The high-stakes legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI has entered a critical juncture, with closing arguments now concluded in federal court in Oakland, California. This initial phase of the Musk v. Altman trial, centered on allegations of OpenAI’s deviation from its founding principles and Musk’s claims of commercial overreach, has set the stage for jury deliberations.
A nine-person jury, comprising six women and three men, will commence their deliberations on Monday. It’s crucial to note that their verdict will be advisory, meaning the ultimate decision on liability rests with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Judge Gonzalez Rogers emphasized the jury’s sole responsibility to base their judgment strictly on the presented evidence, reminding them of their oath.
The lawsuit, initiated in 2024 by Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI alongside CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, alleges a betrayal of their initial commitment to maintain the artificial intelligence startup as a nonprofit entity. Musk contends that OpenAI’s subsequent conversion to a for-profit model and the self-enrichment of its leadership constitute a breach of their original accord. He further asserts that approximately $38 million he personally donated was subsequently used for unauthorized commercial ventures.
During the closing arguments, Musk’s legal team, led by Steven Molo, reasserted their claims that OpenAI failed to uphold its commitments to open-source its technology, prioritize AI safety, and adhere to nonprofit conventions. The defense also argued that insiders and investors, including Altman, Brockman, and major backer Microsoft, have profited unfairly at Musk’s expense.
Attorneys for OpenAI, Sarah Eddy and William Savitt, countered these assertions. They argued that Altman and Brockman never made specific commitments to Musk regarding OpenAI’s corporate structure and that Musk’s donations were appropriately utilized. Notably, OpenAI’s counsel highlighted that Musk filed the lawsuit only after launching his own competing AI venture, xAI, suggesting a strategic rather than principled motivation. “He never cared about the nonprofit structure,” Eddy stated to the jury. “What he cared about was winning.”
Microsoft, a principal investor in OpenAI and also named as a defendant, presented its case through attorney Russell Cohen. Musk’s accusations extend to Microsoft, alleging complicity in OpenAI’s purported breach of charitable trust. Cohen, however, asserted that Microsoft had no knowledge of the alleged events and therefore could not have participated in them.
As the jury prepares for deliberations, the legal proceedings will transition into the second phase: the remedies phase. This segment, which will not involve the jury, will see Judge Gonzalez Rogers hearing arguments regarding potential damages and the appropriate next steps should OpenAI, Altman, and Brockman be found liable.
Musk’s requested remedies have evolved since the lawsuit’s inception. He has sought a range of outcomes, most recently advocating for the removal of Altman and Brockman from their leadership positions at OpenAI and the unwinding of the company’s 2025 recapitalization. Musk’s legal team previously posited potential damages reaching up to $134 billion from both OpenAI and Microsoft, labeling these as “wrongful gains.” The current stance is that any “ill-gotten gains” should be returned to OpenAI’s foundational entity. A decision in the remedies phase is contingent upon a finding of liability.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers, no stranger to high-profile technology litigation, has a history of presiding over complex cases. Her decision to utilize an advisory jury, according to legal experts, might stem from a desire for community perspective or to provide a broader basis of support in a case attracting significant public attention. Appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2011, she previously oversaw the landmark antitrust case between Epic Games and Apple.
Throughout the initial phase of the trial, Judge Gonzalez Rogers demonstrated a firm hand, frequently admonishing legal counsel from both sides for any procedural missteps, emphasizing the seriousness of the proceedings and the potential consequences of contempt. In contrast, her interactions with the jurors have been notably warmer, characterized by a more approachable demeanor, including moments of levity and even gestures of personal consideration. She concluded the day’s proceedings by ensuring the jury would be provided with lunch during their deliberations.
Original article, Author: Tobias. If you wish to reprint this article, please indicate the source:https://aicnbc.com/21746.html
