The trial over the control of OpenAI has officially commenced. Elon Musk characterized the case as whether a charitable organization can be plundered, while OpenAI countered that he is seeking to seize 'the keys to the kingdom,' stating that the lawsuit stems from unmet personal objectives. The judge has ordered both parties to avoid influencing public opinion through social media.
A pivotal trial concerning the control and mission of OpenAI, which could reshape the landscape of Silicon Valley, has begun in California.
Plaintiff Elon Musk and defendants Sam Altman and Greg Brockman are directly confronting each other over whether the company has deviated from its original purpose. The case also involves significant claims for damages and a potential overhaul of the corporate governance structure.
Elon Musk personally stated in court that the crux of this case lies in whether a charitable organization can be plundered. He has requested approximately $150 billion in compensation from the court, with the funds to be returned to OpenAI's charitable framework. He also advocates restoring the non-profit structure and removing the current management team.
In his testimony, he emphasized that since its founding in 2015, OpenAI was established as a non-profit organization not intended for personal profit. He claimed that he not only proposed the company’s name and concept but also led the formation of the core team and provided all initial funding. He stated:
“If the plundering of a charitable organization is permitted, the very foundation of the American charitable system will be destroyed.”
Regarding the company’s transformation trajectory, the narratives of both sides diverge significantly. William Savitt, OpenAI’s attorney, noted in his opening statement that Musk had early on recognized the commercial potential and even pushed for the company to transition to a profit-driven model, hoping to become the CEO. After failing to secure control, he resorted to legal action.
Savitt stated that Musk seeks 'the keys to the kingdom,' and that the current lawsuit fundamentally arises from his inability to achieve personal goals. He further pointed out that Musk subsequently founded xAI and integrated it into SpaceX, creating direct competition with OpenAI.
Regarding the decision to commercialize, OpenAI emphasized that establishing a for-profit entity in 2019 was necessary to secure computational resources and attract top-tier researchers, maintaining competitiveness with $Alphabet-A (GOOGL.US)$ Microsoft's DeepMind.
In contrast, Elon Musk's attorney, Steven Molo, shifted the focus to changes in interests following capital intervention, particularly after $Microsoft (MSFT.US)$ the $10 billion investment in January 2023. He stated that the company had transitioned from a public mission to a profit-driven structure, which “should not have become a tool for wealth accumulation.”
The case also highlights a divergence in perspectives on AI safety. During his testimony, Musk mentioned his long-standing concerns about AI risks and noted discussions with Barack Obama and representatives from Google, which, he claimed, did not yield sufficient responses.
He further elaborated on disagreements with Larry Page, stating that the latter failed to prioritize AI safety, which became one of the key motivations behind Musk’s push to establish OpenAI—an institution designed to counterbalance Google.
OpenAI’s legal team countered by asserting that AI safety was not among Musk’s top priorities, pointing out that he had previously downplayed the issue and even dismissed employees concerned with it as “fools.”
According to disclosures during the trial, Musk contributed approximately $38 million in early funding to OpenAI and leveraged personal connections to secure computational resources, including reaching out to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and $NVIDIA (NVDA.US)$ NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang.
Thirteen months after his departure from the board, the organization underwent a commercial restructuring.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers explicitly instructed all parties to exercise restraint in public statements prior to the trial. Previously, Musk had referred to Altman as “Scam Altman” on the social platform X, accusing him of “stealing from a charitable entity.”
Although no gag order was issued, the judge urged the parties to avoid influencing the jury or public opinion through social media. Both Musk and Altman agreed to reduce their related commentary.
Currently, OpenAI's valuation has exceeded USD 850 billion and is considered to potentially reach a trillion-dollar valuation upon IPO. This lawsuit is therefore regarded as a significant variable affecting the company’s listing process.
Meanwhile, market competition is intensifying. In addition to rivals such as Anthropic, Elon Musk's xAI is also participating in the competition, although its product Grok still lags behind OpenAI in terms of user scale.
OpenAI has pointed out that Elon Musk's challenge to the company is fundamentally driven by competitive motives, attempting to hinder the development of a key competitor.
The trial is expected to continue until the end of May, at which point a verdict will be made. In addition to Elon Musk, executives from Altman and Microsoft are also expected to testify in court.
Before the jury, both parties’ lawyers attempted to downplay personal factors and focus the dispute on institutional and accountability issues. Moro reminded the jurors to set aside their personal impressions of the two Silicon Valley billionaires and base their judgment solely on the facts.
Editor/Joe