15 articles · Updated · The New York Times · May 14
Steven Molo used Thursday’s closing argument to tell jurors the case turns on whether Sam Altman can be believed, portraying the OpenAI chief as fundamentally untrustworthy after three weeks of testimony.
More than $150 billion in damages is at stake as Musk argues OpenAI and Microsoft turned a 2015 nonprofit mission into a profit-driven venture, abandoning AI safety and open-sharing promises after his 2018 exit.
Molo leaned on the 2023 board ouster of Altman, testimony from former directors, and Greg Brockman’s estimated $30 billion stake to argue OpenAI leaders stood to enrich themselves from what Musk calls a stolen charity.
Jurors must also decide whether Musk sued in time: his team has to show he could not reasonably have known of any breach before August 2021, with deliberations set to follow closing arguments.
Musk's AI firm also chased profits. Is his lawsuit about principle or just slowing a powerful rival?
With rivals rising and costs soaring, is OpenAI's AI dominance more fragile than its valuation suggests?
Can AI truly serve humanity if controlled by corporations seeking trillion-dollar valuations?
$850 Billion at Stake: Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and the Future of AI Governance
Overview
The high-profile legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI has reached a decisive moment, with the jury set to deliberate after closing arguments. At the heart of the case is Musk’s claim that OpenAI abandoned its original non-profit mission by creating a for-profit subsidiary now valued at over $850 billion, fundamentally shifting its purpose and structure. The trial, closely managed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, has focused on contractual and fiduciary issues, avoiding broader debates about AI risks. The outcome could reshape OpenAI’s future, impact investor confidence, and set important precedents for AI governance and the transition from non-profit to for-profit models.