"Altman's defense argued that OpenAI had to form a profit-generating arm to keep up with competitors as AI technology advanced. They said that prior to leaving OpenAI, Musk was amenable to creating a for-profit, which he wanted to control. When other executives refused to agree to his terms, he left the company."
"The jury agreed with OpenAI's defense that Musk missed the statute of limitations to allege a breach of charitable trust. They also dismissed a claim that Microsoft, OpenAI's largest investor, aided and abetted a breach of charitable trust."
"Sarah Eddy, an attorney for OpenAI, noted in her closing argument that Musk departed the company in 2018, watched it build up a for-profit arm beginning in 2019 and made his final monetary contribution the year after that. Yet, he waited until 2024, after he'd launched a competing AI enterprise, to bring his suit."
"She called the case a "textbook" example of why the statute of limitations exists, saying that when Musk made his last contribution and testified that he became suspicious of a breach of charitable trust in 2020, he "started the clock." According to Eddy, Musk should have sued by 2022 at the latest."
Altman’s defense argued that OpenAI needed a profit-generating arm to remain competitive as AI advanced, and that Musk had previously been open to creating a for-profit structure he could control. When other executives did not accept his terms, Musk left. The verdict focused on the timeline of Musk’s allegations rather than many trial revelations. The jury found that Musk missed the statute of limitations for alleging a breach of charitable trust. The jury also dismissed a claim that Microsoft aided and abetted such a breach. OpenAI’s attorney said Musk left in 2018, observed the for-profit build starting in 2019, made a final monetary contribution in 2020, and waited until 2024 to sue, which she said started the clock.
Read at Kqed
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]