These days, some of tech’s most important decisions are being made inside courtrooms. Google and Facebook are fending off antitrust accusations, while patent suits determine how much control of their own products they can have. The slow fight over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act threatens platforms like Twitter and YouTube with untold liability suits for the content they host. Gig economy companies like Uber and Airbnb are fighting for their very existence as their workers push for the protections of full-time employees. In each case, judges and juries are setting the rules about exactly how far tech companies can push the envelope and exactly how much protection everyday people have. This is where we keep track of those legal fights and the broader principles behind them. When you move fast and break things, it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise when you end up in court.
“I work 80 to 100 hours a week,” Musk says. He says he doesn’t take vacations, own vacation homes, or own a yacht. He also spends an awful lot of time posting to X.com, doesn’t he?
“The incorporation docs had been filed but there were no employees or IP at that time, so it depends on people’s perspective, but essentially there were five cofounders of the company and I was one of them,” he says. It’s actually, of course, a matter of legal agreement — here’s a little more background.
Elon Musk says from the stand that Neuralink’s “long-term goal is AI safety in the sense that if we can closely tie the human world to AI... if there’s symbiosis we’re more likely to have a future with AI that’s good for humanity.” Sure!
We’re getting into Musk’s later companies — SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, and others. Musk says that “there have to be reasons to be excited and inspired by the future” and plays up his difficulties establishing SpaceX, saying that “anyone who was good wouldn’t join us because I was just some internet guy.”
Musk is offering some familiar background about his start in the tech industry, from Zip2 to what would become PayPal. “I believe you shouldn’t ask other people to invest unless you’re going to put your own money in,” he says. He’s not really turning on the charm here — the delivery’s fairly flat.
He claims that if the jury finds in favor of Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft, “it will become precedent and give precedent to looting every charity in America.”
Sam Altman did not return, but our first witness has been called: Elon Musk.
Elon is going to take the stand; stay tuned. The jury is reentering the courtroom after listening to arguments from OpenAI and Microsoft, then taking a short break.
According to Microsoft’s lawyer Russell Cohen, making his opening argument in Musk v. Altman, saying that each round of funding (including across the events of November 2023) provided more resources, which produced better research and better models that justified further investment.
Similar to Savitt, Cohen closed by saying that Musk only raised claims about the deal after ChatGPT and OpenAI became successful, and he launched xAI as a competitor.
Following the opening argument by Altman’s lawyer, Russell Cohen began Microsoft’s argument. According to Cohen, the dispute has little to do with Microsoft (which just relaxed its arrangement with OpenAI).
His version of events is that OpenAI came to Microsoft because it needed a massive investment to pursue its research, Microsoft wasn’t there when Musk was donating to the project, and no one, Musk or anyone else, claimed there were any conditions preventing Microsoft from investing.
As Savitt wrapped up his opening argument, he leaned on saying that Musk’s lawsuit came after the statute of limitations, and that he “sat on his claims for years.” The sour grapes only kicked in once it turned out that OpenAI was valuable.
According to Altman’s lawyer, William Savitt. Continuing his opening argument, Savitt brought up an email from OpenAI scientist Ilya Sutskever around the time Musk’s quarterly donations ended.
It said, “The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the AGI,” which apparently upset Musk to the point that he “literally” grabbed his stuff and stormed out.
According to Savitt, once Brockman and Ilya Sutskever built an AI model capable of besting Dota 2 players in 2017 and realized the importance of compute, they held dozens of meetings that included Musk, Jared Birchall (CEO of Neuralink and Musk’s longtime wealth manager), and Shivon Zilis (you know) about how to structure OpenAI for profit.
William Savitt, who is representing Sam Altman, continued his opening argument, saying that Musk only started to care about supposedly broken promises by Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman once he became a competitor. “The only person who claims to have heard those promises is Mr. Musk himself.”
The lawyers representing Sam Altman and OpenAI are not mincing words when it comes to Musk’s claims in their opening argument, saying that we’re only here “because Mr. Musk didn’t get his way at OpenAI.”
Companies Altman invested in got contracts from OpenAI that Altman approved, Molo says. That’s how Altman is making OpenAI money without an OpenAI equity stake.
Molo’s mic just cut out. YGR: “What can we tell you, we’re funded by the federal government.” It was reset and cut out again, “Is this a Microsoft product?” Molo asks.
The point at which Musk’s lawyer says the change occurred was the third Microsoft deal on October 20th, 2022. That is when OpenAI was no longer for the good of humanity, and also when Musk hired a lawyer.
Musk’s lawyer, Molo, says that Musk is concerned about what happens when computers are smarter than people, and that there are people who think that’s not too far away. He says that’s artificial general intelligence, and we’ll be hearing about it a lot.
Steven Molo, Musk’s lawyer, is giving an opening statement in Musk v. Altman. The case isn’t about Musk, he says. It’s about Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. After yesterday’s sentiments on Musk, Molo is making a point of asking jurors to put personal sentiments aside. Musk will be the first witness,
Correction: The case is Musk v. Altman, not Altman v. Musk.
We expect opening arguments today.
YGR denied those challenges. “The reality is that people don’t like him,” she said. “Many people don’t like him. but that doesn’t mean that Americans nevertheless can’t have integrity for the judicial process.”
While the lawyers ask questions of prospective jurors, apparently there are Happenings outside the courtroom.
We’ll get another set of 20 shortly. So far, five people have disliked Musk enough to bring it up, but all but one say they can be fair. Lots of people have used AI, with varying opinions on it.
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has introduced herself to prospective jurors; so have all the assorted lawyers. We are looking for nine people. This case should be done by May 21st, at which point it goes to the jury.
I’m in the courtroom — and jury selection will begin shortly. Sam Altman is here, but I haven’t seen Elon Musk.
A report by Bloomberg points out that the DOJ has joined an xAI lawsuit against the Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence law that is set to take effect in Colorado on June 30th. In their filing, the government’s lawyers claim that by requiring developers to take “reasonable care to protect consumers” from algorithmic discrimination, the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Uber lost the first of thousands of cases seeking to hold it responsible for sexual misconduct tied to its services. Similar to ongoing social media trials, these cases are bellwethers that could later inform a broader settlement. Uber spokesperson Matt Kallman told The Times it has “strong grounds for appeal.”
[The New York Times]
The European Commission says it will order Meta to roll back its policy to only allow rival AI assistants on WhatsApp for a year if they pay an access fee, which appears to violate EU competition rules. Meta’s conduct “risks blocking competitors from entering or expanding in the rapidly growing market for AI assistants,” according to the Commission.
[European Commission - European Commission]
The message was shared by Daniel Moreno-Gama in an online chat in January, months before he was arrested for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at the OpenAI CEO’s home. Moreno-Gama added that his words shouldn’t be taken literally, but he’s one of many that have venerated the United Healthcare CEO murder.
[The Wall Street Journal]
Yuga Labs, the creator of the now-depreciated line of NFTs, settled its lawsuit against artists Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, who were accused of launching a copycat RR/BAYC NFT collection, as reported by CoinDesk.
The parties settled to avoid a trial after a court reversed Yuga Labs’ $9 million win last year.
Murphy Campbell’s nightmare isn’t over yet. Distributor Vydia has rescinded its claims to her YouTube videos. But her Facebook and Instagram posts about the incident have been removed for copyright infringement. Neither Meta nor Vydia have responded to a request for comment, but it’s unclear what could possibly have been infringing in this video (reposted by United Musicians & Allied Workers).
