High-stakes courtroom drama of Musk v OpenAI hears closing arguments

Closing arguments began on Thursday in Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI, bringing the weeks-long courtroom battle between the two tech moguls nearer to a decision. A nine-person jury is set to deliberate and return a verdict on whether they believe the AI firm and Altman are liable in the case.

The trial, which began last month in an Oakland, California, federal courthouse, has gripped Silicon Valley and featured some of the tech industry’s biggest names as witnesses. Attorneys for both sides have presented testimony and documents that have exposed Musk and Altman’s private dealings, as well as provided a window into the contentious history of OpenAI.

Musk has sought to prove that Altman, OpenAI and its president, Greg Brockman, broke a founding agreement of the non-profit company when they restructured it into a for-profit entity, accusing them of bilking him out of money and unjustly enriching themselves. OpenAI has rejected all Musk’s claims, arguing that he is motivated by jealousy after a failed bid to take over the firm in 2018 and was always aware of plans to create a for-profit. They have also argued that OpenAI’s non-profit still oversees the company and is one of the most well-resourced charities in the world.

In addition to arguments about corporate governance and non-profit law, much of the case has focused on the personal and professional conduct of both Musk and Altman. Attorneys for Musk have cast Altman as a duplicitous operator seeking personal gain over OpenAI’s original mission to use its technology to benefit humanity. OpenAI’s lawyers have meanwhile depicted Musk as a vengeful and erratic mogul who is upset that he has fallen by the wayside in the tech industry’s multitrillion-dollar AI race.

During closing arguments, Musk’s attorney Steven Molo hit on several themes he has been emphasizing throughout the trial, including questioning whether Altman is trustworthy. Molo listed several witnesses who testified that Altman was dishonest or misleading, suggesting that Altman ducked those allegations while on the stand with noncommittal and evasive language.

“Sam Altman’s credibility is directly at issue in this case,” Molo said. “The defendants absolutely need you to believe Sam Altman. If you cannot trust him, if you do not believe him, they cannot win. It’s that simple.”

Molo told jurors to imagine that they were on a hike and approached a scary-looking bridge that spanned a river hundreds of feet below. He asked them to imagine that a woman was at the entrance to the bridge, telling them not to worry because the bridge was built on Altman’s version of the truth. “Would you walk across that bridge? I don’t think many people would,” Molo said.

Molo also presented a history of OpenAI in which Musk decided to help start the company to counter Google’s AI efforts and always intended it to be a non-profit with the mission of saving humanity from a dystopian future. Whether Altman and Brockman ever explicitly agreed that Musk’s financial backing was dependent on OpenAI remaining a non-profit has been a central question in the case – one complicated by the lack of an explicit, written contract detailing the company’s founding agreements.

During OpenAI’s closing arguments, attorney Sarah Eddy told the jury that Musk’s case failed to prove any of his allegations and lacked concrete evidence that he ever gave specific conditions for his financial support. Eddy read out various witnesses’ testimony, including from Musk’s romantic partner Shivon Zilis, who stated they did not recall an explicit agreement surrounding Musk’s funding.

“Even the people who work for him. Even the mother of his children can’t back his story,” Eddy told the jury, adding “no documents corroborate Mr Musk’s story and that’s because no commitments or promises were made. No restrictions were placed on Mr Musk’s donations.”

OpenAI’s closing argument largely focused on presenting documents and testimony to claim that Musk had known as early as 2017 that the company was considering creating a for-profit entity and had tried to take control of the firm for his own ends.

“The truth, as the evidence shows, is that in 2017 Mr Musk wanted a for-profit OpenAI and he wanted to dominate it,” Eddy said.

Eddy also argued that Musk’s claims were outside of the statute of limitations for bringing his case. The first consideration for jurors in their deliberations is whether Musk’s allegations of a breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment took place during a specific period of time. If OpenAI proves the incidents in question were outside of that window or that Musk unreasonably delayed in filing his suit, then the case falls apart.

OpenAI’s lead attorney in the case, William Savitt, also gave final remarks to stress the argument that Musk only filed his suit once he “realized that he’d made a big mistake” by leaving the firm. Savitt additionally took a dig at Musk not being in the courtroom – the Tesla CEO joined Donald Trump this week on a trip to China.

“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 numerous dramatic moments that have showcased the years-long feud between Musk and Altman. Early in the trial, Musk repeatedly accused Altman of “stealing a charity” as he gained control of OpenAI. Altman, who took the stand this week, responded: “I agree you can’t steal it. Mr Musk did try to kill it.”

There have been long lines outside the courthouse on most mornings as a mix of media and tech industry fanboys clamored to watch the proceedings. Inside the courtroom, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has strained to keep the tech moguls and their legal teams on track, repeatedly shutting down attempts to veer into talk of an AI apocalypse and other ideas beyond the boundaries of the case.

Aside from a public relations battle, the case involves a tangible threat to OpenAI as it seeks to go public later this year at a $1tn valuation. Musk is seeking Brockman and Altman’s removal from OpenAI as well as the reversal of its for-profit structure. The Tesla CEO also wants $134bn to be redistributed from OpenAI’s for-profit into its non-profit organization.

If the jury finds Altman and OpenAI liable, it will be up to Judge Gonzalez Rogers to determine what remedies are appropriate.