内容来源：https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/14/what-the-jury-will-actually-decide-in-the-case-of-elon-musk-vs-sam-altman/

内容总结：

加州陪审团闭门审议：OpenAI未来走向成焦点

九名加州陪审员目前正就世界领先人工智能实验室OpenAI的未来进行闭门审议。这场由埃隆·马斯克起诉OpenAI联合创始人及微软的庭审，虽然涉及从2018年创始团队分裂到2023年奥特曼被解雇又复职等广泛内容，但陪审团需要回答的问题却相当聚焦。

核心争议点有三：

1. 违反慈善信托：马斯克指控OpenAI及其联合创始人萨姆·奥特曼和格雷格·布罗克曼违反了与马斯克达成的特定协议——他捐赠给OpenAI的款项应严格用于特定慈善目的，而非由该非营利组织随意支配。
2. 不当得利：被告是否利用马斯克的捐款，通过OpenAI的营利性分支为自己谋利，而非用于慈善使命？
3. 协助与教唆：微软在与OpenAI的合作中，是否明知马斯克捐款附有特定条件，并“扮演了重要角色”导致马斯克利益受损？

OpenAI的三项辩护策略：

• 诉讼时效：若能证明马斯克声称的损害分别发生在法定时效截止日期之前，其主张即无效。
• 不合理拖延：马斯克直到2024年才提起诉讼，其迟延行为使索赔要求不合理。
• 不洁之手：马斯克自身针对OpenAI的行为（如同时开展竞争性AI项目、私下招募员工等）违背公序良俗，导致其指控失去效力。

若马斯克胜诉，OpenAI可能面临终结其营利性结构的风险，但具体后果尚不明确。下周起，法官将召开新一轮听证会，由双方律师就原告胜诉后的结果进行辩论。当然，若陪审团判OpenAI胜诉，这一过程将毫无意义。

关于“违反慈善信托”的攻防：

马斯克律师指出，被告明知马斯克的初衷是支持一个确保AI造福人类、防止技术被单方控制的非营利组织。特别提到微软2023年向OpenAI营利性附属机构投资100亿美元，是促使马斯克从担忧转为确信的关键事件。这笔交易让投资者从商业产品中获利，却牺牲了马斯克所倡导的AI安全慈善使命。

OpenAI律师则要求每位证人列出马斯克捐款的具体限制条件，结果无人能明确说明。他们强调，所有参与者都同意需通过私人募资实现目标，并指出马斯克本人曾试图创办由他个人控制的OpenAI关联营利机构，以及将OpenAI并入特斯拉。OpenAI聘请的法务会计师作证称，早在法定时效截止日（2021年8月5日）之前，马斯克的所有捐款就已全部用完，这意味着所谓的慈善信托早已失效。此外，OpenAI强调其营利性分支仍在履行组织使命，已为非营利基金会创造了近2000亿美元的股权价值。奥特曼本人辩称，免费提供ChatGPT正是为了“将AI的好处分享给世界”。

关于“不当得利”的攻防：

原告方指出，布罗克曼、苏茨克维等创始人及微软持有股份高达数十亿美元，证明马斯克的捐款最终被用于个人私利，而非支持慈善使命。他们称OpenAI的营利性工作完全以商业为导向，而非营利基金会则名存实亡，甚至无法控制营利性分支。

OpenAI回应称，马斯克的所有捐款在2020年前就已用于基金会，股权分配发生在他2018年离开之后。证据显示，核心成员当时一致认为，能够用股权补偿研究人员是开发AGI的关键。OpenAI高管坚称，营利性分支的工作实质性地推进了基金会使命，且非营利董事会仍控制着营利性分支，并在经历了2023年奥特曼被解雇又复职的“波折”后建立了新的治理机制。

关于“协助与教唆”的攻防：

马斯克将矛头指向2023年“波折”事件。当时，极其依赖OpenAI技术的微软CEO纳德拉亲自介入，帮助奥特曼复职并重组OpenAI董事会。原告指出，微软高管曾担忧商业协议可能与非营利目标冲突，微软的商业优先级导致OpenAI偏离其使命，并特别提到微软合同中的否决权条款。

微软证人则坚称，尽管进行了充分尽职调查，但公司高管并不知晓马斯克捐款有任何附加条件，也从未否决过OpenAI的任何决策。微软强调，其投资和算力支持是OpenAI取得最大成就的关键。

关于“诉讼时效”的攻防：

马斯克声称，他对联合创始人的怀疑逐渐加深，直到2022年秋得知微软2023年100亿美元投资计划时才确认被背叛，并于2024年中提起诉讼。

OpenAI律师指出，相关交易条款在2018年一轮融资中就已明确，马斯克虽收到文件但称未细读。律师还列举了多年来的博客文章和马斯克本人的推文，证明他早在起诉前就已了解OpenAI动向。马斯克顾问齐丽丝作为OpenAI董事会成员，甚至投票批准了这些交易。OpenAI强调，马斯克在2018年就已离职，最后一笔捐款在2020年。

关于“不合理拖延”的攻防：

OpenAI律师认为，马斯克真正提起诉讼的原因，是在ChatGPT问世颠覆了AI行业后，发现自己当初对OpenAI的判断错了。他们指出，自2018年首次接受微软投资以来，OpenAI一直以当前架构运营，八年后强迫其重组是不合理的。

关于“不洁之手”的攻防：

证据显示，马斯克在担任OpenAI主席期间就已在策划自己的竞争性AI项目，并从OpenAI挖人加入特斯拉。OpenAI律师指出，齐丽丝作为马斯克三个孩子的母亲，多年未向OpenAI其他董事会成员披露其与马斯克的私人关系。马斯克还曾在2017年以停止捐款相要挟，试图夺取OpenAI营利性分支的控制权。OpenAI首席律师比尔·萨维特向陪审团总结道：“马斯克先生早在2018年就抛弃了OpenAI。”

中文翻译：

加利福尼亚州的九名陪审员正在商议全球领先的人工智能实验室OpenAI的未来走向。
这场审理马斯克起诉OpenAI其他联合创始人及微软公司的案件，涉及从2018年创始团队分裂到2023年奥尔特曼被解雇又复职等诸多情节，但陪审员们将聚焦几个核心问题：

• 违反慈善信托——即OpenAI及其联合创始人山姆·奥尔特曼和格雷格·布罗克曼是否违反了与马斯克达成的特定协议，未能将其捐赠款项专用于特定慈善目的，而由非营利组织挪作他用？
• 不当得利——被告是否将马斯克的捐赠资金用于通过OpenAI营利部门中饱私囊，而非实现慈善初衷？
• 协助与教唆违反慈善信托——微软在与OpenAI的合作中，是否知晓马斯克对捐款设有特殊限制，并对马斯克权益受损负有重大责任？
  OpenAI也提出三项辩护理由交由陪审团裁量：
• 诉讼时效——即提起诉讼的法定截止日期。若OpenAI能证明：第一项指控中马斯克权益受损发生在2021年8月5日前；第二项在2022年8月5日前；第三项在2021年11月14日前，则其诉求将失去意义。
• 不合理迟延——马斯克直至2024年才提起诉讼，其拖延行为导致损害赔偿请求缺乏合理性。
• 不洁之手原则——即马斯克针对OpenAI的指控行为本身存在不公或欺诈，故其诉求无效。
  若马斯克胜诉，可能意味着OpenAI作为营利企业的终结，但具体结果尚不明朗。下周法官将启动新一轮听证，由双方律师辩论原告胜诉可能带来的后果。当然，若陪审团作出不利裁决，这些讨论都将失去意义。

违反慈善信托
马斯克律师称，被告明确知晓马斯克希望资助一个确保人工智能造福人类、避免被单一组织控制的非营利机构。特别是2023年微软向OpenAI营利部门投资100亿美元——这是诉讼时效到期后的首笔投资——让马斯克的担忧转为确信。
马斯克律师指出，这笔交易与以往投资不同，导致OpenAI投资者通过商业产品获利，牺牲了马斯克倡导的AI安全慈善使命。
OpenAI律师则让每位证人描述马斯克捐款的具体限制条款，包括其财务顾问贾里德·伯查尔、幕僚长萨姆·特勒和特别顾问希冯·齐里斯均无法提供。他们称所有参与者都认同需通过私人募资实现目标，并指出马斯克本人曾试图成立由其控制的OpenAI关联营利企业，后企图将OpenAI并入其特斯拉公司。此外，该组织的其他捐赠者并未声称慈善信托被违反。
关键证据是OpenAI聘请的法务会计师作证：所有马斯克捐款早在2021年8月5日关键日期前已使用完毕。这表明马斯克在起诉前其捐款早已用于既定用途，任何可能的慈善信托关系均已失效。
他们主要强调，负责OpenAI实际运营的营利部门持续履行组织使命，并创造近2000亿美元股权价值支撑非营利基金会。值得注意的是，山姆·奥尔特曼主张免费提供ChatGPT正是践行"与全球共享AI福利"的使命。

不当得利
原告指出，布罗克曼、伊利亚·苏茨克维等OpenAI创始人及微软自身持有的股份估值达数十亿美元，证明马斯克捐款最终被用于个人利益而非慈善使命。他们指控OpenAI营利部门以商业盈利为导向，而非营利基金会则形同虚设，既无全职员工，甚至失去对营利部门的控制权。
OpenAI回应称，马斯克所有捐款在2020年前已由基金会使用殆尽，股权分配发生在他2018年离职之后。即便在此前，证据显示核心成员一致认为用股票补偿研究人员是开发通用人工智能的关键。OpenAI高管坚称，营利部门的工作切实推进了基金会使命，包括安全研究。他们表示非营利董事会仍控制营利部门，并在2023年奥尔特曼因"隐瞒信息"被非营利董事会解雇又于数日后复职的"风波"后，实施了新的治理机制。

协助与教唆
马斯克案聚焦"风波"事件：依赖OpenAI技术的微软CEO萨提亚·纳德拉亲自介入促成奥尔特曼复职，并组建新董事会管理OpenAI。他们指出微软高管曾担忧商业协议与非营利目标冲突，暗示微软的商业优先导向使OpenAI偏离使命，并重点提及微软协议中赋予其对OpenAI重大决策的否决权条款。
微软证人则坚持称，尽管经过详尽尽职调查，公司高管并不知晓马斯克捐款存在特殊限制，也从未否决OpenAI任何决策。他们强调微软的投资和算力支持成就了OpenAI的重大突破。

诉讼时效
马斯克称其逐渐对联合创始人产生怀疑，直至2022年秋得知微软2023年千亿美元新投资计划后，才确信遭受背叛。但他直至2024年中才提起诉讼。
OpenAI律师指出，该交易条款在2018年融资轮意向书中已明确载明，马斯克虽接收并由顾问审阅，但其声称未细读。他们还列举多年来的博文和通讯记录，显示马斯克在起诉前早已了解OpenAI动向，包括其多年前批评该公司的推文。马斯克顾问齐里斯甚至以OpenAI董事会成员身份投票批准这些交易。
最终，OpenAI律师强调马斯克2018年已卸任组织正式职务，最后一笔捐款在2020年完成。

不合理迟延
OpenAI律师表示，马斯克提起诉讼的真正原因，是ChatGPT发布后人工智能领域发生革命性变化，他意识到自己当初对OpenAI的判断有误。他们认为OpenAI自2018年接受微软首笔投资后一直按现行架构运营，时隔八年要求重组实属不合理。

不洁之手原则
证据表明，马斯克在担任OpenAI董事长期间已谋划创办竞争性AI企业，并招募OpenAI员工为特斯拉开发AI。OpenAI律师指出，这些行为在OpenAI尚依赖其捐款履行使命时构成破坏。他们还提到，作为马斯克三子女母亲的齐里斯多年来未向OpenAI其他董事会成员披露私人关系。此外，马斯克2017年扣留捐款试图掌控OpenAI计划中的营利部门。最终，OpenAI首席律师比尔·萨维特向陪审团总结："马斯克先生在2018年就已抛弃了OpenAI。"

英文来源：

Nine California jurors are now deliberating over the future of OpenAI, the world-leading artificial intelligence lab.
While the trial exploring Elon Musk’s case against OpenAI’s other cofounders and Microsoft has covered territory ranging from the breakup of the founders in 2018 to Altman’s firing and rehiring in 2023, the jurors will be considering a set of fairly narrow questions.

• Breach of charitable trust — essentially, did OpenAI and cofounders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman violate a specific agreement with Musk to use his donations to OpenAI for a specific, charitable purpose and not general use by the non-profit?
• Unjust enrichment — did the defendants use Musk’s donations to enrich themselves through OpenAI’s for-profit arm, instead of for charitable purposes?
• Aiding and abetting breach of charitable trust — Did Microsoft, through its interactions with OpenAI, know that Musk had specific conditions on its donations, and play a significant role in causing harm to Musk?
  OpenAI has also made three arguments in its defense that the jury will weigh:
• Statute of limitations — a legal deadline by which a lawsuit must be filed. Here, if OpenAI can prove that any harms to Musk happened before August 5, 2021 for the first count; August 5, 2022 for the second count; and November 14, 2021 for the first count, then his claims will be moot.
• Unreasonable delay — Musk, by filing his lawsuit in 2024, delayed his claim in a way that made his request for damages unreasonable.
• Unclean hands — a legal doctrine holding that Musk’s conduct related to his claims against OpenAI was unconscionable and renders them invalid.
  If Musk wins out, it could mean the end of OpenAI as a for-profit company, but it’s not entirely clear what will result. Next week, the judge will begin a set of new hearings where lawyers from both sides will debate what the consequences of a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs might be. That process could be rendered moot by a negative verdict, however.
  Breach of charitable trust
  Musk’s attorneys say the defendants clearly understood that Musk wanted to support a non-profit that would ensure the benefits of AI to the world, and prevent it from being controlled by any one organization. In particular, they say a $10 billion investment from Microsoft in 2023 into OpenAI’s for-profit affiliate—the first to happen after the statute of limitations—was the event that turned Musk’s concern into conviction.
  That deal, Musk’s lawyers say, was different from previous investments and led to OpenAI’s investors being enriched by the company’s commercial products, at the expense of the charitable mission of AI safety that Musk promoted.
  OpenAI’s attorneys have asked every witness to describe specific restrictions put on Musk’s donations, and none have, including his financial adviser Jared Birchall, his chief of staff Sam Teller, or his special adviser Shivon Zilis. They say everyone involved agreed that private fundraising would be required to achieve its goals, and note that Musk himself attempted to launch an OpenAI-affiliated for-profit he would personally control, and later to merge OpenAI into his company Tesla. They also note the organization’s other donors haven’t said their charitable trust was violated.
  Importantly, a forensic accountant hired by OpenAI testified that all of Musk's donations had been used by OpenAI well before the key date of August 5, 2021. That is evidence that Musk's donations were already used for their purpose well before he brought his lawsuit, invalidating any charitable trust that may have existed.
  Mainly, they insist that the for-profit affiliate that conducts most of OpenAI's actual activity continues to fulfill the organization's mission, and has generated nearly $200 billion in equity value to support the non-profit foundation. Notably, Sam Altman argued that providing ChatGPT for free helps fulfill the mission of sharing the benefits of AI with the world.
  Unjust enrichment
  The plaintiffs point to the multibillion-dollar valuations of stakes held by OpenAI founders like Brockman and Ilya Sutskever, as well as Microsoft itself, as a sign that Musk's donations were ultimately used for personal benefit, as opposed to supporting the mission of the charity. They argue that the work at OpenAI's for-profit was commercially focused, while the foundation itself was left essentially dormant, without full-time employees, and, ultimately, not even in control of the for-profit.
  OpenAI says all of Musk's contributions were used by the foundation by 2020, and that equity distributions came well after he left the organization in 2018. Even beforehand, evidence shows the key players agreed that being able to compensate researchers with stock was key to developing AGI, the hypothetical form of AI capable of performing any intellectual task a human can. OpenAI executives maintain that the for-profit's work meaningfully advanced the foundation's mission, including safety activities. They say the non-profit board continues to control the for-profit, and instituted new governance controls following "the blip," when Altman was fired by OpenAI's non-profit board in 2023 for lack of candor and then rehired just days later.
  Aiding and abetting
  Musk's case focused on the events of the blip, when Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, whose company depended on OpenAI's tech, was personally involved with helping to bring Altman back and creating a new board to govern OpenAI. They note that Microsoft executives wondered if their commercial agreement might conflict with the non-profit's goals, and suggest that Microsoft's commercial priorities led OpenAI away from its mission. They've focused attention on a clause in Microsoft's agreement with OpenAI that gave Microsoft veto rights over major corporate decisions at OpenAI.
  Microsoft's witnesses have insisted that the company's executives didn't know of any specific conditions on Musk's donations despite extensive due diligence, and never vetoed any decision by OpenAI. They note that the company's investments and compute power allowed OpenAI to achieve its biggest triumphs.
  Statute of Limitations
  Musk has suggested that his skepticism of his cofounders grew over time, until in the fall of 2022 he finally decided they had betrayed him when he found out about Microsoft's plans for a new $10 billion investment that took place in 2023. He wouldn't file his lawsuit until mid-2024.
  OpenAI's attorneys argue that the terms of that deal were spelled out in a term sheet for a previous fundraising round in 2018, which Musk received and his advisers reviewed, but Musk said he didn't read in detail. They also note numerous blog posts and other communications from over the years that show Musk could have known what OpenAI was doing well before he brought them to court, including tweets where Musk criticized the company years before the suit. Zilis, Musk's adviser, even voted to approve these transactions as a member of the OpenAI board.
  Ultimately, the OpenAI attorneys emphasize that Musk's formal role in the organization ended in 2018 and his last donations took place in 2020.
  Unreasonable delay
  OpenAI's attorneys say the real reason that Musk filed his suit was he realized that he was wrong about OpenAI, after its launch of ChatGPT revolutionized the business of artificial intelligence. They argue that OpenAI has operated under its current structure since its first Microsoft investment in 2018, and that forcing the organization to restructure eight years later is unreasonable.
  Unclean hands
  There is evidence that Musk was planning his own competing AI efforts while he was still the chair of OpenAI, and hired OpenAI employees to work on AI at Tesla. OpenAI's attorneys argue that these efforts undermined OpenAI at a time when it was using Musk's donations to pursue its mission. They noted that Zilis, the mother of three of Musk's children, didn't disclose her personal relationship to other OpenAI board members for years. And they argue that Musk withheld his donations in 2017 in an effort to win control of a planned for-profit affiliate of OpenAI. Finally, "Mr. Musk abandoned OpenAI for dead in 2018," Bill Savitt, OpenAI's lead attorney, told the jury.