Live updates from Elon Musk and Sam Altman’s court battle over the future of OpenAI

Elon Musk and Sam Altman are engaged in a high-stakes trial over the future of OpenAI, with Musk accusing the company of abandoning its nonprofit mission to prioritize profits. Key witnesses, including Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, have testified, while Altman took the stand to refute claims of deceit. Closing arguments concluded without a verdict, and the court is scheduled to reconvene on May 18 for a hearing on potential remedies.

Sam Altman and Elon Musk are facing off in a high-stakes trial that could alter the future of OpenAI and its most well-known product, ChatGPT. In 2024, Musk filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its founding mission of developing AI to benefit humanity and shifting focus to boosting profits instead. Live updates from Elon Musk and Sam Altman’s court battle over the future of OpenAI Elon Musk, his financial manager and Neuralink CEO, Jared Birchall, and OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman have already testified before the jury. Shivon Zilis, a former OpenAI board member who shares four children with Musk, took the stand, and the courtroom also watched former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati’s videotaped deposition. For the trial’s third week, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella appeared first, followed by OpenAI cofounder and former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever. Altman then took the stand on Tuesday to refute the Musk argument that he is a liar and a snake. Following the closing arguments that closed out last week, we are back in court on Monday, May 18th, for a hearing over possible remedies, which is also available via an audio livestream on YouTube. Musk was a cofounder of OpenAI and claims that Altman and Brockman tricked him into giving the company money, only to turn their backs on their original goal. However, OpenAI says that “This lawsuit has always been a baseless and jealous bid to derail a competitor” in a bid to boost Musk’s own SpaceX / xAI / X companies that have launched Grok as a competitor to ChatGPT. In his lawsuit, Musk is asking for the removal of Altman and Brockman, and for OpenAI to stop operating as a public benefit corporation. Musk has also demanded that OpenAI’s nonprofit receive up to $150 billion in damages he’s asking for if he wins the case. People to Know Plaintiff Elon Musk — plaintiff, OpenAI cofounder and now CEO of rival xAI Steven Molo — lead counsel for the plaintiff Jared Birchall — manager of Musk’s family office Shivon Zilis — former OpenAI board member who shares multiple children with Musk Defendant Sam Altman — defendant, CEO of OpenAI William Savitt — lead counsel for the defendant Greg Brockman — president of OpenAI as well as a cofounder Ilya Sutskever — former chief scientist at OpenAI and a cofounder Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers — aka YGR, trial judge Here’s all the latest on the trial between Musk and Altman: Musk v. Altman accomplished nothing but airing dirty laundry Today was closing arguments in the Musk v. Altman trial, and I almost feel bad writing about the unbelievable demolition derby I just witnessed. Steven Molo, Musk’s lawyer, stumbled over his words. He at one point called Greg Brockman — a co-defendant — Greg Altman. He erroneously claimed that Musk wasn’t asking for money and had to be corrected by the judge. He made it clear we’ve heard from many liars over the past few weeks, but offered little evidence for Musk’s actual legal claims. OpenAI’s lawyer Sarah Eddy countered this by simply arranging the mountain of evidence that the company introduced in chronological order. She didn’t spend time trying to pretend anyone in this trial is especially reliable. She did, however, get the zinger of the day, about Musk: “Even the mother of his children can’t back his story.” William Savitt, who took the defendant baton after her presentation, demonstrated the number of times Musk “didn’t recall” some critical detail — and wondered how a sophisticated businessman couldn’t understand or read a four-page term sheet OpenAI had sent to him. Read Article - “I told you in my opening statement you wouldn’t hear very much from Microsoft, and you haven’t.” God bless. We are in the Microsoft closing statements. “Microsoft never found a single page of a single document” that referenced Musk’s alleged restrictions on his donations during the due diligence process. Microsoft doesn’t want any of this Elizabeth Lopatto - “I feel like I’m going to miss you all,” Savitt tells the jury. He may be laying it on thick, but he did get a big laugh. - Savitt calls out the fact that Musk is abroad with President Trump today. He reminded the jury that Musk isn’t in the courtroom while Altman and Brockman are. Musk posted yesterday that he was en route to Beijing on Air Force One. “They are here because they care a lot about this,” Savitt said. “Mr. Musk isn’t here. Mr. Musk came to this court for exactly one witness — Elon Musk — and he hasn’t been seen since. Now he’s in parts unknown.” - Savitt says Musk has “selective amnesia.” “He claims to have heard things high atop a windy hill where no one else can hear,” Savitt told the jury. Strange phrasing, but after the bridge metaphor from Molo, I wouldn’t expect anything less. He also says Musk has “unclean hands” due to his “unconscionable conduct” related to the claims he’s bringing. “Only after OpenAI succeeded, against Musk’s prediction, only then did he start threatening litigation,” Savitt said. Behold, the Elon Musk jackass trophy Yesterday, in Musk v. Altman, before the jurors came in, Sam Altman’s team passed up what looked — from a distance — like a Little League trophy. It was not. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had the lawyers read the inscription aloud for the press: “Never stop being a jackass.” It’s a commemoration OpenAI employees bought for research scientist Josh Achiam, who testified yesterday. How exactly did this come up in a trial about nonprofit contract law? Allegedly, when Elon Musk was leaving OpenAI, he talked about wanting to race ahead of Google. Achiam, who worked on AI safety, asked if that was really such a good idea. Musk called him a jackass. Years later, Musk is portraying his lawsuit as an attempt to avoid AI causing serious harm — something that, Altman’s team suggests, wasn’t high on his list of concerns back then. Read Article - Savitt is talking about the statute of limitations. He said that by his calculations, people said things like “I don’t remember” and “I don’t recall” between 150 and 200 times during this trial so far — using this to bolster his argument that Musk had waited too long to bring his claims. - Here’s the jackass trophy that the jury didn’t get to see. You may remember that yesterday I was completely tickled by the possibility that the jury might get to see this. Even YGR seemed tickled by it. Unfortunately, she ruled that discussing it was fine but unless the Musk team gave them reason to introduce it, the jurors wouldn’t see so much as a photo. But this is the trophy Josh Achiam got for getting yelled at by Elon Musk. - We are back from our break. William Savitt is taking it home for the OpenAI defense. There’s one more thing that Savitt is harping on. “Has the OpenAI nonprofit respected its general founding principles?” The question doesn’t matter, legally, since Musk didn’t create a charitable trust, but Savitt is going to spend some time on this because Molo emphasized it. - Tesla AI is evidence of Musk’s failure, Eddy says. Musk doesn’t want to admit that trying to build an AGI lab in Tesla was a failure — whether that was by acquiring OpenAI or trying to poach all its talent, maybe even putting Altman on the board. Eddy suggests this case is revenge on OpenAI for succeeding. - “The documents tell the truth here,” Eddy says. That’s kind of where I’ve landed The idea of the “adjunct” for-profit Eddy says this is a moving target, and though Musk used it twice in testimony, when Savitt used it, Molo objected and accused him of making up a term doesn’t show up in any of the brainstorming structure documents. We do see parallel for-profits, and the idea of a conversion to a for-profit and shutting down the nonprofit. Jared Birchall also testified that he filed to register a company for this. - Eddy suggests that Musk’s donated Teslas were, effectively, bribes. They went to Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman, among others, right before he proposed that he get 62.5 percent of a for-profit company. We are now looking at tax forms and letters — neither of which show any specific purpose. Jared Birchall also testified that there was no specific purpose for the donations. Shivon Zilis doesn’t remember it. Sam Teller doesn’t remember it. This is like watching the Warriors play a team of 6-year-olds. - Eddy is, wisely, leaning hard on chronology in explaining their defense. Chronology and documents. Musk’s performance on the stand does give credence to the suggestion from Eddy that Musk “took his marbles and went home” when he couldn’t get his way. - Sarah Eddy is giving the closing argument for OpenAI. She opens with a banger. Musk has said he made donations with strings attached. “Even the mother of his children can’t back his story.” - Molo is done presenting Musk’s closing argument. I do wonder how this would have played in the hands of a better lawyer. Molo’s book report did not overwhelm me with confidence in his case, particularly because a lot of his point-blank assertions were profoundly arguable. - For all of the very irritating testimony about “the blip,” Molo hasn’t convincingly connected it to his case. In all that chaos, Microsoft did suggest board members. But OpenAI didn’t take those suggestions — except one, well after the crisis. I don’t know man, I don’t really understand how this goes to the Microsoft case. It might be a suggestion the nonprofit board doesn’t really control the for-profit — but Helen Toner’s and Tasha McCauley kind of came off as amateurs in their approach, not least because there was no investigation before the firing. - Molo is now attempting to make a case against Microsoft. So far he’s got “they’re a for-profit corporation,” “they know Musk was a co-founder,” and “they read the announcement OpenAI existed.” This is easily the thinnest part of a very thin case — on the OpenAI part, there’s at least Brockman’s diaries. - During our break, the jurors were out of the room, and the lawyers were beefing again. During his speech, Molo told the jury he wasn’t asking for money. That is in fact not true — otherwise I wouldn’t be sitting through phase 2 of the trial next week. “You slipped it in nicely,” YGR says. But Molo needs to retract that statement. - We are back on the millions and billions of OpenAI equity that employees have interest in. I am just going to break from telling you what Molo is saying to say what my personal impression was from sitting here all these weeks: Everyone was improvising. There was no plan. This is especially true of “the blip.” I do wonder if there’s a way to incorporate that into Musk’s case. Anyway, Molo just referenced an exhibit he didn’t have handy, asked for an exhibit number, and then said he’d get it for the jury late.r I have to say, I know Musk’s team is smaller than OpenAI’s, but this might have been a moment to call in another lawyer to handle the close. Someone who could have prepped better, perhaps. Marc Toberoff, who’s theoretically a key figure on this team, hasn’t stood up to do a single thing. Maybe this could have been his moment, I don’t know - This is kind of choppy. Molo keeps interrupting himself to restate things or say things like “remember the residuals?” It’s really important in closing to tell a straightforward, easy-to-follow story here, because this is where you put together all the testimony into your case. I know Molo’s got an uphill battle on the facts here, but this could be smoother. He did also just call Greg Brockman “Greg Altman.” - Molo is now suggesting that the “crown jewels” of OpenAI are its IP. And that the “important constraints” of the capped-profit structure in the first two Microsoft investments did not breach the charitable trust. However, the 2023 investment”changed the world. Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI breached the charitable trust created by Elon” by enriching investors and insiders at the expense of the nonprofit and not open-sourcing the technology. - Musk’s early money meant “a great, great deal,” Molo says. Inarguable That mon