A nine-member jury in California is currently deliberating the future of OpenAI, the world’s leading artificial intelligence laboratory.
The trial, which examines Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI’s other co-founders and Microsoft, covers territory from the founders’ dissolution in 2018 to Altman’s firing and rehiring in 2023, but jurors will consider a fairly narrow set of questions.
Breach of Charitable Trust — In essence, did OpenAI and co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman violate a specific agreement with Musk to use donations to OpenAI for specific charitable purposes rather than general use by nonprofit organizations? Unjust Enrichment — Did Defendants use Mr. Musk’s donations to enrich us through OpenAI’s for-profit arm rather than for charitable purposes? Aiding and Abetting Charitable Trust Violation — Did Microsoft know through its interactions with OpenAI that Musk had placed certain conditions on donations and was playing a significant role in harming Musk?
OpenAI also made three arguments in its defense for the jury to consider.
Statute of Limitations — The legal deadline within which a lawsuit must be filed. Now, if OpenAI can prove that the harm to the mask occurred before the first count of August 5, 2021. The second count will be on August 5, 2022. And when the first count takes place on November 14, 2021, his claim will be invalidated. Unreasonable Delay — Musk delayed his claim for damages by filing the lawsuit in 2024, making it unreasonable. Dirty hands — A legal doctrine that says Musk’s conduct in connection with the claims against OpenAI was unconscionable, invalidating the claims.
A victory for Mr. Musk could mean the end of OpenAI as a commercial company, although it is not entirely clear what that outcome will be. Next week, the judge will begin a series of new hearings in which lawyers from both sides will argue what the outcome of a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs would be. But a negative verdict could invalidate that process.
violation of a charitable trust;
Musk’s lawyers said the defendants clearly understood that Musk wanted to support nonprofits that ensure the world benefits from AI and prevent it from being dominated by one organization. In particular, Microsoft’s $10 billion investment in a for-profit open AI company in 2023, the first such investment after the statute of limitations, confirmed Musk’s concerns, they said.
Musk’s lawyers say the deal differs from previous investments in that it resulted in OpenAI investors getting rich from the company’s commercial products at the expense of the philanthropic mission of AI safety championed by Musk.
OpenAI’s lawyers called on all witnesses to explain the specific limits placed on Musk’s donations, but none, including financial adviser Jared Birchall, chief of staff Sam Teller and special counsel Siobhan Gillis, testified. They said all parties agreed that private financing was needed to achieve the goal, and also noted that Musk himself had launched a privately managed commercial company related to OpenAI and later sought to merge OpenAI into his company Tesla. They also point out that the organization’s other donors have not said their charitable trusts have been violated.
Importantly, a forensic accountant hired by OpenAI testified that all of Mr. Musk’s donations were spent by OpenAI long before the critical date of August 5, 2021. This is evidence that Musk’s donations were already being used for that purpose long before the suit was filed, invalidating any charitable trusts that may have existed.
They primarily argue that the for-profit affiliates that do most of OpenAI’s actual work continue to fulfill the organization’s mission, generating nearly $200 billion in equity value to support nonprofit foundations. Notably, Sam Altman claimed that making ChatGPT free will help fulfill its mission of sharing the benefits of AI with the world.
unjust enrichment
Plaintiffs say the multibillion-dollar valuation of shares held by OpenAI founders like Brockman and Ilya Satskeva, as well as Microsoft, shows that Musk’s donations were ultimately used for personal gain rather than supporting the charity’s mission. They claim that while OpenAI’s for-profit organization’s activities were commercially focused, the foundation itself was essentially dormant, had no full-time employees, and ultimately had no control over the for-profit entity.
OpenAI said all of Musk’s donations were used by the foundation through 2020, and the stock distribution occurred well after he left the organization in 2018. Evidence shows that key stakeholders agreed in advance that the ability to compensate researchers with equity was key to developing AGI, a virtual form of AI that could perform any intellectual task that a human could perform. OpenAI executives argue that this for-profit activity meaningfully advances the foundation’s mission, including safety efforts. They say the nonprofit board continues to govern the for-profit organization and introduced new governance controls in 2023 following a “blip” in which Altman was fired from OpenAI’s nonprofit board for lack of candor and rehired just days later.
aiding and abetting
Musk’s lawsuit focused on the events of Blip, where Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, whose company relied on OpenAI’s technology, was personally involved in supporting Altman’s return and forming a new board to govern OpenAI. They point out that Microsoft executives have questioned whether a commercial agreement would conflict with the nonprofit’s goals, suggesting that Microsoft’s commercial priorities may have steered OpenAI away from its mission. They focus on a provision in Microsoft’s contract with OpenAI that gave Microsoft veto power over major corporate decisions at OpenAI.
Microsoft witnesses argued that despite extensive due diligence, company executives did not know the specific terms of Musk’s donation and did not veto any decision by OpenAI. They point out that the company’s investments and computational power have allowed OpenAI to achieve its biggest wins.
statute of limitations
Musk has indicated that his suspicions about his co-founders grew over time and that he finally decided they had betrayed him in the fall of 2022, when he learned of Microsoft’s plans to make a new $10 billion investment in 2023. He did not intend to file a lawsuit until mid-2024.
OpenAI’s lawyers argue that the terms of the deal were spelled out in a term sheet from a previous funding round in 2018 that Musk received and his advisers reviewed, but that Musk did not read in detail. They also point to numerous blog posts and other communications over the years that indicate Musk may have been well aware of what OpenAI was doing before taking it to court, including tweets from Musk criticizing the company years before the lawsuit. Mr. Gillis, an adviser to Mr. Musk, also voted to approve these transactions as a member of the OpenAI board.
Ultimately, OpenAI’s lawyers stress that Musk’s formal role within the organization ended in 2018 and that his last donation was made in 2020.
unreasonable delay
OpenAI’s lawyers say the real reason Musk filed the lawsuit was because he realized he was wrong about OpenAI after the launch of ChatGPT revolutionized the artificial intelligence business. They argue that OpenAI has been operating in its current structure since Microsoft’s initial investment in 2018, and that it would be unreasonable to force a reorganization after eight years.
dirty hands
There is evidence that while Musk was still chairman of OpenAI, he was planning his own competing AI efforts and was hiring OpenAI employees to work on AI at Tesla. OpenAI’s lawyers argue that these efforts harmed OpenAI at a time when it was using Musk’s donations to pursue its mission. They pointed out that Gillis, the mother of Musk’s three children, did not disclose her personal relationships to other OpenAI board members for years. And they allege that Musk withheld donations in 2017 to acquire control of OpenAI’s planned commercial affiliate. Finally, “Mr. Musk abandoned OpenAI for dead in 2018,” Bill Savitt, OpenAI’s lead attorney, told jurors.
If you buy through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This does not affect editorial independence.
