Closing arguments wrapped up Thursday in the courtroom drama that has given Silicon Valley something to gossip about besides valuation numbers and who's building the better chatbot. Elon Musk's lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI has now reached the jury deliberation stage, where nine regular people will decide whether the AI firm and its CEO are liable for allegedly betraying the non-profit gospel.
The trial, which began last month in an Oakland federal courthouse, has been a feast of tech industry dirty laundry, featuring cameos from some of the biggest names in the business. Attorneys for both sides have paraded testimony and documents that expose the private dealings and contentious history between Musk and Altman, proving that even billionaires can hold a grudge.
Musk's legal team has argued that Altman, OpenAI, and its president Greg Brockman violated a founding agreement when they restructured the non-profit into a for-profit entity, essentially accusing them of taking Musk's money and running. OpenAI has countered that Musk is just bitter about losing a 2018 bid to take over the company and was always aware of the for-profit plans. They also note that OpenAI's non-profit still oversees the company and is, technically, one of the best-funded charities on the planet.
During closing arguments, Musk's attorney Steven Molo painted Altman as a duplicitous operator who can't be trusted. “Sam Altman’s credibility is directly at issue in this case,” Molo said, suggesting that if the jury doesn't believe Altman, OpenAI loses. He even offered a vivid metaphor: imagine a scary bridge built on Altman's version of the truth. “Would you walk across that bridge? I don’t think many people would,” he asked the jury.
OpenAI's attorney Sarah Eddy fired back, arguing that Musk's case lacks concrete evidence. She noted that even Musk's romantic partner Shivon Zilis couldn't recall an explicit agreement about his funding conditions. “Even the people who work for him. Even the mother of his children can’t back his story,” Eddy said, adding that no documents corroborate Musk's claims.
Eddy also argued that Musk knew as early as 2017 that OpenAI was considering a for-profit structure and had tried to take control for himself. “The truth, as the evidence shows, is that in 2017 Mr Musk wanted a for-profit OpenAI and he wanted to dominate it,” she said. OpenAI's lead attorney William Savitt took a dig at Musk's absence from the courtroom - the Tesla CEO was reportedly in China with Donald Trump. “Mr Musk isn’t here today. My clients are,” Savitt said. “Mr Musk came to this court for exactly one witness: Elon Musk. Now he’s in parts unknown.”
The trial has featured dramatic moments, including Musk accusing Altman of “stealing a charity” and Altman responding, “I agree you can’t steal it. Mr Musk did try to kill it.” Long lines of media and tech fanboys have formed outside the courthouse, while Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has worked hard to keep proceedings focused, repeatedly shutting down talk of an AI apocalypse.
Beyond the public relations spectacle, the case poses a real threat to OpenAI as it plans to go public later this year at a $1tn valuation. Musk is seeking to remove Altman and Brockman, reverse the for-profit structure, and redistribute $134bn from the for-profit entity into the non-profit. If the jury finds OpenAI liable, Judge Gonzalez Rogers will determine the remedies - which could be even more dramatic than the courtroom theatrics.