内容来源：https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/18/1137488/elon-musk-suit-openai-verdict/

内容总结：

马斯克诉OpenAI案败诉：因超过诉讼时效，法院驳回其指控

经过三周的对峙证词，陪审团于本周一作出裁决，认定埃隆·马斯克对人工智能巨头OpenAI的起诉已超过法定诉讼时效，其所有诉讼请求因此被驳回。美国地区法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯立即采纳了这一一致性的咨询裁决意见。

马斯克随即在社交平台X上宣布将提起上诉，称：“法官和陪审团从未就案件实质作出裁决，仅仅依据一个‘日历上的技术细节’就定了案。”

本案核心争议在于，马斯克作为OpenAI的联合创始人（2015年共同创立），最初捐赠了3800万美元，并承诺公司将以非营利形式运作，旨在开发造福人类的人工智能。马斯克指控OpenAI CEO萨姆·奥尔特曼和总裁格雷格·布罗克曼违背承诺，将公司转向营利性，并由此提出了两项指控：一是违反慈善信托（诉讼时效3年），二是不当得利（诉讼时效2年）。马斯克于2024年提起诉讼，并要求法院阻止OpenAI在2025年将其营利性子公司重组为公益公司。

庭审焦点集中在马斯克何时“应当发现”奥尔特曼等人的行为。OpenAI方认为，早在2017年马斯克就曾提议建立营利性子公司，2019年公司正式成立营利实体并获微软10亿美元投资，2020年微软获得GPT-3独家许可时马斯克还曾发文批评“OpenAI实质上已被微软控制”——这些事件都说明他当时已有理由起诉。然而马斯克辩称，自己直到2022年微软准备再投100亿美元、OpenAI估值达200亿美元时，才真正意识到公司已背离非营利初衷，并称这是“偷梁换柱”。

陪审团最终认定，马斯克在2021年之前就有理由认为自己被误导，因此未支持其“直到2023年才察觉”的说法。法院表示，程序性裁决（如诉讼时效）往往比审理案件实体内容更为清晰，故优先采纳这一途径。马斯克已表态将向第九巡回上诉法院继续上诉。

中文翻译：

以下为逐字翻译内容，符合中文语境和阅读习惯：

以下是埃隆·马斯克为何输掉对OpenAI诉讼的原因

经过三周双方证词交锋，陪审团裁定马斯克起诉OpenAI的时间太晚。

周一，马斯克诉阿尔特曼案陪审团给埃隆·马斯克带来了沉重打击——达成一项一致建议性裁决，认定他起诉OpenAI的时间过晚，因此他的主张因适用诉讼时效而受阻。美国地区法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯立即接受了这一裁决。

马斯克在X平台上宣布，他将对裁决提出上诉。他写道：“法官和陪审团从未真正依据案件的是非曲直作出裁决，只是基于一个日历上的技术细节。”

OpenAI由马斯克与一群研究人员于2015年共同创立，最初是一家非营利组织，使命是开发有益于人类的AI技术，不受财务回报需求的约束。马斯克在公司早期捐赠了3800万美元，据称是基于OpenAI首席执行官山姆·阿尔特曼和总裁格雷格·布罗克曼的承诺：保持公司作为致力于该使命的非营利组织。

马斯克对OpenAI提出两项主张。第一，他辩称阿尔特曼和布罗克曼违背了通过他的捐赠所建立的慈善信托，他们打破了保持公司非营利性质的承诺，转而创建了一个多年来规模急剧扩大的营利性子公司。第二，他辩称阿尔特曼和布罗克曼以牺牲马斯克为代价不正当得利。他于2024年起诉OpenAI。

马斯克请求法院撤销计划于2025年进行的重组（该重组将OpenAI的营利性子公司转变为公益公司），并罢免阿尔特曼和布罗克曼的职务。

OpenAI辩称，马斯克起诉该公司的时间在案件提起之前就已经过期。违反慈善信托主张的诉讼时效为三年，而不正当得利主张的诉讼时效为两年。这意味着马斯克最晚应在2021年之前发现或有理由发现阿尔特曼和布罗克曼涉嫌违反慈善信托，最晚应在2022年之前发现或有理由发现他们涉嫌不正当得利。

尽管马斯克辩称他直到2022年才发现阿尔特曼和布罗克曼违背承诺，但OpenAI声称马斯克早在2021年之前就有理由意识到这一点。

马斯克向陪审团表示，他对OpenAI的信念经历了“三个阶段”：第一阶段，他“热情支持”该公司；第二阶段，“我开始对他们的实话实说失去信心”；第三阶段，“我确信他们正在掏空非营利组织。”

以下是审判中证词所呈现的关键时间线深度解读。您可以在此处、此处和此处阅读我从三周审判中发回的所有报道。

2017年：马斯克提议创建营利性子公司

2017年，即OpenAI成立两年后，马斯克与其他联合创始人试图创建一个营利性子公司，以筹集足够资金构建通用人工智能——一种能在大多数认知任务上与人类竞争的强大AI。他们就谁应控制该实体展开了激烈的权力斗争。马斯克还提议将OpenAI与他旗下的电动汽车公司特斯拉合并。

审判期间，OpenAI的律师就这些讨论向马斯克施压，暗示马斯克在2017年就知道阿尔特曼和布罗克曼计划转变公司方向——甚至参与了这些计划——并有理由当时就起诉。

马斯克对陪审团说：“只要不是本末倒置，我不反对设立一个小的营利性实体为非营利组织提供资金。”

2019年：OpenAI创建营利性子公司并设定利润上限

2019年，OpenAI创建了一个营利性子公司，员工和投资者将获得投资回报上限。同时，该公司从微软获得了10亿美元投资。OpenAI主张，马斯克当时再次有理由起诉该公司。

但马斯克作证称，他认为此举并未违反非营利组织的使命。他在审判初期对陪审团说：“如果设定的是利润上限情况，那就不违反非营利组织的目标。我当时没有理由提起诉讼。”

2020年：微软获得独家许可

2020年，当微软获得OpenAI的GPT-3模型独家许可时，马斯克在X平台上发帖：“这看起来确实与开放背道而驰。OpenAI基本上已被微软掌控。”OpenAI再次辩称，马斯克当时有理由起诉。

但马斯克作证说，在阅读该帖子后，阿尔特曼向他保证“OpenAI作为非营利组织，仍坚守使命。”马斯克表示，尽管他持怀疑态度，但当时仍无理由起诉该公司。

2022年：微软准备向OpenAI投资100亿美元

马斯克作证称，直到2022年，他才发现OpenAI已放弃非营利使命。当时，微软正准备向OpenAI投资100亿美元——该交易于2023年完成。

马斯克在阅读消息后给阿尔特曼发短信说：“看到OpenAI估值200亿美元，我感到不安。这是一种诱饵调包的做法。”

马斯克告诉陪审团，正是这一刻让他意识到“营利性实体正在本末倒置。”他认为，微软只有在预期“获得非常丰厚的财务回报”时才会投资100亿美元。他辩称，从那时起他才意识到“OpenAI实际上已经成为一家估值200亿美元的营利性公司。”

马斯克的一名律师史蒂文·莫洛在结案陈词中强调：“2023年的交易性质不同。”

陪审团支持OpenAI

由陪审团决定证据是否支持马斯克的主张，即他直到2023年才意识到OpenAI不再是一家致力于使命的非营利组织。在今日公布的裁决中，陪审团认为，马斯克实际上在2021年之前就有理由认为阿尔特曼和布罗克曼在误导他。他们并未就他是否确实受到误导作出裁决。

法院通常会在可能的情况下，基于诉讼时效等程序性理由裁决案件，因为这比纠结于案件实质问题更干净利落。

马斯克表示，他将向第九巡回上诉法院提出上诉，该法院是审查加州及其他州地方法院裁决的联邦上诉法院。

深度解读

人工智能

OpenAI正全力投入打造全自动研究员

独家对话OpenAI首席科学家雅库布·帕乔茨基，探讨公司新挑战与AI未来。

想了解AI当前状况？请查看这些图表。

根据斯坦福大学2026年AI指数报告，AI正在飞速发展，我们难以跟上步伐。

当前AI领域值得关注的10件事

《麻省理工科技评论》权威概述2026年AI领域的10项技术、新兴趋势、大胆构想及强大运动。

马斯克诉阿尔特曼案第一周：埃隆·马斯克称受骗，警告AI可能毁灭人类，承认xAI借鉴OpenAI模型

马斯克保持冷静，OpenAI律师用尖锐问题质疑其起诉动机，步步紧逼。

保持联系

获取《麻省理工科技评论》最新资讯

发现特别优惠、热门报道、即将举行的活动等更多内容。

英文来源：

Here’s why Elon Musk lost his suit against OpenAI
After three weeks of dueling testimony, the jury decided Musk had sued the AI giant too late.
On Monday, the jury in Musk v. Altman dealt Elon Musk a major blow—reaching a unanimous advisory verdict that he had sued OpenAI too late and, as a result, his claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers immediately accepted it.
Musk announced on X that he will be appealing the decision. “The judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality,” he wrote.
OpenAI was cofounded by Musk and a group of researchers in 2015 as a nonprofit with a mission to develop AI for the benefit of humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial returns. Musk donated $38 million to the company during its early days, allegedly on the basis that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman had promised to keep the company a nonprofit committed to the mission.
Musk brought two claims against OpenAI. First, he argued that Altman and Brockman breached the charitable trust he created through his donations by breaking their promise to keep the company a nonprofit and creating a for-profit subsidiary that ballooned over the years. Second, he argued that Altman and Brockman unjustly enriched themselves at Musk’s expense. He sued OpenAI in 2024.
Musk asked the court to unwind a 2025 restructuring that converted OpenAI’s for-profit subsidiary into a public benefit corporation and to remove Altman and Brockman from their roles.
OpenAI argued that the time for Musk to sue the company had run out before he brought the case. The statute of limitations on the breach of charitable trust claim is three years, while the statute of limitations on the unjust enrichment claim is two years. This means that Musk should have discovered, or had reason to discover, Altman and Brockman’s alleged breach of charitable trust no earlier than 2021 and their alleged unjust enrichment no earlier than 2022.
While Musk argued he discovered that Altman and Brockman had broken their promise only in 2022, OpenAI claimed that Musk had reason to think this well before 2021.
Musk told the jury that he has gone through “three phases” in his beliefs about OpenAI: In phase one, he was “enthusiastically supportive” of the company. In phase two, “I started to lose confidence that they were telling me the truth,” he said. In phase three, “I’m sure they’re looting the nonprofit.”
Here’s a deeper dive into a timeline of the events as testified in the trial. You can read my dispatches from all three weeks of the trial here and here and here.
2017: Musk proposes creating a for-profit subsidiary
In 2017, two years after OpenAI was founded, Musk and the other cofounders tried to create a for-profit subsidiary to raise enough capital to build artificial general intelligence—powerful AI that can compete with humans on most cognitive tasks. They fought a bitter power battle over who would get to control the entity. Musk also proposed merging OpenAI with his electric-car company, Tesla.
During the trial, OpenAI’s lawyers pressed Musk on these discussions, suggesting that Musk knew in 2017 about Altman and Brockman’s plans to pivot the company—even participating in such plans—and had reason to sue then.
“I was not opposed to there being a small for-profit that provides funding to the nonprofit,” Musk told the jury, “as long as the tail didn’t wag the dog.”
2019: OpenAI creates a for-profit subsidiary with capped profits
In 2019, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary, under which employees and investors would receive a capped return on their investment. At the same time, the company secured a $1 billion investment from Microsoft. OpenAI argued that Musk again had reason to sue the company then.
But Musk testified that he didn’t think the move was violating the nonprofit’s mission. “If you’ve got a capped-profit situation, it hasn’t violated the nonprofit’s goal,” Musk told the jury earlier in the trial. “There was no basis for me to file a lawsuit at that time.”
2020: Microsoft snags an exclusive license
In 2020, when Microsoft secured an exclusive license to OpenAI’s GPT-3 model, Musk posted on X: “This does seem like the opposite of open. OpenAI is essentially captured by Microsoft.” OpenAI once again argued that Musk had reason to sue then.
But Musk testified that after reading the post, Altman reassured him that “OpenAI was staying on the mission as a nonprofit.” Musk said although he was skeptical, he still had no reason to sue the company at that point.
2022: Microsoft prepares to invest $10 billion in OpenAI
It was only in 2022, Musk testified, that he discovered OpenAI had abandoned its nonprofit mission. At that time, Microsoft was preparing to invest $10 billion in OpenAI—a deal that closed in 2023.
“I was disturbed to see OpenAI with a $20B valuation,” Musk texted Altman after reading the news. “This is a bait and switch.”
Musk told the jury this was the moment that made him realize “the for-profit is the tail wagging the dog.” He thought Microsoft would give $10 billion only if it expected “a very big financial return.” He argued that this was the point he realized “OpenAI had become, for all intents and purposes, a for-profit company with a $20 billion valuation.”
“The 2023 deal was different,” Steven Molo, one of Musk’s lawyers, hammered home during his closing argument.
The jury sides with OpenAI
It was up to the jury to decide whether the evidence supported Musk’s claim that he first realized in 2023 that OpenAI was no longer a nonprofit committed to its mission. In the verdict announced today, they found Musk did in fact have reason to think that he was being misled by Altman and Brockman before 2021. They did not address whether he was in fact misled.
Courts often decide cases on procedural grounds like statutes of limitations when they can, because it can be the cleaner way to resolve a case than to grapple with its merits.
Musk has said he will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal appellate court that reviews decisions from district courts in California and other states.
Deep Dive
Artificial intelligence
OpenAI is throwing everything into building a fully automated researcher
An exclusive conversation with OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, about his firm's new grand challenge and the future of AI.
Want to understand the current state of AI? Check out these charts.
According to Stanford’s 2026 AI Index, AI is sprinting, and we’re struggling to keep up.
10 Things That Matter in AI Right Now
MIT Technology Review's authoritative overview of the 10 technologies, emerging trends, bold ideas, and powerful movements in AI in 2026.
Musk v. Altman week 1: Elon Musk says he was duped, warns AI could kill us all, and admits that xAI distills OpenAI’s models
Musk kept his cool, and OpenAI’s lawyer bulldozed him with piercing questions about his motivations for suing the company.
Stay connected
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.