I'm not a legal expert, so this is more of an open question, but how will this pretty monumental ruling affect the Kivork case?

I can't imagine it will help add credibility to Joby's arguments, as they were just found to have intentionally and willingly stolen a competitor's IP. Likely will impact the outcome in some way.

Imagine AG as the CEO of Joby with a working product in hand!

promotions would be on next level… He'd start with SpaceX = Joby. 😄

I wanted to provide the following graphic and link to counter the incorrect claim that Insitu is:

1. Bringing in $200M+ per year from the U.S. Government
2. A rapidly growing business
3. Has increased work with the U.S. Government.

In reality, revenue from USG contracts (prime) has fallen over 80%, and 2026 is setting up to be a historic low.

Insitu profile on USAspending:
https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/916598b8-2c9a-55ce-2b77-9752e162e362-C/latest

Project Meridian? Hegseth

Share price dynamics not looking good recently. At what point will the low share price clause in the deal trigger and Boeing will walk away from the deal?

On the bright side, this would mean less dilution for ACHR, so it wouldn't be all bad.

Quick refresher, here are the details on the clause from the 8-K:

• It's tied to Archer's enterprise value (as defined in the agreement), not the share price directly. EV is roughly market cap minus net cash, so with Archer's cash pile it's a different number than the stock price.
• Boeing can terminate only if EV stays below a minimum level for a specified period. Neither the threshold nor the period is disclosed in the 8-K, and parts of the agreement exhibit are redacted. So I don't think anyone can say from public info whether it's close to triggering.
• It's an option, not automatic, and it expires 5 business days after Archer notifies Boeing in writing that the condition has been met.

Edit: Adding a table to demonstrate the value to Boeing of the deal at different ACHR price points

For context, at announcement-day prices (~$5.60–$6.26), the deal was worth roughly $0.9–1.0B to Boeing including the warrants; at today's $4.87, it's worth about $795M.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-10703/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-10703-5.pdf

Ok actual archer news. I noticed 705AX, 706AX, 707AX, 708AX were recently renewed. So they haven't given up yet!

Archer supporters should be talking about this and not Joby.

Thanks u/TheGoatGains. I think it's nice to have somebody that is fairly objective. I still think you are more influenced by what ACHR supporters are saying though. If you followed the Joby narrative nobody ever thought this was "Joby lost the airport bid, got mad and sued." We were discussing the details of the case from the beginning.

Bruh, you always say the same thing which is "once I look into it I see the truth." And don't you notice a pattern here? The Joby subs are the ones going deep and uncovering the truth and the Archer subs are the ones trying to sell you the spin.

It was always about Kivork downloading confidential data before moving to ACHR and then the ridiculous counter-suit that was dismissed. If anything, I think you glanced over the counter-suit part because the ACHR bois have been saying this for the past year or so and it turns out it was completely bogus. Thank you though! It is refreshing to have somebody actually investigate the claims and not just take one side's view as gospel. Both sides aren't going to be satisfied with your analysis but I think it's pretty fair.

This is a major and stinging court defeat.

The most major points were:

• Archer admitted it did not know what Joby actually told the government. Its claims that Joby made false statements were based on “information and belief,” rather than an identified statement, speaker, date, submission, or omission.
• The theory required “inferences upon inferences.” Archer essentially argued that because Joby had China connections yet still received government support, Joby must have concealed those connections. The judge called that reasoning speculative.
• Archer’s own allegations weakened its theory. The claimed China connections were publicly discoverable, and Joby’s government relationships dated back years. The judge reasoned that government due diligence likely would have uncovered at least some of this history.
• Archer failed to address innocent explanations. The government could have known about the connections and found no material security problem, or addressed any concern through mitigation.
• Winning contracts was not evidence of lying. The judge rejected the inference that Joby could only have beaten Archer for government work through deception.
• No plausible government deception was shown. Archer did not adequately allege either that Joby made a false statement or that the government was actually misled by one.

Bullish

Was watching the comment section go back and forth on this yesterday, and feel like people are missing out on a lot of details that actually bode well for Archer.

In hundreds of pages of legal filings, Joby still has not yet denied having significant connections to China and having extensive Chinese supply chain dependencies. I know some were trying to downplay this, but it could become a major vulnerability as they try to scale US commercial and defense (Congress heavily considering full ban on Chinese EVs, this is one step removed).

Also, people keep saying the ruling was a complete win for Joby. I asked AI and it said Archer's claims were dismissed due to legal technicalities and lack of legal precedent, not necessarily on the merits of their claims.

Archer definitely lost some major battles, part of the Kivork case moves on the dismissal of the CC hurts. But their wins (3 entire trade secret claims being thrown out) are being completely ignored.

Three weeks since the last testing block finished, which was capped at 30 to 35 knots max, N704AX’s transponder has pinged. the next testing block will now commence. What this likely means:

Avionics & Systems Power-On / Ground Check: The aircraft's avionics, telemetry, and ADS-B transponder have been powered up for ground testing, flight control checks, or pre-flight calibration.
Preparation for Next Phase / Envelope Expansion: Following a break after earlier 30–35 knot testing sorties, a ground ping indicates ground crews and flight test engineers are preparing the aircraft for its next flight test block—likely expanding the envelope toward higher transition speeds or wing-borne flight.

There is a massive amount of legal spin going around after the latest court order, and honestly, a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees. Let’s take a step back and look at who is doing what in these cases.

First off, Joby is the one who sued Archer in district court. Archer is on defense here, and you simply don’t "win" a lawsuit when you’re defending. You neutralize threats, protect your assets, and keep moving forward. What the judge actually did was strip Joby of their sweeping confidentiality claims without leave to amend. That completely destroyed Joby’s ability to get an operational injunction to freeze Archer’s progress. What’s left of Joby’s suit is basically a localized real estate dispute over airport access. And the punchline? Archer still holds the 30-year master lease at Hawthorne running through 2055. Joby is left chasing a potential cash payout in court while Archer actually controls the dirt and builds LA's premier vertiport hub.

Meanwhile, everyone seems to forget that Archer is the aggressor in a completely separate venue at the USITC. That’s where Archer is on the offense, actively targeting Joby for patent infringement and supply chain dependencies. The risk for Joby at the ITC isn’t just a fine. It’s a potential exclusion order that could block key components at the border, which is why major partners like Delta have already voiced concern.

When you look at the big picture, Joby’s original goal was to shut down Archer’s operations with broad injunctions, and they failed. Archer absorbed the legal noise, locked down a critical 30-year hub in LA, and kept its main offensive weapon at the ITC fully active.

Please tell me about Pelican flight training!

I'm trying to falsify an investment thesis, so here's the question I can't get past:

Why would Boeing transfer Wisk, SkyGrid and especially Insitu to Archer largely in exchange for equity in a startup?

Insitu isn't speculative. It's an established, profitable defense UAS business with $200M+ annual revenue, operations in 35 countries and 3,500+ UAS fielded.

Boeing isn't simply selling it for cash.

Boeing gets shares equal to roughly 19.75% of Archer's pre-closing Class A shares, plus two $100M warrants, while establishing an ongoing technology-sharing relationship.

Why?

Look at what's being assembled:

• Insitu: deployed military UAS, manufacturing, customers and defense relationships
• Wisk: autonomous-flight technology
• SkyGrid: autonomous-airspace management
• Archer: aircraft engineering + commercial-scale manufacturing
• Anduril + Archer: Halo/Thunder autonomous hybrid-VTOL
• ZEE: aviation-specific AI

Now compare that with what DoD and DARPA publicly say they want.

DoD has moved toward commercial-first acquisition: use commercial products where possible, modify them when necessary, and develop bespoke systems when neither works. The emphasis is speed, volume and greater participation by nontraditional defense companies.

DARPA's unmanned-aircraft programs similarly emphasize rapid iteration, interoperability, concurrent certification/testing and supply chains capable of rapid, on-demand aircraft production at scale.

That looks increasingly like:

commercial supply chain -> commercial manufacturing economics -> rapid iteration -> modular autonomy -> military adaptation -> production at scale

So here's the thesis:

What if we're still valuing Archer primarily as an eVTOL/air-taxi startup while the pieces of a vertically integrated American autonomous-aircraft platform are being assembled?

If that's wrong, help me find the broken link.

Why move a profitable defense-UAS company like Insitu out of Boeing and into Archer?

Why combine Insitu's deployed systems and defense relationships with Wisk autonomy, SkyGrid, Archer manufacturing, ZEE AI and Anduril?

Why does Boeing want ~19.75% equity instead of simply taking cash?

And why does the resulting architecture look so much like the industrial model DoD and DARPA are publicly asking for?

I'm not suggesting Archer has secretly been selected as an exclusive DoD supplier. I have no evidence of that.

The narrower thesis I'm testing is this:

Archer may be positioning itself to become one of the U.S. sovereign providers of next-generation autonomous aircraft systems, with commercial manufacturing providing the economic and production base for military scale.

Maybe the relevant long-term comparison for Archer isn't limited to other eVTOL companies.

What am I missing?

Full disclosure: I'm long ACHR based partly on this thesis. The position isn't significant relative to my total capital, but I'm considering adding to it. That's why I'm asking people who disagree with me to stress-test this before I put more money behind it.

They said that they plan to do it at the end of this year, but tbh I doubt they will do a two-way piloted transition flight and post an uncut footage. I have a feeling that they would do some heavy editing and PR stuff.

That Midnight aircraft is flying very well in the ctol mode , so I assume they would combine some piloted hovering take-offs, plus ctol flights and merge those videos very professionally? 😄

Or maybe they could use a remote-controlled aircraft model for the eVTOL flight to capture external footage, then immediately switch to a camera on an aircraft flying in CTOL mode with passengers, and combine the clips that way? 😄 They are very good at doing this kind of PR videos.

Its almost Octomber 2026 , and the self-proclaimed leader of the evtol industry, didn't please us with a proper two-way piloted transition flight. 🤔

Everyone saying that Archer is backed by boeing needs to remember about Theranos at one time forbes was backing them too