The jury in the OpenAI case rules against Elon Musk

After three weeks of testimony and little deliberation, a jury ruled against Elon Musk, finding that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman were not responsible in this case. The jury found that the statute of limitations had already passed when Musk sued the two executives.

Musk filed his suit in 2024, accusing them of “stealing from charity” after he left the AI ​​lab in 2018. Although the jury in the case only played an “advisory” role, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the jury’s decision. Musk’s allegations of “charitable breach of trust and unjust enrichment are rejected as inappropriate,” she said according to CNBC. Although Musk could still appeal the decision, Rogers told her lawyer that she would reject the appeal “right away.”

At the center of the case was OpenAI’s reorganization that saw it transform from a non-profit organization to a public benefit corporation. Musk argued that the move, along with Microsoft’s $13 billion investment in the company, was a violation of OpenAI’s original contractual agreements. A major question in the trial, however, was when Musk became aware of OpenAI’s commercial ambitions due to the three-year statute of limitations in the case.

“The facts and timing of this case have long been clear, and we welcome the jury’s decision to dismiss these allegations as improper,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement. “We remain committed to our work with OpenAI to advance and scale AI for people and organizations around the world. »

In their testimony, Musk’s lawyers attempted to portray Altman as a dishonest and lying person, even going so far as to reference his recent unflattering speech. New Yorkers profile. Altman often struggled to respond to allegations against him. When asked if he considered himself an honest person, Altman replied, “I believe so.” Musk’s legal team immediately jumped on this response. “Do you believe it?” asked Steven Molo, the lead lawyer for the world’s richest man. “I’ll just change my answer to yes,” Altman responded.

When later asked about statements from former OpenAI employees, including former CTO Mira Murati, who described Altman as someone who would say “one thing to one person and the complete opposite to another”, Altman repeatedly claimed that he had not seen their testimony. “You have been repeatedly called a deceiver and a liar by people you have done business with, have you not?” Molo asked. “I’ve heard people say that,” Altman responded.

Where Altman was gentle during his testimony, Musk was combative and irritable. “Your questions are not simple. They are essentially designed to mislead me,” Musk told William Savitt, OpenAI’s lead attorney. As the trial neared its conclusion, Musk was absent, despite Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ order to remain in case he was called to testify again. “Mr. Musk is not here today. My clients are,” Savitt told the jury during closing arguments. “Mr. Musk came to this court for exactly one witness: Elon Musk. Now he is in parts unknown.” Unknown elements in this affair turned out to be alongside Trump during his diplomatic trip to China.

Even before the trial began, Musk faced great difficulty in obtaining the relief he sought. The billionaire sought to reverse OpenAI’s for-profit conversion and force the removal of Altman and Brockman from their positions at the helm of the company. There may have been a moment early in OpenAI’s negotiations with the attorneys general of California and Delaware where Musk might have had a chance of winning his case, but it was clear that Judge Gonzales Rogers was deeply reluctant to undo the officials’ work. When Musk filed for a preliminary injunction to stop the conversion, the judge said the request was “extraordinary and rarely granted.”