Nine California jurors are now debating the future of OpenAI, the world’s leading artificial intelligence laboratory.
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the other co-founders of OpenAI and Microsoft has covered the most extensive territory. separation Altman’s from the founders in 2018 firing and rehiring In 2023, judges will consider a fairly narrow set of questions.
- Breach of charitable trust – essentially, did OpenAI and its co-founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, violate an agreement with Musk to use their donations for a specific, charitable purpose, rather than for general use by the nonprofit?
- Unjust enrichment — did the defendants use Musk’s donations to enrich themselves through OpenAI’s commercial arm rather than for charitable purposes?
- Aiding and abetting philanthropic breach of trust — Did Microsoft, through its interactions with OpenAI, know that Musk had special terms on its donations and was instrumental in harming Musk?
OpenAI also made three arguments in its defense that would have weight with the jury:
- The statute of limitations is the legal period within which a claim must be filed. Here, if OpenAI can prove that any damages to Musk for the first count occurred before August 5, 2021; August 5, 2022 for the second account; and his claims will be argued for the first count on November 14, 2021.
- Unreasonable delay — Musk filed his lawsuit in 2024, delaying his lawsuit and making his claim for damages moot.
- Unclean Hands — The legal doctrine that Musk’s conduct regarding his claims against OpenAI was dishonest and rendered them invalid.
If Musk wins, it could mean the end of OpenAI as a commercial company, but it’s not entirely clear what that will entail. Next week, the judge will begin a series of new hearings in which lawyers for both sides will discuss what the implications of a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could be. However, this process can be discussed with a negative verdict.
Breach of charitable trust
Musk’s lawyers say the defendants clearly understood that Musk wanted to support a nonprofit organization that would bring the benefits of artificial intelligence to the world and prevent it from being controlled by any single organization. In particular, they say, Microsoft’s $10 billion investment in OpenAI’s for-profit arm in 2023 — the first since the deadline — is what makes Musk’s concerns credibly so.
According to Musk’s lawyers, the deal was different from previous investments, allowing OpenAI investors to enrich the company’s commercial products at the expense of Musk’s philanthropic mission of AI security.
OpenAI’s attorneys asked each witness to describe specific restrictions on Musk’s donations, and none, including his financial adviser Jared Birchall, his chief of staff Sam Teller or his special counsel Shivon Zilis. They say everyone involved has agreed that private fundraising will be required to achieve their goals, noting that Musk has attempted to launch an OpenAI-related for-profit entity that he would personally control and later merge OpenAI into Tesla. They also note that the organization’s other donors have not said their charitable trusts were violated.
Importantly, a forensic accountant hired by OpenAI testified that all of Musk’s donations were used by OpenAI well before the August 5, 2021 key date. This proves that Musk’s donations were used for his own purposes long before he filed suit, invalidating any charitable trust that may have existed.
Basically, they insist that the for-profit branch that runs most of OpenAI’s actual operations continues to fulfill the organization’s mission and has raised nearly $200 billion in capital to support the nonprofit foundation. Notably, Sam Altman claimed that making ChatGPT free helps fulfill his mission to share the benefits of artificial intelligence with the world.
Unjust enrichment
Plaintiffs point to the multibillion-dollar stock valuations of OpenAI founders like Brockman and Ilya Sutskever, as well as Microsoft itself, as evidence that Musk’s donations were ultimately used for personal gain rather than supporting the charity’s mission. They argue that in OpenAI’s for-profit work, the work was for-profit, while the foundation itself remained essentially dormant, without full-time employees and ultimately without even overseeing a for-profit organization.
OpenAI says that all of Musk’s contributions were used by the fund through 2020, and that stock allocations have performed well since he left the organization in 2018. Even preliminary evidence suggests that major players agree that being able to carefully compensate researchers is key to the development of AGI. OpenAI executives argue that the for-profit work has significantly advanced the foundation’s mission, including security measures. The nonprofit board continues to oversee for-profit management, they say, and Altman imposed new governance oversight after a “blip” in 2023 when he was fired by OpenAI’s nonprofit board for lack of transparency and then rehired a few days later.
Help and accommodation
Musk’s case focused on the events that took place when Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, whose company depends on OpenAI technology, was personally involved in bringing Altman back and creating a new board to manage OpenAI. They note that Microsoft executives were concerned about whether their commercial arrangement would conflict with the nonprofit’s goals, and suggest that Microsoft’s commercial priorities are distracting OpenAI from its mission. They pointed to a clause in Microsoft’s contract with OpenAI that gives Microsoft veto power over key corporate decisions at OpenAI.
Microsoft’s witnesses insisted that company executives were unaware of any specific terms surrounding Musk’s donations, despite extensive research, and did not veto any of OpenAI’s decisions. They note that the company’s investments and computing power have enabled OpenAI to achieve its greatest triumphs.
Limitation period
Musk suggested that his suspicion of his co-founders grew over time until he decided in the fall of 2022 that they had betrayed him when he learned of Microsoft’s plans for a new $10 billion investment in 2023. He won’t go to trial until mid-2024.
OpenAI’s lawyers say the terms of that deal were written in a term sheet for a previous fundraising round that Musk accepted in 2018 and reviewed by his advisers, but Musk said he hadn’t read the details. They also point to numerous blog posts and other communications that show Musk was well aware of what OpenAI was doing before suing, including tweets in which Musk criticized the company years before the lawsuit. Musk’s adviser, Zilis, even voted to approve these transactions as a member of the OpenAI board.
Finally, OpenAI attorneys point out that Musk’s official role with the organization ended in 2018, and his last donations took place in 2020.
Unreasonable delay
OpenAI’s lawyers say the real reason Musk filed the lawsuit is that he realized he was wrong about OpenAI after the launch of ChatGPT revolutionized the AI business. They argue that OpenAI has been operating in its current structure since the first Microsoft investment in 2018, and that forcing the organization to restructure eight years later is unreasonable.
Unclean hands
There is evidence that Musk planned his own competing AI efforts while still chairman of OpenAI and hired OpenAI staff to work on AI at Tesla. OpenAI’s advocates argue that these efforts have undermined OpenAI at a time when it was using Musk’s donations to further its mission. They noted that Zilis, the mother of Musk’s three children, has not disclosed her personal relationships with other OpenAI board members for years. And they claim that Musk withheld donations in 2017 to take control of a planned commercial branch of OpenAI. Ultimately, “Mr. Musk fatally abandoned OpenAI in 2018,” Bill Savitt, OpenAI’s general counsel, told the jury.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This does not affect our editorial independence.
