The best way to protect ideas is to copy them as much as possible. Protecting the "owner" of an idea is a different story. This involves restricting use of an idea only to people that have paid for the rights to the idea.
Do we need intellectual property laws? Probably, but what current intellectual property laws do is more like protecting young girls by ensuring they can only marry who pays their father the most money.
It *could* be a sign of weakness. Or it could be a brilliant business decision. In any case I wouldn't consider this open letter to be *useful* feedback. It doesn't take a PR mastermind to figure out that people don't like having their time wasted. People like to feel important, and wasting their time works against this.
By the same token revoking this guy's order makes everyone else who is still getting their Model X feel more important because they are getting this thing that is privilege that could have been revoked.
And the high demand is not causing the price to go up because of price controls. So it's quite possible to get the car at below cost, especially if you are an early adopter. The Playstation 3 was sold at a loss for several years, because Sony was assuming that they would eventually be able to produce them more cheaply, and they wanted the benefit of price stability.
Market value, cost, and price are not always in sync.
Yes, it is. You are just allowed to refuse service *because* they are black. CEOs can be racist. Customers can be black *and* offensive. If the racist CEO refuses service to an offensive (beyond their blackness) black person, that's fine.
There is a specific law against refusing service to protected classes of people. Assholes are not one of those protected classes. You can be black, but if you are also an asshole, then the asshole part of you can be denied service, and this part ruins it for the black part of you which would have otherwise been protected.
Actually they do have the right to treat you like shit. And you have the right to treat them like shit. It is just common courtesy not to exercise this right all the time.
Corporations frequently try to repair relationships with disgruntled customers (even the ones who are wrong), because it usually makes better business sense to do so. This doesn't mean are required to. If making the customer happy is not profitable even in the long term (e.g. the customer won't be happy unless the company does something very costly), then you shouldn't be surprised if they decide no to repair the relationship.
In fact I think the calculation made was that holding a position on the Model X pre-order line is considered a privilege, and revoking this privilege reinforces that. It makes everyone else who gets one feel like what they bought from Tesla is valuable.
I think it was a brilliant business move that a lot of other corporations are not nimble enough to make.
Tesla the company (an abstract concept) literally can't be offended. Elon is the head of Tesla and used his position right a wrong from his point of view. Was it vindictive? Probably, but there is also an element of "Why should this ungrateful prick get one of my cars, when someone else more appreciative would love to have it."
He no doubt estimated the cost in negative publicity (it might even be positive publicity), and decided that cancelling this guy's order was worth it.
It's not like Elon slashed Stewart's tires. All he did was decide not to sell him a car.
I think people can take "The customer is always right" a little too literally, and lose sight of what they are actually entitled to.
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.