A California jury has tossed out Elon Musk's high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI and its boss Sam Altman. In a unanimous verdict, the jury agreed that Musk had waited too long to file his lawsuit, leaving all of his claims essentially expired.
Musk had accused Altman of breaching a non-profit contract by shifting the ChatGPT-maker to a for-profit company after Musk donated $38m (£28.5m) early in OpenAI's history. Musk claimed Altman had deceived him by accepting his money and then reneging on OpenAI's original non-profit mission to develop artificial intelligence (AI) technology for the benefit of humanity.
Jurors spent just about two hours on Monday deliberating on the case, but they had spent three weeks viewing internal correspondence and hearing testimony from Musk, Altman, and other tech industry executives, such as Microsoft's chief executive Satya Nadella.
Musk had accused Microsoft of aiding and abetting OpenAI in its allegedly improper transition to a more for-profit company. Musk's other claims against Microsoft were dismissed as a matter of law given the jury's findings on the two claims against OpenAI.
A spokesperson for Microsoft said of the verdict: The facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear. The company added that it remained committed to its work with OpenAI.
The jury's decision adds to a string of recent losses and settlements for Musk in court. Within a few hours of the verdict, Musk criticized the decision against him, writing on X that it created a free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years!
He also accused the judge overseeing the case of being a terrible activist who used the jury as a fig leaf. Musk vowed to file an appeal, claiming that the jury did not decide on the merits of the case and that the decision was based on a calendar technicality.
The bottom line is that an appeals court would be very unlikely to overturn such a fact-specific decision from a jury. Law professor Carl Tobias noted that the jurors had made a very fact-based decision about the case.
OpenAI's lawyer expressed satisfaction with the jury's verdict and reiterated the organization's commitment to its mission of developing safe AI for the benefit of humanity.
Musk had accused Altman of breaching a non-profit contract by shifting the ChatGPT-maker to a for-profit company after Musk donated $38m (£28.5m) early in OpenAI's history. Musk claimed Altman had deceived him by accepting his money and then reneging on OpenAI's original non-profit mission to develop artificial intelligence (AI) technology for the benefit of humanity.
Jurors spent just about two hours on Monday deliberating on the case, but they had spent three weeks viewing internal correspondence and hearing testimony from Musk, Altman, and other tech industry executives, such as Microsoft's chief executive Satya Nadella.
Musk had accused Microsoft of aiding and abetting OpenAI in its allegedly improper transition to a more for-profit company. Musk's other claims against Microsoft were dismissed as a matter of law given the jury's findings on the two claims against OpenAI.
A spokesperson for Microsoft said of the verdict: The facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear. The company added that it remained committed to its work with OpenAI.
The jury's decision adds to a string of recent losses and settlements for Musk in court. Within a few hours of the verdict, Musk criticized the decision against him, writing on X that it created a free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years!
He also accused the judge overseeing the case of being a terrible activist who used the jury as a fig leaf. Musk vowed to file an appeal, claiming that the jury did not decide on the merits of the case and that the decision was based on a calendar technicality.
The bottom line is that an appeals court would be very unlikely to overturn such a fact-specific decision from a jury. Law professor Carl Tobias noted that the jurors had made a very fact-based decision about the case.
OpenAI's lawyer expressed satisfaction with the jury's verdict and reiterated the organization's commitment to its mission of developing safe AI for the benefit of humanity.
