This is more like it. No mealymouthing or wishy-washiness here. This is a strident defense. I’ll quote just one line for now:
Apple offers nothing because it has nothing because there is nothing. Its Complaint cannot and does not state a misappropriation claim against Defendant Tan.
I’ll post more thoughts later, but if you’re following this lawsuit, you should read OpenAI’s motion yourself. It’s cogently written, not mired in legalese. Legalese is generally a sign of shitty lawyers. The law is meant to be practiced by lawyers, but understood by everyone. The law is not a priesthood; motions in a lawsuit are not holy texts reserved for the sainted few. What boggles my mind is that almost none of the outlets reporting on this today linked to OpenAI’s actual motion. (Kudos to Jess Weatherbed of The Verge, who did.) Summaries are necessary and commentary is good, but for chrissake link to the source document.