A federal jury in Oakland took less than two hours to deliver its verdict. OpenAI and Sam Altman stood not liable. Elon Musk’s claims of breach and unjust enrichment? Dismissed. The reason came down to timing. Musk had waited too long.
The May 18 ruling clears a major hurdle for OpenAI. No forced unwind of its for-profit shift. No massive damages. And Altman remains in charge. Yet the New Yorker argued this outcome leaves everyone shortchanged. “The cases of Elizabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried at least offered a pleasant sense of comeuppance,” wrote Gideon Lewis-Kraus. “But in Musk v. Altman, to root against Tweedledum was effectively to root for Tweedledee.” (The New Yorker)
Short verdict. Long shadows. The trial exposed raw details of OpenAI’s founding. Musk contributed $38 million early on. He envisioned a nonprofit counterweight to Google DeepMind. Documents showed his blunt assessment in a farewell email: “My probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%. Not 1%. I wish it were otherwise.”
Altman and others pushed forward. They brought in Microsoft funding. They built ChatGPT into a consumer phenomenon. Then came the 2023 board drama. Altman was ousted. He returned days later. The trial revisited those texts. One exchange between Altman, Mira Murati and others captured the tension. “Directionally very bad,” Murati wrote. Altman pressed for updates amid pressure from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.
But the jury never reached the substance. Statute of limitations barred the claims. Reuters reported the unanimous decision removed “an obstacle to IPO.” (Reuters) OpenAI now eyes a potential public offering as soon as September. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are involved, per recent accounts. The valuation talk hovers near $300 billion or higher.
And Musk? He called the result a “calendar technicality” on X and promised an appeal. CNBC captured his reaction. (CNBC) The feud shows no sign of easing. Musk runs xAI in direct competition. He warns constantly about AI risks. Critics see hypocrisy. Supporters see consistency in pushing for alternatives.
Observers walked away unsettled. NPR noted the jury’s swift action after weeks of testimony. (NPR) The Guardian highlighted how the outcome hands Altman a clear victory while letting Musk argue the loss was procedural. (The Guardian)
TechCrunch put it plainly. Musk’s effort to claim OpenAI “stole a charity” by creating a for-profit arm failed on timing alone. (TechCrunch) Discovery unearthed old emails and board notes. Musk once believed he should hold initial control. Altman countered with stories of near-impossible odds against Google. “So this sounds a little silly to say now, but at the time, we almost didn’t start this effort because we thought Google was so far ahead that it might be hopeless to compete.”
Cross-examinations turned personal. Musk’s team pressed Altman on trustworthiness. Altman referenced past accusations from others, including Dario Amodei of Anthropic. One moment stood out. An attorney declared, “We all could die! We all could die as a result of artificial intelligence!” The room, filled with lawyers, executives and reporters, absorbed the weight. Yet the butt pillows procured by OpenAI staff for the hard courtroom benches became running jokes in coverage. Even veteran reporters admitted borrowing them.
The New York Times offered a different angle. In the spectacle, “the Real Winner Was the Suit.” (The New York Times) Style over substance in some respects. The proceeding forced both sides to air grievances publicly. It delayed OpenAI’s plans. It amplified Musk’s narrative of mission betrayal. But it solved nothing structural.
AP News emphasized the core dispute. Musk saw a betrayal of the humanitarian charter. OpenAI called it necessary evolution to fund the massive compute and talent demands of modern AI. (AP News) Billions in server costs. Global competition with China. Safety research that requires scale. A pure nonprofit, the argument went, could not compete.
Wall Street Journal coverage before the verdict framed the claims around unjust enrichment and breach of charitable trust. The jury never weighed those deeply. (Wall Street Journal) The decision accelerates OpenAI’s path toward liquidity events. Employees with equity stand to gain. Investors seek returns. The nonprofit parent retains a stake valued in the hundreds of billions. Yet questions linger about accountability.
Lewis-Kraus captured the unease in The New Yorker. Individual character tests prove too flimsy a foundation for decisions with planetary stakes. The trial became self-referential. Rooting for one titan meant endorsing the other. No clean heroes emerged. Testimony revealed messy human motives on all sides. Memes shared on phones. Power struggles. Embarrassing admissions about compensation and equity sales. One executive guessed his pay around $200,000. Another was unsure whether shares sold for more or less than $20 million.
Recent reporting adds fresh texture. Al Jazeera noted the verdict leaves Musk room to claim vindication on merits even as he lost on procedure. (Al Jazeera) The fight shifts to public perception ahead of any OpenAI listing. It also spotlights broader industry tensions. xAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind and others race forward. Each claims unique safety commitments. Each courts big capital.
So what remains? A clearer runway for commercial AI development. Faster product releases. Deeper integration with cloud providers. But the governance vacuum persists. Who sets boundaries when capabilities advance rapidly? How does society weigh open research against security risks? The courtroom offered theater. It delivered no lasting framework.
Inc. magazine drew business lessons from the co-founder rupture. Early agreements matter. Trust erodes fast when visions diverge. (Inc.) Silicon Valley watched closely. Many founders revisited their own contracts.
Altman, graying at the temples, appeared worn in court. He defended the pivot as hard-won progress. Musk, restless on the stand, projected urgency about existential threats. Both men command resources that dwarf most nations’ technology budgets. Their clash reveals how concentrated power has become. One jury decision won’t redistribute it.
Appeals could drag on. Musk has signaled determination. OpenAI pushes toward its IPO quietly. The public may soon own slices of the company born from a nonprofit promise. Markets will price the risk and reward. Regulators watch from afar. And the underlying debate about AI’s ultimate direction continues outside any courtroom.
But the New Yorker piece lingers. We all lost. Not because one side prevailed. Because the spectacle substituted for serious examination of what responsible development demands. Character witnesses and old emails filled the record. Structural safeguards received less attention. The butt pillows cushioned weary bodies. They could not soften the harder truth. AI’s trajectory now rests in the hands of a handful of executives and their backers. The rest of us sit in the gallery. Watching.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication