根據(jù)一份法庭文件,特斯拉一名曾經(jīng)和首席執(zhí)行官埃隆·馬斯克多有齟齬的前員工同意向該公司支付40萬美元,作為向記者透露內(nèi)華達(dá)超級工廠生產(chǎn)延誤信息的補(bǔ)償。
特斯拉于2018年起訴馬丁·特里普非法外泄關(guān)于Model 3生產(chǎn)信息的商業(yè)機(jī)密,40萬美元是整體和解方案的一部分。
根據(jù)協(xié)議,特里普承認(rèn)違反了商業(yè)機(jī)密法和保密協(xié)議。他還因?yàn)榇饲霸?jīng)泄露公司信息而另欠特斯拉25000美元,而當(dāng)時他已經(jīng)收到了法庭禁令。
特里普于2017至2018年間在特斯拉的超級工廠任流程技術(shù)員。任職期間,他曾經(jīng)向記者發(fā)電子郵件稱特斯拉無法實(shí)現(xiàn)馬斯克公開承諾的每周生產(chǎn)5000輛特斯拉Model 3s的目標(biāo)。
特斯拉后來查到特里普是告密者,于是炒了他魷魚。之后,他曾經(jīng)與馬斯克多次在公開場合互噴。
而特里普則反訴馬斯克誹謗,但遭到聯(lián)邦法官駁回。法院裁定其無法有效證明馬斯克的行為系出于實(shí)際惡意。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Agatha
根據(jù)一份法庭文件,特斯拉一名曾經(jīng)和首席執(zhí)行官埃隆·馬斯克多有齟齬的前員工同意向該公司支付40萬美元,作為向記者透露內(nèi)華達(dá)超級工廠生產(chǎn)延誤信息的補(bǔ)償。
特斯拉于2018年起訴馬丁·特里普非法外泄關(guān)于Model 3生產(chǎn)信息的商業(yè)機(jī)密,40萬美元是整體和解方案的一部分。
根據(jù)協(xié)議,特里普承認(rèn)違反了商業(yè)機(jī)密法和保密協(xié)議。他還因?yàn)榇饲霸?jīng)泄露公司信息而另欠特斯拉25000美元,而當(dāng)時他已經(jīng)收到了法庭禁令。
特里普于2017至2018年間在特斯拉的超級工廠任流程技術(shù)員。任職期間,他曾經(jīng)向記者發(fā)電子郵件稱特斯拉無法實(shí)現(xiàn)馬斯克公開承諾的每周生產(chǎn)5000輛特斯拉Model 3s的目標(biāo)。
特斯拉后來查到特里普是告密者,于是炒了他魷魚。之后,他曾經(jīng)與馬斯克多次在公開場合互噴。
而特里普則反訴馬斯克誹謗,但遭到聯(lián)邦法官駁回。法院裁定其無法有效證明馬斯克的行為系出于實(shí)際惡意。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Agatha
A former Tesla employee who locked horns with CEO Elon Musk has agreed to pay the company $400,000 for telling reporters about production delays at its Gigafactory in Nevada, according to a court filing.
The payment is part of a proposed settlement of a lawsuit Tesla filed in 2018 that accused Martin Tripp of illegally divulging trade secrets about the production of Tesla’s Model 3.
As part of the accord, Tripp admitted to violating trade secret laws and confidentiality agreements. He also owes Tesla an additional $25,000 for previously revealing information about the company, despite being ordered to stop by a judge.
Tripp was a process technician at Tesla’s Gigafactory from 2017 to 2018. While still at the company, he sent emails to reporters saying that it would be unable to reach Musk’s publicly stated goal of producing 5,000 Model 3s a week.
Tesla fired Tripp when the company found out he was the source of the information. Subsequently, he and Musk publicly traded insults.
Tripp countersued Musk for defamation, but the federal judge handling the case threw it out, ruling that the technician had failed to show that the CEO had acted with actual malice.