It’s a four-week jury trial that will get gobs of global media attention. Weeks before both SpaceX/xAI’s own mega-AI IPOs, scheduled in time for Elon’s birthday in June. And of course the OpenAI/Anthropic mega-AI IPOs scheduled for year-end.
“Elon Musk took the stand as the first witness in his billion-dollar lawsuit against OpenAI on Tuesday in federal court in Oakland, California.”
“Why it matters: A verdict against OpenAI could reshape who controls one of the most valuable private companies in the world.”
“The big picture: Musk is asking a court to put legal limits on OpenAI’s transformation from charity-backed research lab to AI superpower.”
“Musk said it’s very simple. “It’s not OK to steal a charity.”
“Catch up quick: The case stems from Musk’s 2024 lawsuit accusing OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, co-founder and president Greg Brockman, and Microsoft of betraying the company’s original nonprofit mission to benefit humanity.”
“Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015. OpenAI says he donated $38 million before leaving the board in 2018.”
“The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla now runs xAI, a direct competitor.”
There are some big Elon asks of the Jury and Judge here:
“Zoom in: Musk is seeking sweeping remedies, including changes to OpenAI’s corporate structure, removal of Altman and Brockman, and damages that he has said should go back to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm.”
“His side has put the potential damages in the hundreds of billions.”
But as Sam would say from the OpenAI perspective, ‘not so fast’. Especially given the exotic origin story.
“The other side: OpenAI says Musk is motivated by jealousy and regret for walking away from OpenAI.”
“The company says Musk donated $38 million to the OpenAI nonprofit, which was “spent exactly as intended and in service of the mission.”
“Expect “a tale of two Elons,” attorney William Savitt, representing OpenAI, Altman and Brockman, said in his opening statement.”
“Russell Cohen, representing Microsoft, asserted that Musk changed his tune about OpenAI’s non-profit status only after the success of ChatGPT.”
In the meantime, the judge in the case knows exactly what the real goals are here beyond the lawsuit:
“Friction point: U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers warned Musk and Altman ahead of opening arguments to keep the fight off social media.”
““Control your propensity to use social media to make things worse outside this courtroom,” the judge said.”
“Musk alleged on X Monday that Altman and Brockman “stole a charity,” accusing both of securing personal benefits while referring to Altman as “Scam.”
“Musk said in court on Tuesday blamed the other side. “Only after they posted very publicly about this case, only then did I respond,” he said.”
Expect this silicon valley soap opera to continue for a month at least, designed to hobble a specific event as much as possible:
“What’s next: The trial is set to run roughly four weeks. OpenAI is targeting a Q4 IPO at a reported $852 billion valuation.”
“In his opening testimony against Sam Altman, Musk was unfocused and uncharming.”
“Today the first witness was sworn in in Musk v. Altman: Elon Musk. I was surprised by how flat he seemed.”
“The direct examination is a way of telling a story through questions; it’s important to make the narrative clear. For a suit that accuses Sam Altman of straying from OpenAI’s mission, Musk spent a weird amount of time talking about himself, recounting his biography, and hyping up the various ventures he’s undertaken that have nothing to do with OpenAI.”
The opening questioning also began to cover areas that will be fodder for the soap opera aspects of the story for future movies and TV shows:
“At another point, Musk was asked to explain who former OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis was. “Shivon was the, um, my chief of staff and, uh, you know,” Musk said. One person in the gallery — presumably familiar with the fact that Zilis is the mother of a few [four of 14+] of Musk’s kids — burst out in loud laughter. But the jury looked puzzled.”
All this is to highlight where this trial is likely to spill over the most beyond the core legal issues, driven by the personalities involved.
The merits of the case itself has many experts assert that no attorney would have taken the case on contigency fees. Implying of course that we would not be here were it not for Elon’s ample couch cushions, and emotions regarding OpenAI and Sam Altman.
Podcasts Barry Ritholtz talks with Daniel Crosby about why we humans are not built for investing. (ritholtz.com) Peter Lazaroff talks with Taylor Schulte...
The Bigger Picture, Sunday, June 29, 2025 As the saying goes from Star Wars, there’s a ‘Disturbance in the Force’. Not a great one, but notable all the...
