Deep dive into the Aptera vs Zaptera lawsuit with Heather Meeker

[@TheDapperham]

Thank you for you expertise, Heather Meeker.

[@n.brucenelson5920]

Yes, Thank you for sharing with us!

[@apterasolar]

Excellent, simply excellent! Thanks to Heather Meeker for your time and expertise to give us some coordinates about that process. Thanks to Steve for the initiative and finding an expert!

[@luapkirner5331]

agree!

[@AdamWex]

Steve- great job on finding a solid expert and conducting a really good interview.

[@henrikasfeldt2948]

Thank you Heather Meeker for explaining this in such an easily understandable way. Another great interview, Steve.

[@richarddickey7367]

Steve, thank you for engaging Heather and leading a great discussion. Heather,thank you sharing your insight.You’ve gained a subscriber !

[@jamesengland7461]

Thank you, Heather, for sharing your time and expertise with us!

[@greenbergp]

Great interview, thanks to you both.

[@babaluto]

Looking at Heather's channel, excellent info on open source. Looking forward to scouring. Cheers!

[@chrisbarrett2512]

A non-practicing entity, (Zaptera) has not attempted to actually produce anything, makes me feel that the court will help Aptera get this dismissed. Trade dress, and prior art, (Morelli shape) make Aptera's design more because of function. This complaint might be setting the precedent allowing for enforcement of this patent, it might become a win for Aptera, and that might be a good thing. Thank you for this interview, and happy hear from Heather Meeker. What a great find, and I hope she gets some other work from this. Thank you both. My outlook makes me think this suit is a non-starter. Hopefully this will be dismissed.

[@bluetoad2668]

You think Aptera is doing something? 😂😂 Seriously? Lookup 'confirmation bias' and take a good hard look in the mirror. Aptera has become like a cult, you must believe they will one day deliver 😂

[@jackgreenstalk777]

Doesn't matter if they have never made it. If they have copyright or trademarks prior, mirelli shape may have exist but didnt get applied to vehicle especially in regards to patent. There is case history with firearms, where one company never produced the product but just had drawings, and won the copyright claim. It wasn't until the other company went, and found earlier copyrights from other countries (also not produced) and made functioning examples, to show in that case "pump action" already existed (winchester vs bannerman, spencer & roper 1890s)... had they not been able to find the foreign copyrights, and produce and present them in court, they would have had to wait another 10 years to produce their famous trench broom shotgun model 1897. Spencer, bannerman and roper had a pump action they actually made, but was much less popular. Initially it was just paperwork tho, and was enough to get them the patent initially. All that said, aptera is going to just end up settling out of court. This type of law is literally, the most expensive to litigate. It will cost WAY more to fight it then to settle

[@johnmalcom9159]

@@bluetoad2668 Supporters are a little cultish, but it is OK to be enthusiastic about something. That is why AOC is so valuable as a third party, research driven, source of balanced information some time criticized by the "Cult" and sometimes criticized by the "Haters" That is how we know he is doing a good job for all the Aptera community.

[@yougeo]

In United States patent law the holder of the patent does not have to produce anything to continue to have all the rights to the patent unfortunately. In the early days of US patent law that was the case and if you didn't produce it you lost your patent but now it is not the case and it hasn't been for many many years unfortunately. Unfortunately our patent system is more often used to block the development of patented products to keep the competition off the market rather van actually encouraged the awareness and development of new technologies.

[@geekinstein]

In a startup we were advised that 2 + 2 could not be patented. Our unique product was simply a rehash of things discovered decades past. Copyrights may have helped but every year we saw our ideas incorporated into products owned by huge companies. It's nice to see the idea work and help customers but some royalty would have been nice. We were drawing similar tadpole cars when I was in grade school sixty years ago. I wonder if this all may fall away as an inevitable incremental pursuit of simple efficiency...

[@cruzer01]

Great interview! Thank you Heather and Steve. I hope Aptera is on the right side of this and have knowledgeable lawyers to defeat this case early. Maybe Aptera can consult with Heather??

[@tumbleweed1976]

Educational. Thank you both!!!

[@kevinc8811]

Great interview Steve.She provided an interesting and informative overview of the process involved in patent law suits while remaining completely impartial. I think Heather is brilliant and have subscribed to her channel.

[@gr8dvd]

💯 and also subscribed tho already over-indulging in media content, as a TY for her lending her extraordinary expertise, presented with great clarity.

[@billleddy602]

Thanks Heather and Steve. Very informative.

[@tylerreeves8026]

Thanks for going out of your way to find an expert for us Steve!

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

Any time!

[@schultp]

Steve, I have always valued your work and efforts on your videos. I've liked some more than others. That is not a negative but simply expected when you have generated so many Aptera-related videos. You hit it out of the park on this one. Having an IP expert provide insight will hopefully stabilize the "internet lawyering" that you mentioned at the beginning. Well done!

[@MistSoalar]

This is one of a kind. Super informative and easy to understand. Thank you Heather & Steve.

[@harriettanthony7352]

Hey Ho! Let this writer ECHO the praises for Mrs. Meeker and Steve for this 'above and beyound the call of duty' interview. Now we wait;--

[@hndit2u]

Thanks Heather and Steve. Really interesting. Next time, you need to play that guitar that's in the background

[@DemaGeek]

Steve and Heather, thank you so much for this informative discussion and your professional insights into this complicated topic! We will eagerly follow the progression and hope for Aptera's quick and unencumbered success!!

[@DrTeeHenry]

Wow, I think I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night! Great interview -- questions by Steve and legal content by Ms. Meeker! Regarding the venture capital discussion, it seems to me that Aptera ticks off all the boxes. Maybe it is just that the VCs have been stingy, regardless of merit, these past few years.

[@babaluto]

What I've learned the hard way about possesing a patent is you may have the right to defend it. However unless you can afford the cost to defend it, your position is weak. This often happens to individuals.

[@gr8dvd]

Best related advice I received was succeed in the marketplace (gain visibility & capital) before attempting to protect IP.

[@babaluto]

@@gr8dvd That is a one case scenario if you have the capital to jump ahead. Most investors will not invest unless the IP is secure. I found the best way on limited funds, is to file and once you are pat pending, you have a cloak of secrecy until the patent is assigned. The waters are infested.

[@gr8dvd]

@@babaluto YT once again conceals my post but (as I recall) I failed to note, in my case, it was specialized software and I had inexpensive marketing avenues thru professional associations (vendor fairs) and journals. Admittedly very different from manufacturing a new thingy much less a solar vehicle.

[@andremcamara3120]

Great interview. Thank you Heather and Steve.

[@SteveBueche1027]

So the meat of the argument is who got the patent after the company was liquidated.

[@zdrusse11]

As a law student interested in IP law, I appreciate this convo. One thing I'd ask about is laches. I wonder if Zaptera waiting so long could preempt their ability to recover even if the suit is meritorious.

[@gr8dvd]

Attorney addressed in non-specific terms saying it’s not uncommon for complainants to litigate late in hopes of IP (& company) having greater value, thus incentive & ability to payout. Probably a crap-shoot as when is too late to file.

[@zdrusse11]

@@gr8dvd there’s limits though, especially if you can show bad faith.

[@Mikey_Likes_It_Too]

Great video Steve! I feel a bit better after Heather's explanation, thank you!

[@Ivan-ks1ix]

Thanks Steve and Heather, very interesting and informative!

[@artboymoy]

That was excellent! Thank you Steve and Heather!

[@ronfarnsworth7074]

Very well done. I learned a lot.

[@theninjineer]

Thank you!

[@humnpwr]

Another very good episode. I heard about the law suit about a week ago and I figured you would be right on it so I’ve been patiently waiting. Thanks for the update.

[@humnpwr]

@@davidf4898 thanks for correction.

[@patjohnson6571]

Thank you both for great content. So Heather, did this intro to Aptera inspire you to reserve one?

[@irontube]

Thanks Heather! Really nice, professional and clear! Such a professional!🎉

[@jonj9149]

Excellent interview! I watched every minute and actually paid attention.

[@rmigalla]

Thank you 🙏, Steve. I feel so delighted in the presence of intelligent conversation without rancor or hidden agenda. Once again you are keeping me from losing all hope in humanity. I'm also grateful Heather shared not only her brilliance with us, but her sadness about this practice. I wish we, as a culture, would move away from being so money-driven. I feel saddened by that 😞, too.

[@jonathonalsop2120]

That was a good chat, Heather was a great guest. Interesting regardless of my personal interest in Aptera.

[@davidbeal6925]

Thank you so much! This is exactly what I have been looking to see. Should have known itd be ypu to put this together first.

[@thomas6502]

Thank you Heather!

[@gr8dvd]

GREAT interview with welcome clarification: -plaintiff (alleged) patent holder does NOT have to have a product, in or going to market (ie, a "non-practicing entity"); -patents have variable expirations with the subject DESIGN patents here (2011) expire in 14y (April 2025); -functional aspects of a design patent are NOT protected*; -confirmed creator of a sold patent has no legal claim to sold patent… agree it’s "sad" and, (as previously speculated) MAY have a subliminal influence on infringement decision. *aero shape is completely driven by functional efficiency and thus the design patent MAY BE worthless, ie, offers no protection from copycats.

[@biffwilliams6191]

The ornamental design patent is not worthless, it just covers the non-functional, aesthetic aspects of the original exterior design: logos, hood ornaments, window shapes, headlight shapes, any deviation from the Morelli body done for aesthetics. The current design changes many of the “ornaments” (headlights completely different, no rear side windows, hatch shape different, windshield has a dip in the top, side windows are split, etc.) but the question is if it changes all of them and what percentage of ornamental design elements need to stay the same to constitute patent infringement.

[@gr8dvd]

@@biffwilliams6191 Didn’t recall that other vehicle components were specified and thus presumably protected by Aptera’s aero design patents. Tho if Aptera’s Morelli ‘dolphin’ body shape is excluded, wonder how they (& investors) will assess Aptera’s pre-revenue valuation?

[@santanumaitra3962]

Another interesting (in a good way of course) and accomplished individual! Thanks!!

[@danam0228]

Very interesting, thank you Steve and Heather. Sounds like aptera may have to pay the plaintiff some money. Should probably buy the patent and compensate them a bit extra, but not much considering neither party has yet sold a vehicle. The one thing not mentioned is how the current iteration of the company bought what they could from the first iteration of the company, what is useful to the current company. I don't remember what those things are and how much they may relate to the items brought up in the complaint. Would be interesting to know that, how those purchases may effect the outcome of the complaint.

[@adimchionyenadum2962]

This lady was great. Independent of her exquisite and down to earth explanation of the IP legalities, I am going to subscribe right away to her KZbin channel. Thanks, Steve, for bringing her on your show.

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

Thanks for your support of the channel!

[@luxfino]

Letting aside the question of ownership of those patents, I think most import is the difference between Utility patents and design patents (17:11). My take on it is that you can not own the Morelli shape as a utility patent as it is common good or too old. Everybody can use the shape! So, when you take all the functional aspects away, like the shape and the external wheels it comes down to the superficial appearance ONLY like color, lines, headlights. In that way I believe the new Aptera looks DIFFERENT enough to the old one. Thanks Steve and Heather Meeker, highly educating and special as always.

[@jrstoelting]

She did a very good job of clearly and concisely breaking down a complicated matter in easily under stable terms.

[@Russwig]

Thanks for digging into this. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I saw some reference to Zap Auto Company in Santa Rosa on the Discord discussion regarding this suit. I don't believe there is any connection with this entity.

[@DaBinChe]

That was great! Heather is a fantastic guest!

[@theresjer]

Great conversation! .. maybe next time Heather can show us what she can make that bass do 🤘🤘

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

Thanks for your support of the channel :)

[@deestewart6782]

Thanks!

[@deestewart6782]

copy

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

You bet!

[@flymypg]

The patents were assigned from Idea Labs to a "paper" entity only last July! Clearly, the claimants took Aptera's reply letter to heart, and restructured their approach to address Aptera's concerns in order to pursue this claim.

[@montanaerdoc]

A paper entity is a legal document that establishes the existence of an entity. An entity is a person or organization that has distinct legal rights, such as a corporation, partnership, or individual. An entity can own property, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued, and engage in business. So yes, If they were ignored by Aptera with the first letter, they may be trying a different tact with this July change in "entity."

[@ryanl6316]

Steve - did you find out if Aptera drags it out past the expiration date, would that nullify the suit? Or would they still consider it valid since it was filed while the patent *was* still valid ...

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

Yes that doesn't nullify it. It was filed before it expires so even if it takes 20 years to resolve the suit the complaint is still valid

[@biffwilliams6191]

@@ApteraOwnersClubBut the infringement and calculated penalties would only be for the period prior to the expiration date. So no percentage of sales, but maybe they can claim the patented IP was used to raise investment money, etc. But Aptera has no extra money to settle with, so this may drag out. Zaptera needs Aptera to be successful to make much money, so Zaptera can't push too hard either.

[@rchender]

Great job with this interview Steve, thanks! Informative yet not informative, but that's very helpful too...shows us how an 'unknown' might impede progress a bit. It certainly provided valuable insight as well as providing as clear a picture of ongoing and future litigious risk as we could get right now. And it would be unwise for Aptera to actually comment on this in detail right now, so this interview was useful in shedding light without too much 'heat'. Thanks to Ms. Meeker--clearly a good 'find' as an expert to interview on the subject.

[@franciscog9635]

Fun lady and a good intro to patent law. Thanks! But I don’t think she addresses this lawsuit: 1- Did Zaptera purchase and thus own all of the old Aptera IP? 2- Is Idealab still the true owner of old Aptera’s IP, not Zaptera?

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

We don't have the information to address those things. We only have the complaint from the plaintiff. So we correctly have one side of the story and only the partial one side. Full information will take years to come out as the lawsuit proceeds. Unless they settle which is the more likely scenario

[@biffwilliams6191]

@@ApteraOwnersClubZaptera was assigned at least one of these patents in July 2024 according to the Patent Service Database. They probably bought them in 2012 but didn't spend the money to record the sale until they decided to sue. The assignment might not have shown up in the database until after the Aptera response.

[@adimchionyenadum2962]

@@biffwilliams6191 If that is the case, then probably Zaptera purposely kept it that way in order to trap whoever would buy the IP from the wrong party. Apparently Aptera fell into the trap. Wish them success in their disentanglement effort.

[@mylifeonlegendary4490]

My question, it looks like this patent expires April 11, 2025. Can this lawsuit continue after the patent has expired?

[@elyb1494]

Thanks for the great interview, Steve! As a lay person in all this, one question I was waiting for you to ask Heather was.. couldn't Aptera just delay the lawsuit until the patents expire in 2025? Or can an expired patent owner make a case for infringement retroactively as well?

[@q65-nottheband96]

Good question is was asking myself also, i think the claim will stand because they did it now...

[@unclegeorge7845]

How about Aptera suing Zaptera for Tradename infringement?

[@bobhellman8676]

Can you post a link so we can read the filing?

[@marksaunto2588]

Design patent claim would depend to a large degree on subjective comparison, no? There are differences and it seems the similarities are driven by function. Does patent specifically indicate that design (appearance/shape) is part of that patents package of intellectual property?

[@biffwilliams6191]

@@shrimptopian3392Trademarks and company names expire if not registered or used in a product. It is difficult for a non-practicing entity to protect an unused brand. The Zaptera company name was not registered for 10+ years and they have never sold a vehicle.

[@RobertRobert-u4f]

Why was I not informed of a possible lawsuit before I invested $10,000 a month ago. I not happy this possible litigation was being considered. Aptera may have possible litigation against them from investors if this doesn’t go well. For withholding this information from possible investors.

[@ksairman]

That was excellent!

[@rickmcdonald7075]

Just came back to this to say, "Great episode!"

[@danielthompson3928]

It is not lost on me that an “internet engineer” is teasing “internet lawyers” 🤭. Respect to the experts in their respective fields.

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

Touche!

[@johnmalcom9159]

One view of this situation is that, in the view of Zaptera, Aptera is successful, or will be successful enough to be a target for potential revenue to the point they are willing to risk the expense of litigation to get a share of the pie. Although aggravating to us, this is a backhanded compliment to Aptera.

[@theresjer]

I think a good backhanded settlement might be for Aptera to toss them a few shares of non-voting stock so they have to wait to make back their legal expenses

[@fliporhold]

Might bucky fuller and preston tucker have a prior claim on aerodynamic car design?

[@kimbowilco]

thank you very much (-:

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

thank you for your support!

[@robinpettit7827]

I was aware this should mostly be about the money. However, if I were Zaptera, they should have sued next year.

[@AdamWex]

It doesn't actually appear that they've sued just yet- it looks like they're in the "pay us money and we won't sue" phase.

[@gr8dvd]

@@AdamWex True a necessary 1st step to suing with a subsequent lawsuit suing (& for how much) TBD, depending on ‘facts’ & how receptive Aptera is… glad they’re indicating basically f--off 😀

[@biffwilliams6191]

@@AdamWexThey filed a lawsuit.

[@PeterK-y2j]

Thank you for doing this. This gives a lot more reliable insight compared to a lot of rumors and interpretation. All in all the current status is not great, but it also is solvable. IMO

[@kevinscott8642]

I think you meant to say it is solvable.

[@PeterK-y2j]

@@kevinscott8642 thanks for the hint I corrected it right away. ;-)

[@namenotshown9277]

Also it should be remembered aptera is trying to get an ip portfolio, largely for investment attraction purposes and to increase value of the company, so its quite fair for someone else to protect their own patent rights if they want. Its not a one way street. This probably wont be last IP suit again aptera, I would be surprised if lucid doesn't also do a suit for using their battery IP ( under the name atieva). I'm surprised no one is talking about that one, it will need to be resolved sooner or later also. You cant just copy someones IP without license or royalties. Fortunatley for aptera they haven't sold or produced a vehicle as yet, so lucid might not have any ability to do a court proceeding as yet, its a full patent on the battery design under company name atieva ( now lucid motors).

[@jackgreenstalk777]

Whoever has more money will win the lawsuit. Doesn't have to do with who is right and wrong.

[@b.robinson206]

I'm certainly not a layer.... But I'm willing to bet If it goes to trial and the jury (human beings with emotions) can clearly see a plaintiff seems to be doing something purely out of spite or to inflict damage, they will side with the defendant. For instance, a entity with deep pockets going after the little guy who is actually the REAL inventor of a product? That ain't a good look and comes across as just being jerks.

[@adimchionyenadum2962]

​​@b.robinson206 Not if they actually legally owned something protected by law. I can't imagine an informed jury that wouldn't side with them.

[@b.robinson206]

@@adimchionyenadum2962 Legally owned something that they just sat on their hands and did nothing with till someone else tried to do something with it? Yeah, ok.

[@takenoshortcuts]

Wow, this looks like a serious issue that will cost a lot to sort out, even if Aptera wins. Bummer. Fingers crossed it works out.

[@ericstarmer7779]

I think Aptera is going to go bankrupt again - they will sue for millions - maybe 10's of millions. Good job I've (almost) forgotten about the $10,000 I invested........

[@randyland1000]

Interesting

[@Leonardokite]

Interesting, but I'm still as clueless as I was before LOL.

[@georgrandis8233]

All my homies hate Zaptera

[@madmotorcyclist]

What about the fact the Morelli design precedes all of this? Shouldn't that invalidate this design patent?

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

That is covered

[@gr8dvd]

Yes IMO it should have been denied originally but obviously wasn’t. Not unheard of for patent protections to be either narrowed or tossed. So good news/bad news little to no protection nor value to these (functional) design patents. Anyone know how much value Aptera claimed for their IP generally AND specifically as related to these 2 aero design patents?

[@biffwilliams6191]

@@gr8dvdNo, the Morelli shape does not invalidate the patent, it just limits the scope. Rather, the patent still covers the ornamental and aesthetic choices in the design: headlight design, window design, grill design, door design, logos, aesthetic adjustments to the Morelli shape, etc.

[@JeanMichelTrivi]

If you care enough to want to know the answer, you can watch the video

[@madmotorcyclist]

@@JeanMichelTrivi I type it in before they mention Morelli's design, but they didn't really answer the question of whether the patent could be challenged based upon precedence. Patents have been challenged before by precedence.

[@rngalston]

Litigiousness can be stifling.

[@jackgreenstalk777]

She hit nail on head why VCs arent investing in aptera. They need to see a large market and 3 wheel vehicles have never shown that yet. Not that aptera cant push more that way, but most big $$ folks only invest when they have historic comparison

[@jonj9149]

She said nothing about why VCs aren't investing in Aptera. She explained what VCs assess. She didn't weigh in on how those assessments apply to Aptera.

[@johnmalcom9159]

@@jonj9149 No she didn't. BUT she did identify the main reasons that venture capital companies don't invest one of which is the potential size of the market. Aptera suffers from a weak market assessment in the automotive industry, two seat EV. Track record for start up EV companies is less than poor.

[@schtinerbock4570]

American patent system bites

[@TheWizardWhiteHawk]

Sounds like a sleeper cell. Only useful if aptera got close. They where never going to do anything with it ...

[@ericstarmer7779]

I worry that Chris and Jason went ahead with Aptera knowing they didn't own the patents any more - have we all been scammed ?

[@biffwilliams6191]

Patents run out in April 2025 before any actual sales so potential damages are limited, possibly some small fraction of the original fundraising that could be attributed to the IP in dispute.

[@RobertRobert-u4f]

WHY!!! Wasn’t I informed by Aptera of a possible pending litigation of the original Patent before I invested my money in the company and class B shares??/

[@artsmith103]

How about removal of IWM? How about belly cooling? How about no status validation of miles/kWh or solar kWh/day? How about delivery price? How about all the delivery postponements?

[@RobertRobert-u4f]

@@artsmith103 Pending Litigation is required to be made public while there is active recruitment for new investors.. the other stuff can change at any time

[@montanaerdoc]

Aptera can't sell their patents for 1.5 million dollars, then turn around and say these patents are not protected by law = "Anyone can use them." Aptera acknowledges their worth when they sold them for 1.5 million. Heather made note of this with some fancy legal term. The question is, who owns the patent, Steve and Chris, Idea Lab, or Zaptera?

[@alkohl4383]

Exactly ! 👍

[@siesstad]

Perfect. Clear, informational and wise enough not to make too many speculations. I'm not so wise, so I'll speculate a lot: It's weird to me that there's discussion on who owns the patent. I assumed that should be easy enough to check. Apparently it's not, or there would be no discussion. It would be highly surprising to me if Zaptera did not own the patent but still file this lawsuit. So I don't expect Aptera to get away so easily based on the ownership of the patent. I hope the patent will be viewed as a patent for aesthetics only and that all functional aspects of the aesthetics are excluded. This seems quite realistic. Aptera can easily show that the shape is functional. Referring to Morelli and by showing their calculations. Also, all of their marketing has been revolving about form follows function. So their argument would be not only factual, but extremely credible as well. I hope they can quickly dismiss this lawsuit. Aptera can't afford to spend time and money on endless legal proceedings. I wonder what happens if the lawsuit gets stretched out over enough time to go past the expiration date of the patent though. Does anyone know what happens if a lawsuit starts before the expiration date and then reaches this date?

[@Derpy1969]

I see no resemblance. Also, might as well sue your broke neighbor.

[@thecuriousquest]

Not even worried about this

[@ericstarmer7779]

You should be !

[@andromedach]

Well this is why we have courts to settle this and I am more than willing to wait it out. I doubt it will stop Aptera's progress because to be frank the progress hasn't been exactly all that good. I am curious if there is any issue where Zaptera had some attachment to a company in China, the only reason I ask is the law firm representing them is versed in Chinese IP law. Good on Heather to put into perspective of how start ups that are first movers are the ones that tend to attract the most attention. The difficulty for many to understand is that Aptera is not seen as a first mover as they exist in the EV market and the solar aspect is just merely an feature and planned efficiency are not sufficient to break out of the overall category of just being another EV. Add in that they only seat two and are on three wheels and interest dies quickly; especially at the price they told USG.

[@casylong8383]

FUrD

[@jamesengland7461]

Is "Zaptera" a name infringing on the current Aptera company, and therefore subject to countersuit?

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

No, according to them they actually own the Aptera trademark as well

[@gr8dvd]

@@ApteraOwnersClub That’s an interesting tidbit… perhaps ripe for future litigation AND another potential liability for a company that’s struggling to attract capital. Any thoughts?

[@dennisg-ski7829]

​@ApteraOwnersClub Thx for making this video, Steve! Do they claim to own the company name? Zaptera doesn't, but their parent company has one version of Aptera. Zhejiang Jonway Group, aka Zap Jonway, created Zaptera and then Aptera USA a short time later. This is probably the reason Chris and Steve,etc., created the current Aptera Motors Corp. They may have wanted to put legal distance from the two entities which was smart business.

[@DanFrederiksen]

Patent trolls.. the patent system should simply be abolished. it serves no good purpose. so much effort is wasted on trivial patents. so dumb

[@q65-nottheband96]

My guesstimate for the price for the first few thousand aptera was 50k, now my guesstimate is 51k

[@TheWizardWhiteHawk]

Zap aptera

[@koenraad4618]

Zaptera is an oil biz front, has nothing to do with patent rights.

[@jerrymolnar8010]

Could be

[@gr8dvd]

Plausible but… speculation or fact, source?

[@bluetoad2668]

and Aptera is a money raising company that had nothing to do with volume vehicle manufacturing.

[@koenraad4618]

@@bluetoad2668 We will see about that, next year, ok?

[@koenraad4618]

@@gr8dvd The NAME 'zaptera' says it all

[@awo1fman]

🤔 So this explains why Aptera has been dragging their feet in producing vehicles. They're waiting for the patent to expire so no damages can be claimed.

[@artsmith103]

The fund raising and salaries are already included.

[@joshuarosen465]

The argument that the grid can't handle EVs is nonsense. An EV uses on average 10KWh a day, thats the same as a window airconditioner. Charging is mostly done at night when people aren't running their dryers or ovens and ACs aren't working as hard. Whats more every EV is connected to the Internet which allows power companies to directly balance the load. There will be a need to increase power generation a bit but that happens alteady.

[@bluetoad2668]

I'm not a lawyer but I know a fake company which just takes investment dollars and delivers KZbins and the odd flakey prototype when I see one. They even did it once before and got away with it, you couldn't make this stuff up😂

[@TheDapperham]

With apologies to Dolly Parton Here You Come Again Here you come again Just when we've begun to to talk about Aptera You waltz right in the feed, and spread your FUD-dy seeds Of uncertianty, hate and disinformation Here you come again Just when we're feeling grand about Aptera You belch your diatribes bring nastiness inside And pretty soon we're wondering if we should block you. All you gotta do is rant your little lies And we have to put up defenses Just leave it up to you and in a little while You're pooping in the pool and overwhelmingly offensive. Here you come again Sounding dumber than a fella really ought to. And pissing us off so, that all we really know Is here you come again, and man that blows! All you gotta do is spread your bitter bull You have nothing much invested If self-righteousness and ignorance Counted as crimes than you would be arrested Yet here you come again And everyone can see that you're a trollish fella And speaking just for me, in a song I stole from Dolly We heard you come again, Now please just go It's getting old Go find your hole Aptera Troll.

[@adimchionyenadum2962]

Yeah, trolls everywhere and on every topic.

[@billmanewal1786]

You are correct: I couldn't make this stuff up. But you seem to be able to.

[@bluetoad2668]

@@billmanewal1786 have I said anything inaccurate? No.

[@bluetoad2668]

@@adimchionyenadum2962 quite a few realists around as well

[@mottomanic]

Listening is really difficult when you keep getting the dates incorrect when it is on the screen. I had to go back a few times to see that all your dates of original filings is really 2011

[@markharmon6144]

Jason Hill, what a nice man, -- Sue's his employer, I wonder what should happen to him.

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

I think you're confused Jason isn't suing anyone He's being sued

[@markharmon6144]

@@ApteraOwnersClub He one of the names on the lawsuit, he also works Aptera, what am I missing.

[@biffwilliams6191]

@@markharmon6144Jason Hill is a defendant, not a plaintiff.

[@joshuarosen465]

​@@markharmon6144his name is on the patent, he has zero connection to the patent trolls.

[@theresjer]

His name is on the patent 😶‍🌫️

[@billmanewal1786]

Thanks!

[@ApteraOwnersClub]

Thank you!