Email. Why did it have to be email? The bane of our existence is also the bane of Apple's and OpenAI's. I'm not saying what seems to be a mix-up conveyed across the protocol would have stopped the lawsuit between the two, but were the sides actually able to connect in a civil and more humane manner – like, say, over the phone – it may have de-escalated tensions before they reached a boiling point.
An unrequited message from Apple to OpenAI is framed as a kicking off point for the whole situation in Apple's own filing. Obviously, it's meant to showcase an effort of good faith on Apple's part to resolve the matter. But it was curious that Apple said that OpenAI never responded. I focused in on this as odd in my post on the topic a couple days ago:
As for timing, it would seem sort of wild that Apple knew about Liu having some level of access to what they viewed as their information in February 2026 (a couple weeks after his departure to start at OpenAI) but didn't bring about this lawsuit until nearly six months later. While they note that they reached out to OpenAI about a potential issue (and never heard back), it's not clear who at OpenAI they reached out to (nor is it clear who at Apple reached out). Was it simply to Liu himself or someone else? Was it a low-level "heads up" ping between IT departments or something that was elevated much higher? This may remain unclear until/if there's actual discovery.
Well, now it's more clear who reached out to whom between the two thanks to reporting by David Ingram for NBC News:
Apple alleged in[a lawsuit last week]that OpenAI “never responded” to its concerns this year about what Apple believed was trade secret theft. But emails reviewed by NBC News show that’s not the full story: OpenAI did respond in February to Apple’s initial outreach. The communications became bogged down and, according to OpenAI, abruptly stopped after an outside attorney representing Apple mixed up the names and email addresses of two OpenAI employees who had the last names Wang and Chang.
All that is to say, Apple's email did find OpenAI well!
Well, not well. Because the note (from Apple's outside counsel) clearly led to a back-and-forth that ultimately pissed off both sides. To be fair, that's pretty standard for email – especially between lawyers. And yes, this all seems a bit silly. But clearly someone – obviously likely OpenAI – sent the emails to NBC in an attempt to show that Apple is being disingenuous at best in their accusations. And setting the stage that they're perhaps even lying about at least one element!
It is weird that Apple explicitly notes in their lawsuit that OpenAI did not respond to that February outreach when they clearly did. But I imagine Apple would argue semantics here, that OpenAI perhaps never responded to the actual issue: the Apple access/information/property that the former Apple/current OpenAI employee, Chang Liu, had. (Aside: I'm confused by the notion that Apple is said to have mixed up the last names of the employees, when Chang is the first name of a central figure here? Are there other employees here or is that itself a mix up?)
Will OpenAI try to argue that Apple was simply asking about the wrong person so they had no obligation to look into it? Clearly there was a back-and-forth that led to Apple's outside counsel apologizing for mixing up the names. But did OpenAI really use that as pretense to simply stop any communication on the topic?
To add another wrinkle to this, OpenAI has now elaborated on their initial, comically simple comment on the matter that, "We have no interest in other companies' trade secrets." (Um, of course they ave interest! That doesn't mean they want to steal them, but suggesting they're not interesting is funny.) The new statement, given to Bloomberg has a bit more meat on the bone:
"While we take these allegations seriously, we’re not aware of any evidence that this complaint has merit. We believe in fair competition and allowing people the freedom to work wherever they choose, and we’re focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere."
There's a lot going on there in such a short statement. "We're not aware of any evidence that this complaint has merit" is just the sort of semantics gymnastics you would expect from a statement actually cleared by lawyers. That's not to say there's not any evidence, they're simply not aware of it, you see. And the evidence they're talking about is not necessarily about the alleged crime itself, but rather for the complaint. All technicalities, of course, but all undoubtedly framed that way on purpose.
The bit about the "freedom to work wherever they choose" is all about framing this as Apple trying to stifle the free movement of people between companies – a problematic practice that the company has a long, contentious history with.1As I wrote in my post, this will be a key point because both companies are based in California.
Speaking of, the sheer number of people who have moved from Apple to OpenAI would seemingly help make Apple's case here. Would a jury buy that so many people leaving from one company to another wasn't a coordinated effort? That itself wouldn't be illegal – thanks California for no non-competes/non-solicitation rules – but how/why those people came over with regard to IP and trade secrets would obviously be at play here. I mean, that's more or less the entire case!
OpenAI is likely to frame this as Apple simply being pissed off about the AI startup poaching so many of their employees – 400+! – though given the evidence Apple seemingly has against at least Liu, I'm not sure how well that will actually hold up. But perhaps the argument is used to help the other defendant, Tang Tan?
Anyway, yes, email will be front and center to all of this. Not just the back-and-forth between lawyers, but it will obviously be key if the case progresses to the point of discovery. Apple already divulged they have some potentially problematic emails from Tan and others. We're undoubtedly going to get a lot more – on both sides!
Let this be a lesson to us all: never email.
[ 1] I actually had
a scoop back in 2009that Apple and Google had agreed not to poach each others workers, something they had settle with the DoJ over (and agree no longer to do), alongside four other companies,
[back in 2010](https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/24/anti-poaching-agreements/?ref=spyglass.org).
[↩](#)