this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
156 points (99.4% liked)

News

37675 readers
1480 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal court on Monday dismissed claims filed against OpenAI and its top executives by Elon Musk, who accused them of betraying a shared vision for it to guide artificial intelligence’s development as a nonprofit dedicated to humanity’s benefit.

Musk, the world’s richest man, was a co-founder of OpenAI, the company that launched in 2015 and went on to create ChatGPT. After investing $38 million in its first years, Musk accused OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and his top deputy of shifting into a moneymaking mode behind his back.

The nine-person jury found that Musk waited too long to file his lawsuit and missed the deadline for the statute of limitations.

The jury served in an advisory role, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the verdict Monday as the court’s own and dismissed Musk’s claims. The jury deliberated only two hours before returning its verdict.

The trial that began April 27 in Oakland, California shed light on the bitter falling-out between the two Silicon Valley titans and the beginnings of OpenAI, now a company valued at $852 billion and moving toward potentially one of the largest initial public offerings in history.

Altman and OpenAI claimed there was never a promise to keep OpenAI a nonprofit forever. In fact, they argued, Musk knew this and filed his lawsuit because he couldn’t have unilateral control over the fast-growing AI developer.

Musk was seeking damages to be paid to the altruistic efforts of OpenAI’s charitable arm as well as Altman’s ouster from OpenAI’s board. Musk’s decision to stop funding the company contributed to a bitter rift between the former allies. Musk says he was responding to deceptive conduct that OpenAI’s board picked up on when it fired Altman as CEO in 2023 before he got his job back days later.

The three-week trial saw testimony from Musk, Altman and his top lieutenant Greg Brockman, along with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and a slew of others in the tech titans’ orbit. Musk told jurors on his first of three days on the stand that, fundamentally, “I think they’re going to try to make this lawsuit ... very complicated, but it’s actually very simple,” Musk said. “Which is that it’s not OK to steal a charity.”

Musk’s lawsuit claimed that, in addition to “breach of charitable trust,” Altman and Brockman unjustly enriched themselves from the windfall as the ChatGPT maker soared in valuation. Brockman revealed during the trial that his stake in OpenAI is worth about $30 billion.

OpenAI has brushed off Musk’s allegations as an unfounded case of sour grapes aimed at undercutting its rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s own xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor. During cross-examination, Musk was sometimes combative with OpenAI lawyer William Savitt.

“Your questions are not simple,” Musk said at one point. “They are designed to trick me essentially.”

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

I'm sure Musk was just busy working on full self driving-- That thing he has been pretending works in teslas for like a decade, that doesnt work.
Where is full self driving ,Elon? Will you release it this month? I bought a tesla with a self driving computer in it, why did you pretend that was a real product?

Musk is a lying scammer grifter and belongs in jail. I want my money back.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

For shame… I scrolled and saw no meme /s

[–] oakey66@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

this man just doesn’t know how to not embarrass himself.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 50 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

The nine-person jury found that Musk waited too long to file his lawsuit and missed the deadline for the statute of limitations.

Why did there even need to be a trial? Couldn't the statue of limitations have been applied before it got that far?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago

The judge almost dismissed it outright because of this.

"There's a substantial ⁠amount of evidence to support the jury's finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot," U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ​said.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

In considering statute of limitations it depends on when "the clock starts ticking". Without having looked into the case at all, I'm assuming that was the basis of the lawsuit. Musk trying to say the clock didn't start until later, or possibly should have been paused at some point. The jury ruled that was wrong.

Again, no knowledge on this case in particular, but that's what I'd assume.

[–] homes@piefed.world 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

From what I was able to gather, this entire lawsuit was a tangled spaghetti mass of bullshit from the start, and a lot of what the jury had to do was sort through the spaghetti bullshit and find out exactly what were the legal claims at issue and to figure out how to rule on them with the judge (the jury was just an advisory panel for the judge, and the judge said they would take advice from the jury on how to rule). Once that was done, the jury figured out the statute of limitations had passed anyway, so it didn’t even fucking matter.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

"There's a substantial ⁠amount of evidence to support the jury's finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot," U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ​said.

It feels like such a waste of time and money to have spent so much time figuring out the answer to the statute question while having the whole trial. If they simply could have short circuited the proceedings and only focused on this to start, got an answer to this, and then continued if necessary it would have been so much easier on everyone. It doesn't take 11 days to answer this question.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Lol! Wait till you learn about how the rest of society works!

[–] homes@piefed.world 8 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I mean, yeah, but I think the whole point of this trial in the first place was for musk and Altman to publicly slap-fight about this in court. they're both so rich, that whatever money either would have won or lost over this could hardly have ever mattered. it was about the public bitchery of it, and to hell with everyone else's wasted time/

fuck both of these shitstains

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago

American courts need to keep feeding lawyers.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 36 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

This guy is evil, but OpenAI WAS set up to be nonprofit. It was the whole point.

That’s why it’s called OpenAI

[–] homes@piefed.world 20 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Maybe, but musk wasn’t really suing about that. Musk was suing because he’s a jealous piss baby. This lawsuit was bullshit from the start. It’s not like if musk won, openAI was suddenly gonna start operating for the public benefit. Oscar was just gonna get paid a bunch of money that he definitely doesn’t need.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

And Google was set up to not be evil. Never trust any company telling you their motives are altruistic.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Agreed.

But don’t give them a pass when they set up a multi billion dollar foundation and just say “Oh well, we would have more money if we break our promises. I’m sure you won’t mind if we just keep it for ourselves”.

I am happy to see Musk use his billions in a way that makes it harder to get away with that kind of fraud. Even if the good that comes out of it is accidental.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

But what if he’s only doing it to give himself a leg up on the evil? That was the thing I was struggling with. He seemed to be wanting to sabotage open ai to make it easier for him and others to take over the space. Not because he genuinely thought good would come out of it.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago

That was Musk's weak excuse. The point of this lawsuit was to slow down OpenAI to allow XAI to catch up.

If Musk actually cared about Open source AI he would make XAI open source.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 23 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

i don't want to see Musk win, but i do want to see Altman lose 🫤

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

There are hundreds of lawsuits against Open AI in NY. From all the people they steal data from.

[–] terranoid@lemmy.cafe 2 points 8 hours ago

I feel like training AI on GPL code violates the terms if you don't open source and GPL the model, but I'm not an expert on licensing.

Super fucking annoying that they just steal all this data before people even knew this was the eventual risk. They should all get shut down for that behavior.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

🫧↔️🪡

Come oooooon any moment now

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago

So basically Musk assumed that a non profit would stay a non profit forever, and got angry this turned out to not be the case.

And then waited past the statute of limitations to actually sue them.

Uh... yep.

There is no broad ... rule or law that says a non profit cannot transition to being a legally different kind of entity.

Not sure why Elon assumed otherwise, but he is rather infamous for just assuming things work like he thinks they do or will, without actually checking to find out what reality actually looks like.

[–] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

So now I assume he appeals so he continue this grumpy billionaire feud?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The judge told them they don't think it will succeed because the statute of limitations is a finding of fact. The only way it can continue is if they somehow convince the appeals court it hadn't passed, and then it'd probably mean a whole new trial?

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

My guess is that he’ll try to keep appealing as far as he can because the court costs are trivial for him, and in the rare chance he can kneecap Altman, he benefits.

Also, he gets to continue to pester Altman like a petty asshole, and that probably brings him joy.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Which point did Musk make? Musk wasn't upset about OpenAI going private. He was one of the people that suggested and supported the idea of privatizing (before he left OpenAI). What Musk is pissed about is that Musk wanted to be in charge of the new private entity and the other members of OpenAI disagreed. So Musk left and made his own AI with hookers, blow, and lots of pollution of the Memphis Tennessee atmosphere.

There are no good people on either side of this lawsuit. This whole thing is sour grapes on Musk's part.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Setting his motivation aside (which is and has always been to stroke his own ego until climax), the good point he made was “I think they’re going to try to make this lawsuit ... very complicated, but it’s actually very simple, which is that it’s not OK to steal a charity.” I agree with that sentiment.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

but it’s actually very simple, which is that it’s not OK to steal a charity.” I agree with that sentiment.

Except Musk actively lobbied for stealing the charity and making it private himself when he was still with OpenAI. These events happened in 2018:

"Elon did not think that OpenAI needed to remain solely a non-profit. As the context shows, he agreed that OpenAI needed both a non-profit and a for-profit entity—the exact structure OpenAI has today, and that Elon is now suing OpenAI over. At the time, he said only that the non-profit should continue to exist “in some form.” Ilya, not Elon, suggested that the for-profit should have a connection to the OpenAI mission. Shortly after this call, Elon actually created⁠ an OpenAI PBC (or “B-corp”)."

source