Before a high-profile trial, a certain silence descends upon a federal courthouse. On Tuesday morning, photographers waited for the first black SUV to arrive outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland while leaning against the railings and drinking cold coffee. Inside, a nine-person jury that had only been sworn in the day before was about to receive something it most likely did not request: a front-row seat to the most dramatic billionaire feud in contemporary technology.
Elon Musk and Sam Altman’s battle has mostly taken place online for years, with screenshots and jabs exchanged. Almost as a warm-up, Musk referred to Altman as “Scam Altman” on X on Monday. The slap fight had a docket number by Tuesday. That has a peculiar honesty to it. The wealthiest men in technology no longer act as though this is a dispute between adults.
| Subject | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Musk v. Altman, OpenAI, Microsoft, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland) |
| Presiding Judge | Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers |
| Jury | Nine-person panel sworn in Monday |
| Plaintiff | Elon Musk, founder of Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI |
| Lead Defendant | Sam Altman, CEO and co-founder of OpenAI |
| Co-Defendants | Greg Brockman (OpenAI President), Microsoft Corporation |
| OpenAI Founded | 2015, originally as a non-profit |
| Reported Musk Donation | Around $40 million (£30 million) |
| Damages Sought | Billions in alleged “wrongful gains” |
| Trial Length | Expected to run about a month |
| Key Product at Center | ChatGPT, launched November 2022 |
| Musk’s Departure from OpenAI | 2018, following reported power struggle |
It’s more difficult to summarize what’s truly on trial than the headlines imply. Musk claims he was duped and that after giving about $40 million to a nonprofit organization that promised to develop AI for the benefit of humanity, Altman and Greg Brockman subtly turned the organization into a Microsoft-affiliated for-profit enterprise. According to OpenAI, Musk wanted to run it, didn’t get his way, left in a rage, and is now attempting to harm a competitor because xAI, his own AI company, is, by most accounts, falling behind. It is impossible for both tales to be entirely accurate. It’s possible that neither is.
Observing this from a distance gives the impression that the true proof lies in the little details. In a 2015 panel, Musk described AI as “really dodgy” and “fraught with difficulty” while seated next to a younger, almost submissive Altman. “Guys, I’ve had enough” is an email from 2018 that reads more like a breakup text than a business memo. Musk has been referred to by Altman as his hero. Seldom do people file lawsuits against their heroes without deeper issues.
No special treatment has been promised by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has already had to control Musk’s theatrical appetite in previous cases. It remains to be seen if a federal jury in Oakland can remain impartial in the face of two of the most well-known figures in technology. They are “so big, so larger than life, and so unrelatable” that they are nearly impossible to ignore, according to Sarah Federman, a conflict resolution expert at the University of San Diego. One observer described it as “King Kong versus Godzilla.” The metaphor is absurd. It’s also not incorrect.
Despite the cartoonish personalities, the stakes are real. Musk wants Altman fired and billions in “wrongful gains” transferred to OpenAI’s nonprofit division. Microsoft, which has invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI, disputes any misconduct and wants the matter to end amicably. It won’t.
Artificial general intelligence, the ill-defined point at which machines surpass their creators, is a significant aspect of this trial that is difficult to ignore. Whoever prevails in Oakland will have more influence over future developments. Musk eventually outlived the skeptics, and Tesla had its own years of uncertainty. Calm and cautious in public, Altman has survived his own coup in the boardroom and returned via the front door. Neither man usually loses easily.
There’s a sense that the courtroom will render a decision, but there won’t be a clear winner. The friendship has already ended. Whatever the non-profit dream was, it’s most likely also gone. All that’s left is the bill and a jury attempting to determine precisely who is responsible for paying it.
