内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/musk-v-altman-jury-verdict/

内容总结：

马斯克诉OpenAI案败诉：联邦陪审团与法官裁定诉讼超时，律师称将上诉

美国联邦陪审团与法官近日作出裁决，判定埃隆·马斯克在对人工智能初创公司OpenAI及其高管山姆·奥特曼和格雷格·布罗克曼的法律战中遭遇了最惨重的失败。陪审团与法官一致认为，马斯克提起诉讼的时间过晚，超出了法定时效。

虽然陪审团的裁决最初仅属非约束性建议，但联邦地区法官伊冯娜·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯当即采纳了该建议，使其成为正式终局判决。马斯克的首席出庭律师史蒂文·莫洛当庭表示：“我们打算上诉。”另一名律师马克·托贝罗夫在走出法庭时仅对媒体留下一句：“上诉。”他随后将此次裁决比作美国独立战争中的重大挫败，并强调：“这场战斗还没有结束。”

与此相对，OpenAI的律师们在判决宣读后在法庭内相互拥抱。公司首席诉讼律师威廉·萨维特对记者表示，本案呈现的“压倒性”证据让陪审团能够迅速做出裁决。“证据表明，马斯克的诉讼完全是一个竞争对手事后捏造的借口。”

在为期12天的审判中，法官罗杰斯多次质疑马斯克提起诉讼的动机。但在周一，她认定这场持续三周的全球性公开诉辩“是有价值的”。她表示：“我认为这是一个需要审理的重要问题……通过审判来厘清事实非常有必要。大量证据支撑了陪审团的结论，因此我准备接受并当场驳回此案。”

由九名成员组成的陪审团在加州奥克兰的法庭上仅经过不到两小时的商议便做出了一致裁决。他们认定，在马斯克2024年提起诉讼之前，法定诉讼时效早已过期。马斯克原本希望说服陪审团，奥特曼和布罗克曼在微软资金的支持下，将OpenAI转变成了一个规模远超11年前三人共同创立时的非营利初衷。由于陪审团认定诉讼未在时效内提交，他们并未就马斯克提出的三项指控（包括违反慈善信托、不当得利以及指控微软协助和教唆）进行实质性审议。

OpenAI的律师萨维特反驳了“技术性失败”的说法：“这不是技术性判决，而是实质性判决。它表明你提起诉讼太晚了，之所以这么做，是因为你一直握着这个把柄，想把它用作在市场上无法竞争的竞争对手的武器。”微软发言人亚历克斯·豪雷克则发表声明称，此案的事实与时间线早已清晰。

马斯克在社交平台X上发帖，称罗杰斯法官是“激进派”，并且“只是拿陪审团当遮羞布”，依据“日历上的技术细节”做出裁决。他声称：“她这等于给那些掠夺慈善机构的人发了免费许可证，只要他们能在几年内不声张！”他还断言，了解此案细节的人都知道，奥特曼和布罗克曼确实通过窃取慈善机构中饱私囊。

尽管对马斯克而言结果令人失望，但这次审判似乎损害了OpenAI及其高管的公众形象。布罗克曼的财富以及奥特曼过去的不诚信史等新细节被曝光。两人为此投入了大量时间处理取证、准备证词、出庭作证和出庭应诉。

相比之下，马斯克仅在法庭出现约三天，之后便再未返回。他甚至在上周随美国总统特朗普对中国进行国事访问。OpenAI律师萨维特对此表示：“这让我们感到惊讶。他本该在提起诉讼的司法管辖区内，随时准备出现在他召集的陪审团面前，但他却选择了乘坐‘空军一号’前往中国。”

尽管此案涉及巨额财务和情感投入，但其本质也是两位科技亿万富翁之间的一场自负较量。马斯克在庭审开始前寻求和解的尝试也遭到了拒绝。

在庭审中，OpenAI的律师反复指出，缺乏证据支持马斯克对事件的描述。马斯克与奥特曼最初共同创立OpenAI作为非营利组织，是为了在对谷歌等竞争对手时占据“道德高地”。然而，现实证明他们低估了非营利结构带来的筹款挑战以及开发通用人工智能所需的庞大资金。

马斯克在诉讼中声称，他2016年至2020年间向OpenAI捐赠的3800万美元被滥用，但庭审证据表明他曾同意创建营利性子公司，并因未能获得控制权而决定不进行投资。当微软后来投资130亿美元且OpenAI因ChatGPT成功而家喻户晓后，马斯克感到愤怒。他于2023年成立了竞争对手xAI，并开始为2024年提起的联邦诉讼做准备。

陪审团成员在遴选时就对马斯克表达了负面看法。如果马斯克胜诉，他本可要求OpenAI的营利性子公司赔偿可能超过1000亿美元的财务损失，并让奥特曼和布罗克曼失去职位。

目前，OpenAI距离盈利尚远，但2025年其订阅、授权和广告的年化收入已超过200亿美元。该公司正寻求最快在今年公开上市，巩固其从非营利根源转向营利性的路线。马斯克的xAI则通过销售Grok聊天机器人订阅和授权AI工具盈利，其火箭公司SpaceX已于2月收购了xAI，合并后的实体最早可能在今年6月于纳斯达克上市。

（本文编译自Maxwell Zeff的Model Behavior新闻通讯，更新于2026年5月18日。）

中文翻译：

埃隆·马斯克在与OpenAI的法律战中遭遇了最惨重失败——联邦陪审团和法官裁定，他对这家AI初创公司及其高管萨姆·奥尔特曼和格雷格·布罗克曼的诉讼时效已过。尽管陪审团的裁决属于提交给美国地区法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯的非约束性建议，但她当庭将其采纳为最终判决。马斯克的首席诉讼律师史蒂文·莫洛对法官表示："我方打算上诉。"另一名律师马克·托贝罗夫走出法庭时对记者只说了一个词："上诉。"他随后表示，这一裁决让他联想到美国独立战争中的查尔斯顿围城战和邦克山战役。"当时美国人遭受重创，但谁赢得了战争？这场战争还没结束。"OpenAI的律师们在判决宣读后在法庭内相拥。公司首席诉讼律师威廉·萨维特对记者表示，本案中呈现的"压倒性"证据使陪审团迅速作出裁决。"马斯克先生的诉讼是竞争对手事后捏造的——证据确凿无疑。"庭审期间，冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯曾质疑马斯克对抗OpenAI的动机。但她本周一总结道，这场持续三周的全球公开庭审是值得的。"我认为这是一个值得审理的重要议题...通过庭审来厘清事实颇具意义，"她对双方律师表示，"有大量证据支持陪审团的裁定，因此我准备好采纳该裁定并当场驳回案件。"由九人组成的陪审团周一在加利福尼亚州奥克兰法庭经过不到两小时商议后达成一致裁决。他们认定诉讼时效在马斯克2024年提起诉讼前早已过期。马斯克本希望说服陪审团，奥尔特曼和布罗克曼借助微软的资金，将OpenAI打造成远超三人及其他人近11年前以非营利组织形态创立时设想的庞然大物。由于陪审团认定案件未按时提交，他们并未就马斯克的三项指控——包括违反慈善信托、不当得利，以及指控微软协助教唆——作出裁决。因程序性问题败诉，可能为马斯克提供契机，通过主张"陪审团从未否定其关于慈善基金被窃的核心论点"来继续在公众舆论中审理此案。OpenAI律师萨维特周一反驳了这一观点。"这不是程序性判决，而是实质性判决，"他说，"它表明你提出诉求为时已晚，之所以如此，是因为你一直按兵不动，将其作为无法在市场竞争的竞争对手的武器。我们对结果感到非常满意。"微软发言人亚历克斯·豪雷克在声明中表示，"本案的事实与时间线早已清晰"，这家科技巨头仍"致力于与OpenAI合作推进和扩展AI技术"。马斯克在X平台发帖称冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯是"激进派"法官，"仅将陪审团作为遮羞布"，以"程序技术问题"作出裁决。尽管法官裁决不构成正式法律先例，马斯克声称："她这等于发放了抢劫慈善基金的自由许可证——只要你够低调撑过几年！"他在另一条帖文中补充道："任何深入了解此案的人都毫不怀疑，奥尔特曼和布罗克曼确实通过窃取慈善基金中饱私囊。"尽管对马斯克结果不利，该庭审似乎已损害OpenAI及其高管的公众形象。布罗克曼的财富状况和奥尔特曼涉嫌不诚信的历史细节被曝光。两人还因此耗费数十甚至数百小时脱离日常工作，进行取证、准备证词、出庭作证和露面法庭。马斯克在法庭的时间远少于OpenAI高管，仅三天便再未露面。他甚至上周飞往中国参加特朗普总统的国事访问，尽管按规他本可能被临时要求再次出庭。"我得说，这令我们意外，"萨维特上周对媒体表示，"本该在提起诉讼的司法管辖区内待命，准备出现在他促成任命的陪审团面前，（他却）选择登上空军一号前往中国。"尽管此案涉及财务与情感赌注，但它也是两位科技亿万富翁之间的虚张声势较量——他们因所谓领导权之争分道扬镳，最终却对生成式AI的未来抱有惊人相似的愿景。马斯克在庭审开始前试图和解的请求遭到拒绝。12天庭审在12天庭审中，OpenAI律师反复指出，缺乏证据佐证马斯克对事件的描述。以暴躁脾气著称的特斯拉和SpaceX创始人马斯克，与当时30岁的初创创始人转型投资者的奥尔特曼，共同创立非营利组织OpenAI，因为他们相信这能助其在对最大竞争对手谷歌时占据"道德高地"。作为非营利组织，OpenAI可专注于防止AI毁灭人类，无需专注于股东价值最大化。马斯克和奥尔特曼相信，这种使命驱动的方式有助于组织吸引顶尖研究人员并获得公众支持。但时间证明，他们低估了非营利架构带来的筹款挑战，以及研发所谓通用人工智能所需的资金体量。马斯克在诉讼中声称，他2016年至2020年向OpenAI捐赠的3800万美元被滥用，因为奥尔特曼和布罗克曼将其用于开创性AI研究，随后将所有技术专长转移至营利性子公司。但法庭呈现的证据和证词显示，马斯克曾同意设立营利性实体。他在争取控制权失败后决定不进行投资。当微软后来向OpenAI累计投资130亿美元，且该初创公司因2022年ChatGPT惊艳亮相而家喻户晓时，马斯克尤为愤怒。次年，马斯克创立了名为xAI的竞争对手，并为2024年提起的联邦诉讼奠定基础。他在庭审中声称，对OpenAI营利性子公司的担忧始于2023年，但案件呈现的证据表明他的疑虑出现得更早，说明他本可更早起诉却未行动。数名陪审团成员——包括一名护士助理、一名退休人员及一名市政府工作人员——在入选前即对马斯克持负面看法。他们在庭审期间在活页夹中大量记笔记，并为证人提出了若干问题，冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯指导律师将其纳入询问。若马斯克胜诉，他可获得经济损失赔偿，最高可达OpenAI营利性子公司逾1000亿美元，他表示将全数捐回OpenAI非营利组织。马斯克还希望奥尔特曼和布罗克曼失去职位，由法院持续监督OpenAI履行其安全开发AGI的慈善使命。OpenAI距盈利尚远——其持续大力投入以改进和运营AI模型。但该公司表示，2025年订阅、许可和广告的年化收入已超过200亿美元。目前其正寻求最早今年在公开证券交易所上市，巩固其脱离非营利根源的转型。OpenAI仍保留一个对AI研究有一定监督权的非营利基金会，其资金可能比世界上任何其他慈善机构都更充裕，但批评者视其为公司的延伸体，而非反之亦然。马斯克的xAI向其Grok聊天机器人销售订阅服务，并向企业授权AI工具。他的火箭公司SpaceX于2月收购xAI，合并实体最早可于6月12日在纳斯达克上市。更新于2026年5月18日美国东部时间下午5:00：本文更新了法官、埃隆·马斯克及OpenAI律师、微软的评论、马斯克的X平台帖文及庭审背景信息。本文系麦克斯韦·泽夫《模型行为》通讯的一期。在此阅读往期通讯。

英文来源：

Elon Musk suffered the worst defeat possible in his legal battle against OpenAI as a federal jury and a judge ruled he waited too long to bring his claims against the AI startup and its top executives, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman.
While the jury’s decision was a nonbinding recommendation sent to US district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, she immediately accepted it as her own, making it final.
Musk’s lead trial attorney, Steven Molo, told the judge, “Our intention is to appeal.”
One of his other attorneys, Marc Toberoff, gave a one-word comment to reporters walking out of the courtroom: “Appeal.” He later said the verdict reminded him of American Revolutionary War moments like the Siege of Charleston and the Battle of Bunker Hill. “These were major losses for Americans, but who won the war?” Toberoff said. “And this one is not over.”
OpenAI’s attorneys hugged in the courtroom after the verdict was read. William Savitt, the company’s lead litigator, told reporters that the “overwhelming” amount of evidence presented in the case allowed the jury to act quickly. “The evidence that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit was an after-the-fact contrivance by a competitor was overwhelming,” he said.
Throughout the trial, Gonzalez Rogers questioned Musk’s motivation for fighting OpenAI. But she concluded on Monday that the three-week global public spectacle had been worthwhile.
“I thought it was an important issue to be tried … for us to have a trial to bring clarity,” she told attorneys for both parties. “There’s a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury’s findings, which is why I was prepared to accept the jury’s findings and dismiss on the spot.”
The nine-member panel delivered the unanimous verdict in an Oakland, California, courtroom on Monday after deliberating for under two hours. They found that statutes of limitations expired well before Musk filed his lawsuit in 2024. Musk had hoped to persuade the jury that Altman and Brockman, with the help of Microsoft’s cash, transformed OpenAI into an enormous company well beyond what was envisioned when the three of them and others founded it as a nonprofit nearly 11 years ago.
Because the jury found the case wasn’t filed on time, it didn’t weigh in on Musk’s three claims, including breach of charitable trust, unjust enrichment, and, against Microsoft, aiding and abetting. Losing on what amounts to a technicality could provide Musk an opening to keep trying his case in the public by arguing that the jury never ruled against his core argument that a charity was stolen.
Savitt, the OpenAI lawyer, disputed that contention on Monday. “It's not a technical decision, it's a substantive one,” he said. “It says you brought your claims too late, and you did it because you were sitting on them to use them as a weapon of a competitor who can't compete in the marketplace, and so we're delighted with the outcome.”
Microsoft spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement that the “facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear” and the tech giant remains “committed to our work with OpenAI to advance and scale AI.”
In posts on X, Musk called Gonzalez Rogers an “activist” judge “who simply used the jury as a fig leaf” and ruled on a “calendar technicality.” While the judge’s ruling doesn’t create a formal legal precedent, Musk claimed that, “She just handed out a free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years!” He added in a separate post, “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity.”
Despite the disappointing result for Musk, the trial appears to have tarnished the public image of OpenAI and its top executives. New details emerged about Brockman’s wealth and Altman’s alleged history of dishonesty. Both were also pulled away from their day-to-day work for tens, if not hundreds, of hours to conduct depositions, prepare to testify, sit on the witness stand, and show face in court.
Musk spent much less time in the courtroom than the OpenAI executives, about three days before never returning again. He even flew to China for President Donald Trump’s state visit last week, though he technically could have been called to testify again on short notice. “I will say that it was a surprise to us to see that,” Savitt told the media last week. “Instead of being in the jurisdiction where he filed the lawsuit, ready to come in front of the jurors who he has caused to be impaneled, [he] decided to get on Air Force One and go to China.”
Though the case carried financial and emotional stakes, it was also a competition of bravado between two tech billionaires who broke up a brief partnership of convenience over an alleged leadership dispute, only to end up pursuing remarkably similar visions about the future of generative AI. Musk’s bid to settle the lawsuit just before the trial started was rebuffed.
12-Day Trial
Over the 12 days of the trial, attorneys for OpenAI repeatedly pointed to what they said was a lack of evidence corroborating Musk’s version of events.
Musk, the famously temperamental serial entrepreneur behind Tesla and SpaceX, and Altman, then a 30-year-old startup founder turned investor, cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit because they believed it would help them claim the “moral high ground” over their biggest competitor, Google. As a nonprofit, OpenAI could focus on keeping AI from destroying humanity without having to concentrate on maximizing value for shareholders. Musk and Altman believed that mission-driven approach would help the organization attract top researchers and win public support.
But time would show that they misjudged the fundraising challenges that the nonprofit structure would pose, as well as the amount of money they would need to develop so-called artificial general intelligence.
In his lawsuit, Musk alleged that the $38 million he donated to OpenAI from 2016 through 2020 had been misused because Altman and Brockman spent it on groundbreaking AI research and then shifted all that technical expertise to a for-profit subsidiary. But Musk had agreed to the for-profit’s creation, according to evidence and testimony presented in court. He decided not to invest in it after losing his bid to control it.
Musk became especially angry when Microsoft later invested a total of $13 billion in OpenAI and the startup became a household name after the stunning debut of ChatGPT in 2022.
The following year Musk started a rival to OpenAI called xAI, and began laying the groundwork for the federal lawsuit he would file in 2024. He said at trial that his concerns about OpenAI’s for-profit subsidiary’s swing only emerged in 2023, but evidence presented in the case suggested his doubts went back further, indicating that he had a chance to file his case sooner and didn't.
Several members of the jury, which included a nurse assistant, a retiree, and a city government worker, expressed unfavorable views of Musk before they were selected. They took copious notes in binders during the trial and suggested several questions for witnesses that Gonzalez Rogers directed attorneys to incorporate into their examinations.
Had Musk won, he could have been entitled to financial damages, up to potentially over $100 billion from OpenAI’s for-profit subsidiary, which he said he would have donated back to OpenAI’s nonprofit. Musk also wanted Altman and Brockman to lose their jobs, with the court providing ongoing oversight to hold OpenAI accountable to its charitable mission of safely developing AGI.
OpenAI is nowhere near turning a profit—it has continued spending heavily to improve and operate its AI models. But annualized revenue from subscriptions, licensing, and ads surpassed $20 billion in 2025, according to the company. It is currently seeking to list shares on a public stock exchange as soon as this year, cementing the pivot away from its nonprofit roots. OpenAI maintains a nonprofit foundation that has some oversight over AI research and is likely more financially endowed than any other charity in the world, but critics view it as an extension of the company and no longer the other way around.
Musk’s xAI sells subscriptions to its Grok chatbot and licenses AI tools to businesses. His rocket company, SpaceX, bought xAI in February, and the combined entity could debut on the Nasdaq stock exchange as soon as June 12.
Update May 18, 2026, 5:00 pm EST: This story was updated with comments from the judge, attorneys for Elon Musk and OpenAI, Microsoft, X posts from Musk, and additional background about the trial.
This is an edition of Maxwell Zeff’s Model Behavior newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.