[mrw34]

Musk's comments from yesterday's earnings call:

"We have a slight laughable lawsuit recently from some company ironically called Nikola. Nikola is suing Tesla. That's hilarious. Fate loves irony. But they're suing us because the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because the way it looks, or because going to wraparound windshield or whatever. Please."

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4169027-tesla-tsla-q1-2018-...

[maccard]

> But they're suing us because the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because the way it looks, or because going to wraparound windshield or whatever. Please."

Whether that's true or not, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the lawsuit.

[mlevental]

doesn't it? does this kind of thing depend on exactly whether whatever characteristic was copied/stolen is actually responsible for any of the revenue/purchasing?

[DannyBee]

No. That is at best a question of damages, not infringement.

[sdhgaiojfsa]

I think, for most people, the damages are all that matter. Whether you are theoretically infringing on something is not what you lose sleep at night over. It's whether you're going to be sued and lose a lot of money.

[dragonwriter]

> I think, for most people, the damages are all that matter.

They certainly aren't all that matters legally, because damage awards aren't the obly remedy in patent cases, injunctive relief is available.

> It's whether you're going to be sued

While damages effect the risk that you will be sued, Tesla is in fact being sued here.

> and lose a lot of money.

Sure, but damages aren't the only costly outcome. In this case, an injunction that forces a non-infringing redesign would be expensive for Tesla even before considering any damage award.