The jury swiftly decided against Elon Musk’s lawsuit targeting OpenAI’s other founders and Microsoft, underscoring the weakness of Musk’s case, which was partly due to his delayed filing.
During the closing arguments, OpenAI presented a legal defense, while Musk’s team attacked Sam Altman’s credibility, casting doubt on anyone disputing Musk’s claims.
Post-verdict, Musk expressed disbelief over the loss. In a deleted post, he criticized Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, labeled her an activist, and vowed to appeal, insisting Altman and Brockman enriched themselves unjustly.
However, Altman and Brockman weren’t the only ones gaining from OpenAI’s investments. The trial highlighted Musk’s influence too.
Testifying, Greg Brockman revealed how Musk, in 2017, had OpenAI researchers aid Tesla’s autopilot for weeks without refusal. Leading scientists, including Andrej Karpathy and Ilya Sutskever, were sent to assist the struggling Tesla team, suggesting key improvements. Musk even requested recommendations for dismissals, which Brockman rejected.
A separate source validated Brockman’s testimony, noting Tesla didn’t reimburse OpenAI for their input. Musk’s family office didn’t comment.
Musk’s central claim was that Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI betrayed charitable trust by misusing donated funds, accusing them of “unjust enrichment” through profits from OpenAI’s commercial ventures.
Specifically, Musk intended his donations to support AI safety research, yet he leveraged OpenAI’s scientists for his company’s benefit.
Dorothy Lund, a Columbia Law professor, criticized Musk’s lawsuit given his own asset redirection, calling it inconsistent with the mission.
Although Tesla’s AI aligned with OpenAI’s goals, Musk’s witnesses highlighted the projects’ disparity, noting Karpathy’s subsequent move to Tesla. OpenAI argued that Musk breached his board duties by recruiting a key researcher.
Musk’s attempts to monopolize OpenAI’s for-profit arm in 2017 also surfaced. Despite offering inducements and exercising pressure tactics, Musk’s demands were unmet.
His legal team struggled, needing to differentiate between Musk’s envisioned entity and the eventual for-profit structure. They argued a minor for-profit adjunct was acceptable. However, OpenAI demonstrated the norm of non-profits with commercial entities.
Musk could have accepted proposals for a more balanced equity share, potentially making him a significant shareholder today, though not the leading one. Yet, witnesses noted Musk’s reluctance to invest without control.
The delayed filing of Musk’s case was legally detrimental. Statutes of limitations prevent disruption to established business actions and financial planning. Musk’s protracted lawsuit threatened such stability.
The jury’s rationale remains undisclosed. However, they assessed if Musk should have recognized OpenAI’s profit ventures before Aug. 5, 2021. The answer was evident—Musk was actively involved.