Some positive news!
- Thread starter Kerbe
- Start date
- Replies 4
- Views 27
I googled Zaptera and found a 2013 Autoblog article that described the original split between Zaptera and Aptera:
After years of struggles and a bankruptcy in 2011, the Aptera assets were revived last year by a Chinese company, Zap Jonway. Zaptera USA, which now owns the Aptera Motors assets, has announced that Aptera will be split into two companies.
One, Zaptera, will stay at it is, and “will retain the same Owners, Board Directors and Officers,” according to a press release emailed to us. Zaptera will focus on China and will mass-produce an all-electric Aptera 2e at a manufacturing facility owned by the Jonway Group.
The other company, Aptera USA, is splitting off to become independent. It will be run by CEO Richard Deringer, who told Gizmag in no uncertain terms that Zap Jonway is not in the picture. “We have nothing to do with Zap Jonway. We wish them well in trying to survive, but we don’t want any association with them,” he said.
Perhaps Mr. Deringer didn't hire the best lawyers. Thirteen years later, the sticky split appears to finally be a done deal.
Last edited:
Kerbe
Well-Known Member
Zaptera suddenly reappeared and started this now-terminated lawsuit when Anthony and Fambro reacquired their original Aptera intellectual property rights in 2019. Deringer's "Aptera USA" existed from 2012 until 2014.
We don't know the exact details of the IP that Aptera acquired from Zaptera, but it appears that Zaptera's case was weak. However, it also appears that Aptera decided that it was not worth spending years fighting them in court, so it was better to throw them some bones so they would go away. For a startup to survive, it has to be laser focused, and make strategic decisions about where to focus its limited resources. If Aptera succeeds as a company, Zaptera wins with its stock, but the important thing is that Aptera can stop paying its lawyers and focus on getting to production.
/rant/
I think that "intellectual property" is generally bad for society. Patents generally stifle rather than stimulate innovation, so the world would be better off without them or at least make them hard to get and grant very few of them. In my opinion, all software and genetics patents should be abolished. I also believe that copyrights should be shortened to 25 years, with the right to ask for a 25 year extension, but copyright holders who are granted a 25 year extension have to file an address in a public database. If someone sends certified mail to the filed address asking for permission to use the copyrighted work and doesn't get a response within a year, then permission is automatically granted. The only part of current IP law that makes sense in my opinion is trademark law.
/rant/
/rant/
I think that "intellectual property" is generally bad for society. Patents generally stifle rather than stimulate innovation, so the world would be better off without them or at least make them hard to get and grant very few of them. In my opinion, all software and genetics patents should be abolished. I also believe that copyrights should be shortened to 25 years, with the right to ask for a 25 year extension, but copyright holders who are granted a 25 year extension have to file an address in a public database. If someone sends certified mail to the filed address asking for permission to use the copyrighted work and doesn't get a response within a year, then permission is automatically granted. The only part of current IP law that makes sense in my opinion is trademark law.
/rant/
So, you're ok with a company investing billions into something and needing to charge $500 each to recoup those costs only for a copy to reverse engineer it for $8 in offshore labor and sell it for $5?
If you do that, no one will ever invest to build new things because it's pissing money away into the wind. i think the outcome is the exact opposite of what you mention above. Lack of protection will stifle innovation.
People don't build stuff because they are good people.
They build stuff to make money.
We do not live in a utopian society.
I do believe in open sourcing things, etc. Selling support, install, etc on the product instead of the product itself for example as a money maker. But that needs to be a viable model for the product. There is no support enhancement for drugs like there is for software.
If you do that, no one will ever invest to build new things because it's pissing money away into the wind. i think the outcome is the exact opposite of what you mention above. Lack of protection will stifle innovation.
People don't build stuff because they are good people.
They build stuff to make money.
We do not live in a utopian society.
I do believe in open sourcing things, etc. Selling support, install, etc on the product instead of the product itself for example as a money maker. But that needs to be a viable model for the product. There is no support enhancement for drugs like there is for software.