disclosed facts. White doesn't think the original "pedo guy" claim rises to the level of defamation, but that one could go either way. But, still, it really looks like the totally unnecessary emails to Buzzfeed are what really put Musk in a difficult spot in this lawsuit.

Still, the bigger issue for Musk is that the lawsuit notes Unsworth is also planning to file a similar lawsuit in the UK, where defamation laws are significantly more friendly to the plaintiffs, putting a burden on Musk to support his statements. Musk, of course, has basically all the money in the world to defend himself, and I do wonder if he'll try to file a counter-defamation lawsuit against Unsworth over Unsworth's comments (since Musk kept claiming they were false as well). If he does, it seems like Unsworth would actually have much stronger defenses against Musk, as none of Unsworth's comments appear to rise to defamation no matter how you look at them.

Perhaps Musk will decide to fight these cases out in court, though it wouldn't surprise me to see him just pay up to settle the cases and get them over and done with. But, as far as defamation cases go, this one seems a lot more legit than many of the ones we normally see.

Filed Under: defamation, elon musk, mini-sub, rescue, thailand, think skin, uk, vern unsworth

Hey Elon Musk, Let's Talk About The Media

from the bad-press-happens,-attacking-the-media-doesn't-help dept

Hey Elon,

Let's start this off by noting I'm generally a big fan of what you've done over the years with your various companies (Zip2 always seemed a bit silly, but, you know, since then...). Just recently I got a tour of the Tesla factory and I felt like Charlie in the Chocolate Factory, even if I didn't get to own the factory when it was over. I've also been impressed by the way you decide to seriously "just get it done" when you see something that should be done. I mean, half the world seemed to think your idea for the Boring Company was actually a joke and yet a year and a half later, you've got a freaking tunnel under LA (in contrast, the 2nd Avenue Subway in NY was proposed in 1919 and just opened partially last year). So, like, I take it seriously when you say you've got a new project underway.

And, yesterday you went on a bit of a Twitter rant about the media and said that you were going to start a media truth rating site called Pravda (clever!). And, as with the Boring Company, I believe you'll do it. I mean, you actually did incorporate Pravda Corp. last fall. So, you've got that going for you.

On top of that, I even think you have a general point about how bad the mainstream media is. We've been at this for over 20 years, and some of our most successful stories have been calling out really bad reporting by big publications. It's good to keep them honest.

That said, I have some pretty serious concerns about this whole setup and believe you've misdiagnosed the problem. Let's start with your tweet that suggests the reason reporters get stories wrong is because they're incentivized by clicks and ad dollars:

I'm curious if you could point to any actual example of that happening in practice today for a mainstream publication? I know that Gawker -- who your former colleague Peter Thiel killed off -- used to pay writers a bonus based on clicks, but I can't think of any other news organization that still does that. It's a nice story that people outside the media like to claim, but actual journalists know is not actually the case. Hell, here at Techdirt, I've never actually told any of our writers how much traffic their stories get, because I don't want them thinking about clicks at all. I want them to write the best stories they can write, and then they can let me focus on how to monetize good content and a good insightful community, rather than just going for scale and clicks.

And, as for the whole "fossil fuel companies as advertisers" bit, it may be true that there are some publishers out there who do worry about offending their advertisers, but I've almost never seen that information conveyed to the journalists themselves, and in the rare cases where that does happen, lots of journalists would (and do) quit rather than feel that their reporting was compromised by advertisers. So, blaming "clicks" and "advertisers" for more sensational stories you don't like is -- dare I say it -- "fake news" (in the parlance of our times, even if that's a dumb and meaningless phrase). It's good to correct the record when the press gets something wrong, but imputing incorrect motives to the reason for the coverage has serious consequences that you really might want to think about.

The reason Tesla gets lots of coverage, both good and bad, is because it's a fucking fascinating company. You've built (1) the first successful new American car company in like a century and (2) done it with an important advancement in technology (electric cars) that have failed in the past. It's a fascinating story. And, as tech comms guy Aaron Zamost pointed out years ago, there's a predictable cycle of "Silicon Valley Time" in how all successful companies tend to get covered -- for good or for bad. For what it's worth, it looks like you're somewhere in the 9 to 10 o'clock hour on Zamost's clock (which actually means you're not that far off from hitting 12 o'clock and getting to start the cycle again.)

But, let's get back to this whole Pravda (again, clever name!) idea (or is it called "You're Right!" now?). I know it feels like you're striking back against some recent bad media coverage. But, honestly, you're really just serving to call more attention to some of the negative stories about Tesla out there right now (including an eye-opening story from the Center for Investigative Reporting, a non-profit not exactly known for clickbait or making decisions based on its non-existent advertisers). Of course, you've done this before as well. I wrote about it five years ago, when another instance of you lashing out at the media only seemed to call more attention to those negative stories.

There's a term for that sort of thing that maybe you haven't heard about.

But, there is a larger, more important issue here that should be discussed. I know you've dismissed a few people who have suggested your anti-media rant does more harm than good, but you might want to rethink that stance. Yes, the media makes mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are pretty serious. And, yes, some media organization are just... terrible. But painting the entire media industry with a broad brush, at the same time that many other powerful institutions who don't want to be held accountable (*cough* *cough*) are doing the same thing, doesn't help make the media better or more credible. It just empowers those who seek to discredit the actually good and necessary job of underpaid, overworked reporters who are actually breaking important stories, holding the powerful accountable and speaking truth to power.

Indeed, if you've actually read this far (and I know that's unlikely, but humor me), I would recommend seriously considering the four questions that Alexios Mantzarlis at the Poynter Institute (again, a non-profit known for supporting serious, thoughtful journalism) had for you about this plan -- which really lays out all the ways in which your plan can go wrong. Crowdsourcing has lots of benefits. But crowdsourcing "truth" tends to turn into a popularity contest of narratives. And, as we've seen, sometimes that leads to some pretty fucked up outcomes.

And you don't need to encourage that kind of thing just because a few journalists pissed you off. You're crazy rich and super powerful. The journalists you are maligning tend to be neither of those things. And your plan looks likely to make things not just worse for them, but to make their jobs in actually bringing about truth that much more difficult.

I might not know how to build a cool factory like the Tesla factory or be able to launch my sports cars into space, but I do know something about the media world. And your little tirade and plans to "fix" things, are based on faulty assumptions and will make a difficult situation for the media much worse -- doing pretty serious damage to the good work that much of the media actually does. I have no problem with calling out bad reporting, weak fact checking, silly assumptions and the like. You've got a powerful soapbox and you should use it accordingly. But, tarring and feathering the entire media and providing tools for everyone else to do the same is going to lead to really bad outcomes.

So, please, focus on continuing to do the impossible with your various companies rather than attacking the media. The Silicon Valley clock will keep ticking, and it'll be 12 o'clock before you know it. Hopefully, by then, there may even be some Teslas that those of us working in media can actually afford.

Thanks,

Mike

Filed Under: credibility, elon musk, fact checking, journalism, media, trust
Companies: pravda

Bad Ideas: Tesla Bars Ride Sharing Drivers From Using Its Superchargers

from the pray-we-don't-alter-it-any-further dept

Tesla remains a fascinating company. Elon Musk famously likes to do things his own way, and doesn't much care for convention. And that's often a great recipe for innovation. At times, it leads to really awesome things like giving away all the company's patents for anyone to use without licensing. But, sometimes it does some weird things that should make people think twice about buying into the Telsa vision -- even when at first pass it may make sense. For example, a few months ago, we were concerned about the "surprise" remote range extension that Tesla gave to drivers in Florida to help them evacuate before Hurricane Irma hit. On its face, this obviously seems like a good thing. Helping people evacuate a hurricane by extending their mileage is unquestionably good.

But it did raise some concerns -- about a company remotely, and without notification, updating the car you purchased from afar. Because if it can be used for "good" reasons (like giving you extra range to escape a hurricane) it might also be used at other times for bad reasons. What if, for example, Elon Musk decides he doesn't like you. Last year, Musk famously banned famed venture capitalist Stewart Alsop from buying one of Tesla's cars after Alsop publicly complained about a poorly staged event by Tesla. Could Musk "brick" someone's car for displeasing him? The backlash to that would be massive, which probably keeps such a move out of the realm of likelihood, but there are still problems with the company changing your car after purchase.

Similarly, last year there were reports that Tesla was banning people from using its self-driving car technology as part of any ride-sharing project. This seemed like an anti-competitive move, as Tesla has talked about setting up its own sort of Uber using self-driving cars that people would buy (basically, you'd "rent out" your car while you weren't using it). We thought that was a neat idea, but were troubled by the idea of contractually blocking Tesla owners from working with other vendors on such a project.

And now there's another troubling move: Tesla is telling "commercial" drivers of its vehicles (mainly ride-sharing drivers) that they can't use the company's Supercharger network to charge their cars. There are perfectly legitimate, non-nefarious reasons for this. Mainly: there are apparently problems with Superchargers being overcrowded these days, and you could see why the company doesn't want them clogged up with ride sharing drivers, effectively subsidizing their driving jobs. At the very least, the company has made it clear the policy only applies to new Tesla buyers, so it's not a bait-and-switch situation.

But, still, there's something troubling about the idea that the company can ban you from using its Superchargers based solely on the type of driving you're doing. Again, that leads to questions about what other situations may arise where Tesla bans people from using its chargers in one form or another. I'm sure that many won't think this is a big deal -- and will point out that the company needed to do something to avoid congestion. But we should be concerned about how this is subtly changing our relationship to the products we (thought we) own, and the control that companies have over our usage, post-purchase.

I don't think Tesla is doing anything nefarious here, and there are plenty of seemingly good reasons for why the company chose this path. But we should be quite careful and thoughtful about how we move into a world where the company that sells you something retains an astounding amount of control over how and even if you are allowed use it, based on how much it likes or dislikes you or your profession. Because sooner or later, these issues are going to get bigger and more problematic -- and it might help if we really thought about them now, before things get messy.

Filed Under: cars, elon musk, internet of things, ownership, ride sharing, superchargers
Companies: tesla

Wolfgang Puck Battles Elon Musk's Brother Over Trademark Rights For 'The Kitchen' In Restaurant Industry

from the really? dept

Update: The original story incorrectly suggested that the USPTO had allowed a trademark on "the Kitchen" when that's not the case. We've edited the article to correct that impression, and apologize for the error.

Generic terms that are allowed trademark protection are the bane of those that still believe trademark law serves a useful function. For the law to work as intended, to protect the public's ability to know what they're buying and from whom they are buying it, trademarks need to be both unique and identifying.

Take one current trademark dispute, for instance, which happily includes such big names as Wolfgang Puck and the brother of Elon Musk, Kimbal Musk. Those two are currently battling over whether or not the term "the kitchen" ought to be trademarked for the restaurant industry. Puck is opening new digs in Chicago with the name "The Kitchen by Wolfgang Puck." Musk is one of the founders of The Kitchen Cafe out of Colorado. Musk filed a lawsuit against Puck in Colorado over the trademark issue, with Puck's lawyers filing a motion to dismiss while also filing suit in Illinois to have the Chicago area be the venue for the litigation.

The Colorado complaint filed by Musk's company makes the following claim.

Puck's "use of The Kitchen immediately caused confusion in the restaurant industry and marketplace," according to the Colorado compliant, which The Kitchen Cafe filed against a different Puck entity, Wolfgang Puck Licensing.

The claim is fairly laughable for any number of reasons. There is the generic nature of the term in the restaurant industry, the fact that the term does nothing to identify the source of the restaurant ownership, and, most importantly, the wide swath of restaurants that incorporate the term into their names. And that's the reason for Puck's desire to move the venue to Chicago. Puck's lawyer, Steve Mick, explains it nicely.

Both parties have restaurants in Chicago, Mick said. "And we like the fact that within a mile radius of The Kitchen's location in Chicago, there are five or six other restaurants using the phrase 'kitchen.'"

In River North, there's Lyfe Kitchen, Travelle Kitchen + Bar and Doc B's Fresh Kitchen, according to the Illinois complaint. One North Kitchen & Bar is also nearby in the Loop.

"That just sort of underscores our whole point," Mick said. "They don't get to elbow out everybody."

And the fact that they haven't even tried is going to be a problem in the suit. If Puck's restaurants are infringing on Musk's trademarks, why aren't all of these other, longer-standing restaurants likewise infringing? The attorney for The Kitchen Cafe has an answer for this, but it's not a good answer.

"The Kitchen has no issue with descriptive uses of 'kitchen' that do not cause confusion, which is the case in these other instances," said Timothy Getzoff, the attorney representing The Kitchen Cafe. "In contrast, Puck's competing restaurant uses the exact same name, The Kitchen, which already has caused confusion in the market."

Which means that Musk's company essentially filed a trademark suit over the word "the." That word is the hangup here, even as the overtly generic term "kitchen" is utilized all over the restaurant industry. If Musk's suit isn't a loser, then I don't know what would be.

Filed Under: elon musk, kimbal musk, kitchen, restaurants, trademark, wolfgang puck