内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/921713/musk-v-altman-jared-birchall-screw-up-xai

内容总结：

法庭突发变故：马斯克律师团队或“自摆乌龙”，关键证人证词被当庭质疑

在马斯克诉奥特曼一案的最新庭审中，出现戏剧性一幕。当陪审团暂时离席后，马斯克的财务主管贾里德·伯查尔（Jared Birchall）在作证时疑似“说漏嘴”，回答了一个本不该回答的问题，导致法官当场介入，并对证词的可信度提出严厉质疑。这一意外事件可能对马斯克一方的诉讼策略造成不利影响。

据庭审现场记录，伯查尔在直接询问环节尾声，应辩护律师要求，谈及马斯克联合财团在2025年2月以974亿美元收购OpenAI非营利资产的报价。他声称，此举是因为担心奥特曼在OpenAI重组过程中“坐在谈判桌两边”，压低非营利资产价值。然而，这一关键指控因“缺乏依据”被当庭驳回，法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯（Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers）随后亲自对伯查尔进行询问。

在交叉询问中，伯查尔的表现令法官极为不满。当被问及报价细节时，他多次表示“记不清”是否与马斯克本人讨论过该交易，也说不清974亿美元的报价数字从何而来。法官直言：“你能轻而易举地募集975亿美元，却记不住任何具体细节？你之前说服投资者时一定很有说服力，但今天你并不令人信服。”

更令法律界关注的是，马斯克律师团队在庭上主动提及这一报价，可能“打开了潘多拉魔盒”。此前，关于该报价的相关证据在庭前调查阶段已被封锁。法官明确指出，商业交易不享有法律保密特权，而律师团队的行为无异于“主动开门”。当法官追问是谁授意提出此问题时，现场一度陷入沉默，最终由马斯克律师马克·托贝罗夫（Marc Toberoff）出面“认领”，称“我认为这很合适”。法官则回应：“看来你确实是想打开这扇门。”

目前，该证词是否会被采信、是否将引发新的法律调查，法官表示将择日裁定。分析人士指出，这次“自曝其短”的操作可能为对方律师提供更多调查线索，对马斯克一方而言绝非好消息。

中文翻译：

好的，我不是律师，所以刚才发生的事我大概只听懂了一半。但根据当时的情况，我相当肯定，埃隆·马斯克的律师团队可能刚捅了个大篓子。

马斯克诉奥特曼案最疯狂的一幕，发生在陪审团离场之后

马斯克的资金管理人在回答一个他本不该回答的问题。目前尚不清楚后果会是什么。

马斯克诉奥特曼案最疯狂的一幕，发生在陪审团离场之后。

马斯克的资金管理人贾里德·伯查尔回答了一个他本不该回答的问题。目前尚不清楚后果会是什么。

贾里德·“詹姆斯·布里克斯豪斯”·伯查尔，马斯克的财务主管兼全能救火队员，今天在马斯克之后出庭作证。他的大部分证词都平淡无奇，似乎主要目的是为了将一些文件纳入庭审记录——这很没劲，但也是庭审过程中必经的正常环节。然而，在他那份乏味证词的最后，有趣的事情发生了。我相信我们都得到了一个惊喜，这可是法庭上难得一见的事。

主持直接询问的律师收到了团队另一名成员递来的纸条，随后便向伯查尔询问了纸条上显然写着的那个问题：他是否了解 xAI 对 OpenAI 资产的收购要约？

“萨姆·奥特曼当时是在‘两边下棋’。”

“据我回忆，当时与我们合作的一位律师曾要求加州总检察长确保，在法律规定的信托责任下，OpenAI 非营利组织的资产能获得公允的估值。”伯查尔说道。他理解，当时有一场谈判，是“在萨姆·奥特曼和他自己之间进行的，他代表营利与非营利两边，试图压低非营利资产的价值。而我们提出收购要约，是为了正确评估该基金会所拥有资产的价值，并创造一个市场报价，让总检察长必须予以考虑。”

这里补充一些背景：2025年2月，马斯克领导的财团曾出价974亿美元，收购控制 OpenAI 的非营利组织。该收购要约由马斯克在本案中的律师之一马克·托贝罗夫提交。此举发生在 OpenAI 进行重组，以便其营利部门能够获准上市之时。根据伯查尔的证词，他们提出这一收购要约，是因为马斯克、伯查尔和其他人认为，奥特曼可能会在公司重组过程中低估非营利组织的价值。（坦白说，我不太确定这为什么会成为马斯克和 xAI 的问题，但管他呢。）

辩方律师提出了反对，伯查尔这段长篇大论因缺乏事实依据而被从记录中删除。于是我们一点点地重新构建事实依据，最后伯查尔再次说道：“萨姆·奥特曼当时是在‘两边下棋’。”

在交叉询问环节，来自 OpenAI 律所 Wachtell Lipton 的布拉德利·威尔逊重新拾起了这个话题。威尔逊询问伯查尔，他所说的这些内容有多少是从律师以外的渠道得知的。伯查尔表示很难理清这一点。又经过几轮交流后，威尔逊动议删除伯查尔关于 xAI 收购要约的全部证词，理由是这些内容不应在陪审团面前讨论。

“你之前肯定很有说服力。但你今天可没什么说服力。”

陪审团提早离场，好让双方律师进行辩论，这时候情况变得诡异起来。法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯开始亲自向伯查尔提问，这显然让伯查尔感到了紧张。伯查尔称，他不记得曾与马斯克、希冯·齐利斯或马斯克组织的其他核心成员讨论过 xAI 的收购要约。听起来，马斯克的律师团队在取证阶段并未就此议题向 OpenAI 提供适当的证据开示，因此法官是在当场进行一次草率而快速的补充取证。期间，冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯一度要求原告律师停止对证人的“指导”。

伯查尔表示，他曾就收购要约一事与其他财团成员交谈过，但没有参与马斯克关于何时发送要约函的讨论。他声称从托贝罗夫那里听到了一些风声，但并不知道托贝罗夫同时也代表其他一些竞标者。他也不清楚 xAI 方面是否知道托贝罗夫代表了其他竞标者。

伯查尔声称，他不知道其他投资者是否掌握了关于 OpenAI 的第一手信息。据他所知，没有人拥有 OpenAI 内部的文件。冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯对此并不买账。“我仍然很难理解，你如何能与这些人进行交谈，筹集975亿美元，却连个大致的回忆都没有，”她说。伯查尔表示他有个大致印象——他联系了每个相关人员，询问他们是否有兴趣加入马斯克的收购行动。

“他们为什么会愿意呢？”冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯问道。伯查尔说，这些人与马斯克等人有着长期的合作关系。“你当时肯定非常有说服力，”她说。“但你今天可没什么说服力。”

“打开了什么门？”

伯查尔说，当他致电潜在投资者时，除了最终公布的总额外，没有提及任何具体数字；在与他们交谈后，后续事宜就交给了律师处理。他不记得“974亿美元”这个数字是谁选定的，并称自己是从法律团队那里得知的，还告诉冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯，这个数字不是从马斯克那里得来的。冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯询问，除了托贝罗夫，是否还有其他人在进行相关分析。伯查尔表示，他不记得有。

“是否有律师告诉你，这也是诉讼的一部分？”冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯问。

伯查尔说没有。这纯粹是一桩商业交易。

看来，在取证阶段一直为马斯克辩护的史蒂文·莫洛，曾多次以涉及保密特权为由，反对就这一交易提问。商业交易，显然不享有保密特权。但是，在庭审开始前，所有关于 xAI 收购 OpenAI 要约的证据开示请求都被驳回了。不幸的是，马斯克的团队在直接询问的最后时刻，主动向伯查尔询问了 xAI 的交易，这反而可能为对方进一步深挖这件事“打开了方便之门”。你可能好奇，“打开了什么门”？我的猜测和你的差不多。更多证据开示？或许是关于马斯克反竞争行为的某些信息？我只能告诉你，听起来这对马斯克可不是什么好事。

冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯随即询问是谁递的纸条，所有律师都像犯了错的孩子一样坐在那里，一言不发。最后，负责递交纸条的人承认是他递的，但纸条不是他写的，而是一位初级律师写的。那是谁写的？又是一片沉默。最后，托贝罗夫——他可绝非初级律师——站起来承担了责任。他为什么这么做？“我认为这是合适的做法。”

“听起来你当时是想打开那扇门，”冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯说道。随后宣布休庭，并表示会考虑如何处理这份证词。她很可能明天会对此做出裁决。

更正，4月30日：名字是 Shivon Zilis，而非 Sharon Zilis。

英文来源：

Okay, I am not a lawyer so I only understood about half of what just happened. But I am fairly sure, given the context, that Elon Musk’s lawyers may have just fucked up big.
The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room
Jared Birchall, Musk’s money manager, answered a question he wasn’t supposed to. It’s unclear what the consequences will be.
The craziest part of Musk v. Altman happened while the jury was out of the room
Jared Birchall, Musk’s money manager, answered a question he wasn’t supposed to. It’s unclear what the consequences will be.
Jared “James Brickhouse” Birchall, Musk’s finance guy and all-around fixer, took the stand after Musk today. Most of his testimony was dull and seemed to exist primarily to get some documents read into the record, which sucks but is a normal part of sitting through trials. But at the very end of his boring testimony something interesting happened. I believe we all got a surprise, something that rarely happens in courtrooms.
The lawyer conducting his direct examination was passed a note by another member of the team, and asked Birchall what was apparently contained on the note: was he familiar with the xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets?
“Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”
“As I recall, a lawyer we were working with had asked the attorney general of California to ensure that in their fiduciary duty, proper value was being given to the assets of the nonprofit of OpenAI,” Birchall said. In his understanding, there was a negotiation “between Sam Altman and himself on both sides of the table, the for-profit and the non-profit, attempting to discount the value of the non-profit assets. And we made that bid in an attempt to properly account for the value the foundation had, and create a market bid that would need to be considered by the attorney general.”
Here’s some lore: in February 2025, a Musk-led coalition made a $97.4 billion bid for the non-profit that controls OpenAI. The bid was submitted by Marc Toberoff, one of Musk’s lawyers in the current case. This bid happened as OpenAI was restructuring itself so that the for-profit arm could be cleared to go public. In Birchall’s testimony, that bid was made because Musk, Birchall, and others, thought Altman might undervalue the nonprofit as the company restructured itself. (I’m not really sure why that would be a problem for Musk and xAI, frankly, but whatever.)
The defense counsel objected, and Birchall’s rant was struck for lack of foundation. So we did this piece by piece to establish the foundation, ending with Birchall saying, again, “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”
On cross-examination, Bradley Wilson from Wachtell Lipton — OpenAI’s lawyers — picked the thread back up. Wilson asked how much of this Birchall had learned from sources other than lawyers. Birchall said he’d have a hard time being able to untangle that. After a few more exchanges, Wilson moved to strike all of Birchall’s testimony about the xAI bid on grounds that would not be discussed in front of the jury.
“You must have been very convincing. You’re not very convincing today.”
The jury got to leave early while the lawyers duked it out, and this is where it got weird. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started asking Birchall questions herself, and it clearly was making Birchall nervous. Birchall said he doesn’t remember discussing the xAI bid with Musk or Shivon Zilis or any other principal of the Musk organization. It sure sounded like Musk’s lawyers hadn’t given OpenAI proper discovery on this topic in the depositions, and so we were doing a fast and dirty deposition with the judge right then. At one point, Gonzalez Rogers told the plaintiff’s counsel to quit coaching the witness.
Birchall said he’d spoken to the other members of the consortium about the bid, but that he wasn’t involved in discussions with Musk about when to send the bid letter. He claimed he’d heard some things from Toberoff, but that he wasn’t aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders. He didn’t know if xAI was aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders, either.
Birchall didn’t know whether other investors had first-hand information about OpenAI, he claimed. No one had documents from inside OpenAI as far as he knew. Gonzalez Rogers remained unconvinced. “I’m still struggling with how you can have conversations with these individuals to raise $97.5 billion but have no recollections even in a general sense,” she said. Birchall said he had a general sense — he called each of the people involved to see if they were interested in joining Musk on the bid.
“Why would they do that?” Gonzales Rogers asked. Birchall said these were people with whom Musk et al had longstanding relationships. “You must have been very convincing,” she said. “You’re not very convincing today.”
Open the door to what?
Birchall said there were no numbers besides the topline one floated when he called prospective investors, and that after speaking with him, they were passed off to lawyers. He didn’t remember who chose the $97.4 billion number, and said he got it from the legal team, telling Gonzalez Rogers he didn’t get it from Musk. Gonzalez Rogers asked if that analysis was created by anyone besides Toberoff. Birchall said not that he could recall.
“Did a lawyer tell you this was part of litigation?” Gonzalez Rogers asked.
No, Birchall said. It was strictly a business deal.
Apparently Steven Molo, who’d been defending Musk during the deposition, had made multiple objections to questions about the deal, citing privileged communications. Business deals, apparently, aren’t privileged. But all discovery into the xAI bid for OpenAI had been blocked before the trial began. Unfortunately, by asking Birchall about the xAI deal at the very end of the direct examination, Musk’s team may have opened the door for more digging into it. You may be wondering, “open the door to what” and your guess is as good as mine. More discovery? Maybe something about anticompetitive behavior from Musk? It doesn’t sound like it’s going to be good for Musk, I can tell you that much.
Gonzalez Rogers then asked who’d passed the note, and all the lawyers just sat there like guilty children. Finally, the guy responsible said he’d passed it, but he didn’t write it; a junior lawyer did. Who wrote it? More silence. Finally Toberoff — hardly a junior lawyer — stood up and took responsibility. Why had he done it? “I thought it was appropriate.”
“Sounds like you wanted to open the door, then,” Gonzalez Rogers said. We adjourned while she said she’d consider what to do with this testimony. She will probably rule on it tomorrow.
Correction, April 30th: It is Shivon Zilis, not Sharon Zilis.