“It’s not the law,” the judge said, noting that such a theory would allow a philanthropic donor like Musk to sue without limitation at any time. “Accordingly, the Court will not instruct the jury on a continuing count.”
In his latest filing, Musk is seeking to get out of the injunction, arguing that the court changed the defenses so late in the game to ensure it “remains focused” on “critical tools.”
“The remedies Musk intends to seek are strictly related to his purpose in bringing this lawsuit: to prevent the personal, commercial interests of the public charity he founded and was a major supporter of during its formative years,” the filing states.
Musk continues to accuse Altman, Greg Brockman and the other defendants of making false promises when they solicited “donations, labor and public goodwill under solemn promises that OpenAI would operate as a non-profit organization for the benefit of humanity.”
As Musk claimed, their real goal was to turn these assets into a “wealth machine for themselves, Microsoft, and Silicon Valley insiders.” (Musk is not alone in drawing such conclusions; his claim has recently been noted New Yorker investigation into Altman’s confidantsetc.)
To permanently separate Altman’s alleged “fortune machine,” Musk is suing to “stop the for-profit conversion and restructuring of OpenAI” so that Altman can return the profits to the charity, remove Altman from the board and the company, and keep OpenAI permanently as a non-profit charity.
OpenAI says the musk suit remains “unsubstantiated.”
Whether the jury’s decision will affect Musk’s efforts to update the sought-after tools will soon be tested, as the trial is expected to begin this month.
His filing said that OpenAI’s alleged “charitable breach of trust, fraud and unjust enrichment” are “at the heart of this case,” but his argument for the extreme remedies he seeks seems somewhat weak and untested.
To justify the remedies, Musk points to California law, which he says “makes clear that courts have broad equitable power to remedy precisely these kinds of violations.” But his attorney pointed out that the statute provides that a standing plaintiff may bring an action to “relieve, remedy, indemnify, or pay damages.” otherwise remedy breach of charitable trust.” It will likely be up to a jury to interpret the vague statute and determine whether restitution of ill-gotten gains in the amounts calculated by Musk’s expert is an appropriate remedy.
