Jury Rules Against Elon Musk in OpenAI Lawsuit Elon Musk’s courtroom bid to remake OpenAI has ended in legal defeat but intensified questions about who controls the future of artificial intelligence.

In 2015, Musk co-founded OpenAI as a nonprofit meant to build AI “for the benefit of humanity,” donating $38 million on the understanding it would not chase profits. Over subsequent years, OpenAI created a for‑profit arm, took major investments from Microsoft, and pursued a massive valuation and planned IPO, moves Musk later called a betrayal of a charitable mission.

Musk sued in February 2024, accusing CEO Sam Altman, president Greg Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft of “stealing a charity” by restructuring the lab and enriching themselves through a commercial spin‑off. He sought up to $134 billion in disgorgement and the removal of Altman and Brockman, a remedy analysts warned could have upended OpenAI’s IPO plans and the broader AI market.

After three weeks of testimony in Oakland, California, a nine‑person advisory jury deliberated for about two hours before unanimously ruling that Musk waited too long to sue; his claims were barred by statutes of limitations. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers immediately accepted the verdict, concluding there was “substantial” evidence that any harms occurred before the legal deadlines.

OpenAI’s team cast the outcome as a decisive win on narrow legal grounds. Lead attorney Bill Savitt called the suit “a hypocritical attempt to sabotage a competitor” and said jurors had kicked it “exactly where it belongs — just to the side.” With the threat of restructuring and giant damages “in the rearview mirror,” OpenAI can now “shift its strategic focus to capitalizing on the AI revolution,” analyst Dan Ives wrote.

Musk and his supporters argue the real issue was ducked. He has insisted the ruling turned on a “calendar technicality” rather than whether Altman and Brockman “enrich[ed] themselves by stealing a charity.” His lawyer, Marc Toberoff, vowed, “Appeal. This war is not over,” saying you “can’t raise millions of dollars in a publicly subsidized charity and then convert it into a for‑profit.” In retweeted commentary, allies blasted the judge as an “activist” who had let Altman “hijack[] a nonprofit charity … and turn [it] into an $852B public benefit corporation,” and warned the statute‑of‑limitations ruling will be “tough to overturn.”

Outside the courtroom, commentators say nobody emerged untarnished. One analysis argued that “the entire AI industry lost,” with testimony revealing power struggles and personal rivalries overshadowing claims of “humanity‑saving ideals.” Another concluded Musk v. Altman showed that AI is “led by the wrong people,” as both sides appeared “temperamentally incapable” of dealing honestly while vying for control of artificial general intelligence.

Yet in the marketplace, the verdict appears to strengthen OpenAI’s hand. With the case dismissed as untimely, Microsoft welcomed the decision and reaffirmed its partnership to “advance and scale AI for people and organizations around the world,” while attention shifts to OpenAI’s IPO race against rival Anthropic. Musk, meanwhile, is taking his fight to the Ninth Circuit — and, by amplification of favorable commentary, to what one Wall Street Journal writer called “the court of public opinion.”

Continue reading https://foxvector.com