内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/tech/917225/sam-altman-elon-musk-openai-lawsuit

内容总结：

马斯克与阿尔特曼对簿公堂：一场关于AI未来的高 stakes 法律战

2024年，埃隆·马斯克对OpenAI及其CEO山姆·阿尔特曼提起诉讼，指控该公司背离了“开发AI造福人类”的创始使命，转而追求利润。经过近一个月的庭审，涉及马斯克、阿尔特曼、微软CEO萨提亚·纳德拉、OpenAI联合创始人格雷格·布罗克曼、曾担任OpenAI董事会成员且与马斯克育有多个子女的希冯·齐利斯等多方证人出庭作证，陪审团仅商议数小时即作出裁决：因诉讼时效已过，驳回全部指控。

马斯克作为OpenAI联合创始人，声称阿尔特曼和布罗克曼诱骗其提供资金，却背弃了初衷。但OpenAI反驳称：“这起诉讼从一开始就是为了打压竞争对手而发起的毫无根据且出于嫉妒的企图。”意在为马斯克旗下的xAI等公司（已推出与ChatGPT竞争的Grok）铺路。马斯克在诉讼中要求罢免阿尔特曼和布罗克曼，并禁止OpenAI作为公益公司运营。

庭审现场：混乱、指控与“驴奖杯”

庭审被形容为一场“动物园”，场外每天都有各种抗议活动。尽管三周的证词在法律上似乎“毫无结果”，但庭审揭示了更令人不安的结论：这场AI权力之争中几乎没有值得信任的人。科技界一些最具权势的人物似乎从性情上就无法坦诚相待，这引发了一个更大的问题——为何他们能掌控这个将颠覆民众生活、价值数万亿美元的行业？

庭审中，阿尔特曼团队的律师指出，马斯克有“选择性失忆症”，在证词中说了150到200次“我不记得”。律师还嘲讽道：“连他孩子的母亲都无法为他的说法作证。”OpenAI的律师通过时间顺序罗列大量证据，指出马斯克在OpenAI成功后、而非失败时才开始威胁诉讼。一个引人注目的插曲是，阿尔特曼团队曾展示一个被法官称为“不要停止当个驴”的奖杯——这是OpenAI员工为纪念一名研究员被马斯克斥责而购买的，但陪审团最终未能看到它。

裁决之后：法律上的“空转”与行业深层隐忧

最终，陪审团一致裁决马斯克的索赔因超过诉讼时效而失效。尽管该裁决为“咨询性意见”，理论上不具法律强制力，但主审法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯接受了这一决定。媒体评价此案“除了抖出脏衣服外一无所获”。一位观察者感叹：“这场官司证明了AI行业被错误的人领导。”庭审暴露出，无论是马斯克还是阿尔特曼团队，都缺乏可信度，而AI这项可能改变人类命运的技术，却掌握在一群“互相撕咬、不可靠的人”手中。

中文翻译：

萨姆·奥尔特曼与埃隆·马斯克正对簿公堂，这场高风险审判可能改变OpenAI及其最知名产品ChatGPT的未来走向。2024年，马斯克提起诉讼，指控OpenAI背离了开发AI造福人类的创始使命，转而将重心转向追求利润。

经过近一个月的审理——期间马斯克、奥尔特曼、微软CEO萨提亚·纳德拉、OpenAI联合创始人格雷格·布罗克曼、曾任OpenAI董事会成员并与马斯克育有多名子女的希冯·齐里斯等人相继出庭作证——陪审团经过数小时商议后，回到那个"挤满了互不信任、相互攻讦之人的房间"宣判：因超出诉讼时效，决定驳回全部指控。

马斯克曾是OpenAI的联合创始人，他声称奥尔特曼和布罗克曼诱骗他出资，随后却背弃了最初目标。但OpenAI回应称："这起诉讼始终是出于嫉妒、毫无根据的企图，旨在干扰竞争对手"，目的是为马斯克旗下的SpaceX/xAI/X等公司造势——这些公司已推出Grok与ChatGPT竞争。

在诉讼中，马斯克要求罢免奥尔特曼和布罗克曼，并禁止OpenAI以公益公司形式运营。

关键人物

原告方：

• 埃隆·马斯克——原告，OpenAI联合创始人，现为竞争对手xAI的CEO
• 史蒂文·莫洛——原告首席律师
• 贾里德·伯查尔——马斯克家族办公室负责人
• 希冯·齐里斯——前OpenAI董事会成员，与马斯克育有多名子女

被告方：

• 萨姆·奥尔特曼——被告，OpenAI的CEO
• 威廉·萨维特——被告首席律师
• 格雷格·布罗克曼——OpenAI总裁兼联合创始人
• 伊利亚·苏茨克沃——前OpenAI首席科学家兼联合创始人

主审法官：

• 伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯——又称YGR，本案审判法官

以下是马斯克诉奥尔特曼案的最新进展：

马斯克诉奥尔特曼：雷声大雨点小

今天我与莉兹·洛帕托对谈，她过去一个月全程报道了这场混乱的马斯克诉奥尔特曼案。你会听到她把法庭形容为"动物园"，并解释每天外部都有各种抗议活动。

埃隆·马斯克和萨姆·奥尔特曼都是个性极强的人物，公众对他们二人及AI产业抱有复杂情绪。而最终……竟毫无结果！陪审团认定马斯克提起诉讼时已超出诉讼时效。莉兹将为你详细解读其中原委。

阅读全文>

马斯克诉奥特曼案证明：AI行业正被错误的人领导

年度科技审判马斯克诉奥尔特曼案，本质上是一场控制权之争。埃隆·马斯克主张，与他共同创立如今规模庞大的OpenAI的萨姆·奥尔特曼，不应主导AI的未来发展。而奥尔特曼的律师则针锋相对地质疑马斯克本人的可信度。陪审团在仅商议两小时后于周一做出裁决，以超出诉讼时效为由驳回了马斯克的诉求。

从严格法律意义上讲，三周的庭审证词最终不了了之。但这场审判揭示了更令人沮丧的深层问题：这出闹剧中几乎无人值得信赖。科技界最具权势的几位人物，在性格上似乎根本缺乏坦诚相待的能力。若果真如此，便引发了一个更大的疑问：为何他们能掌控这个即将颠覆人类生活、价值万亿美元的产业？

阅读全文>

埃隆·马斯克败诉

经过约两小时商议，陪审团对这场年度科技审判——马斯克诉奥尔特曼案——做出了一致裁决。陪审团认为，两项指控因超出诉讼时效而不予受理，第三项指控也随之失效。

此陪审团为咨询性质，仅负责向法官提供参考意见，其裁决在技术上不具备法律约束力。最终由美国地区法官伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯掌握最终裁决权——她接受了该裁决。

阅读全文>

• 陪审团已达成一致裁决。
• 进展神速（约两小时）。
• 埃隆·马斯克败诉。

海登·菲尔德 - 一名旁听者刚被法警逐出法庭。
我猜测是因为他在录音——法警说了"把手机给我"。庭审期间已发生多起试图录音或拍照的事件——但说实话，我不明白为什么偏要在今天这个日子录音。

• C.保罗·瓦赞是马斯克传唤的损失评估专家。
  遗憾的是他无法提供YGR要求的详细数据。他既不清楚马斯克迄今完成了多少笔投资（根据Pitchbook数据为11笔），也不知道其中多少成功。在直接质询中，YGR的提问相当尖锐。她问及硅谷初创企业的失败率、各风投公司的成功率，瓦赞均答不上来。

马斯克诉奥尔特曼案：除了家丑外扬，一无所获

今天是马斯克诉奥尔特曼案的结案陈词日。目睹这场不可思议的"撞车大赛"后，我几乎不忍动笔。马斯克的律师史蒂文·莫洛语无伦次，一度将共同被告格雷格·布罗克曼称为"格雷格·奥尔特曼"。他还错误地声称马斯克并未要求金钱赔偿，被法官当场纠正。他明确表示过去几周我们听到了许多谎言，却未能为马斯克的实际法律诉求提供有力证据。

OpenAI的律师萨拉·埃迪则从容应对，仅按时间顺序罗列了公司提交的大量证据。她并未试图粉饰任何人的可信度，却抛出了当日最犀利的言论——关于马斯克："连他孩子的母亲都不支持他的说法。"随后接棒的威廉·萨维特，历数马斯克在证词中多次"记不清"关键细节的情况——并质疑一位精明的商人为何会看不懂或不理解OpenAI寄给他的四页条款清单。

阅读全文>

• "我在开场陈述中就说过，你们不会听到微软方面太多内容——事实确实如此。"
• 谢天谢地，我们终于进入微软的结案陈词环节。"微软在尽职调查过程中，从未找到过任何一份文件"提及马斯克所称对其捐款的限制条件。

微软不想蹚这浑水

伊丽莎白·洛帕托 - "我会想念你们的，"萨维特对陪审团说。
这话或许有点煽情，但确实逗乐了大家。

• 萨维特指出马斯克今天正与特朗普总统在国外。
  他提醒陪审团，当奥尔特曼和布罗克曼在场时，马斯克本人并未出席。（马斯克昨日发帖称自己正在"空军一号"上飞往北京。）"他们在这里，因为他们非常重视此案，"萨维特说，"马斯克先生却不在这里。马斯克先生来法庭只为了一位证人——他自己——之后便再未露面。现在他行踪不明。"

• 萨维特称马斯克患有"选择性失忆"。
  "他声称自己在一座风很大的山顶上听到了别人听不到的话，"萨维特对陪审团说。（措辞古怪，但见识过莫洛的"桥"隐喻后，我也见怪不怪了。）他还指出，马斯克因其诉求相关的"不道德行为"而"手不干净"。"只有在OpenAI成功之后——违背了马斯克的预测——他才开始威胁要提起诉讼，"萨维特说。

请看，埃隆·马斯克的"蠢货奖杯"

昨天在马斯克诉奥尔特曼案庭审中，陪审员入场前，萨姆·奥尔特曼的团队递上来一个——远看像——少年棒球联盟的奖杯。实则不然。伊冯·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯法官让律师当众宣读铭文："永远别停止当个蠢货。"这是OpenAI员工买给研究科学家乔什·阿奇亚姆的纪念品，他昨天出庭作证。

这究竟如何扯进一场关于非营利合同法的审判？据称，当埃隆·马斯克离开OpenAI时，他谈到想要超越谷歌。阿奇亚姆当时负责AI安全，他质疑这是否明智。马斯克骂他是蠢货。多年后，马斯克将自己的诉讼描绘为阻止AI造成严重危害的努力——而奥尔特曼的团队暗示，这并非马斯克当年最关心的事。

阅读全文>

• 萨维特正在谈论诉讼时效。
  他表示，根据他的统计，迄今为止庭审中人们说了150到200次"我不记得"或"我想不起来"——借此强化他的论点：马斯克提起诉讼的时间太晚了。

• 这是陪审团无缘得见的"蠢货奖杯"。
  你可能还记得，昨天我对陪审团可能看到这个奖杯感到非常兴奋。连YGR似乎都被逗乐了。不幸的是，她裁定讨论可以，但除非马斯克团队给出引入它的理由，否则陪审团连照片都看不到。但这确实是乔什·阿奇亚姆因被埃隆·马斯克责骂而获得的奖杯。

• 休庭结束。威廉·萨维特正在为OpenAI的辩护做收尾。
  还有一件事萨维特紧抓不放。"OpenAI的非营利实体是否尊重其基本创始原则？"从法律上讲，这个问题无关紧要，因为马斯克并未设立慈善信托，但萨维特打算花时间探讨，因为莫洛强调了这一点。

• 埃迪称，特斯拉AI是马斯克失败的证据。
  马斯克不愿承认在特斯拉内部建立AGI实验室的尝试是失败的——无论是通过收购OpenAI、挖走其人才，还是试图让奥尔特曼加入董事会。埃迪暗示，这起诉讼是马斯克对OpenAI成功的报复。

• "文件会说明真相，"埃迪说。
  这也是我的感受！所谓的"附属"营利实体（埃迪说这是个不断变化的概念，尽管马斯克在证词中用了两次，但萨维特使用时，莫洛提出反对，指责他编造术语）在任何结构规划文件中都未出现。我们确实看到了平行的营利实体，以及转为营利实体并关闭非营利实体的想法。贾里德·伯查尔也作证说，他曾为此提交过公司注册文件。

• 埃迪暗示，马斯克捐赠的特斯拉实际上是贿赂。
  这些车送给了伊利亚·苏茨克沃和格雷格·布罗克曼等人，就在他提出要获得营利公司62.5%股份之前。我们正在查看税务表格和信件——两者均未显示任何特定目的。贾里德·伯查尔也作证说捐赠没有特定目的。希冯·齐里斯不记得了。萨姆·特勒也不记得了。这就像看勇士队对阵六岁小孩队。

• 埃迪明智地依赖时间顺序来阐述辩护理由。
  时间顺序和文件。马斯克在证人席上的表现确实印证了埃迪的说法：当无法如愿时，马斯克"就带着他的玩具回家了"。

• 萨拉·埃迪正在为OpenAI做结案陈词。
  她以一句犀利的话开场。马斯克声称他的捐款附有条件。"连他孩子的母亲都不支持他的说法。"

• 莫洛结束了马斯克的结案陈词。
  我不禁想，如果由一位更优秀的律师操刀，结果会怎样。莫洛的"读书报告"并未增强对其案件的信心，尤其是他的许多直白断言都极具争议。

• 关于"那个小插曲"令人恼火的证词，莫洛未能令人信服地将其与案件关联。
  在那场混乱中，微软确实推荐了董事会成员。但OpenAI并未采纳这些建议——除了一位，而且是在危机过去很久之后。我不太明白这与微软案有何关联。或许是在暗示非营利董事会并未真正控制营利实体——但海伦·托纳和塔莎·麦考利的做法显得业余，尤其是在解雇前未做任何调查。

• 莫洛正试图针对微软提出指控。
  目前他的论据是："他们是营利企业"、"他们知道马斯克是联合创始人"、"他们看过OpenAI成立的公告"。这是本就薄弱的案件中最薄弱的部分——至少针对OpenAI的部分还有布罗克曼的日记作为依据。

• 休庭期间，陪审团离席，律师们再次争吵。
  在发言中，莫洛告诉陪审团他并非要求金钱赔偿。这实际上不准确——否则我下周就不用参加第二阶段的庭审了。"你巧妙地塞进去了，"YGR说。但莫洛需要收回这句话。

• 我们重新回到OpenAI股权涉及员工利益的数百万、数十亿美元问题上。
  我暂且不转述莫洛的发言，而是说说这几周来我个人的感受：所有人都在即兴发挥。毫无计划可言。"那个小插曲"尤其如此。我确实在思考是否可能将其纳入马斯克的案件。无论如何，莫洛刚才引用了一份他手头没有的证物，索要编号后说稍后会给陪审团。我必须说，我知道马斯克的团队比OpenAI小，但这或许该是调派另一位律师处理结案陈词的时机——一位准备更充分的律师。理论上作为团队关键人物的马克·托贝罗夫，至今未做任何实质性工作。或许这本该是他的高光时刻？我也不确定。

英文来源：

Sam Altman and Elon Musk are facing off in a high-stakes trial that could alter the future of OpenAI and its most well-known product, ChatGPT. In 2024, Musk filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its founding mission of developing AI to benefit humanity and shifting focus to boosting profits instead.
After nearly a month, with the trial featuring testimony from Musk, Altman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman, former OpenAI board member and mother of several of Musk’s children Shivon Zilis, and a few others, the jury deliberated for a couple of hours before returning to the “room full of untrustworthy, unreliable people all fighting with each other” with a verdict, deciding to dismiss all charges due to the statute of limitations.
Musk was a cofounder of OpenAI and claims that Altman and Brockman tricked him into giving the company money, only to turn their backs on their original goal. However, OpenAI claimed that “This lawsuit has always been a baseless and jealous bid to derail a competitor” in a bid to boost Musk’s own SpaceX / xAI / X companies that have launched Grok as a competitor to ChatGPT.
In his lawsuit, Musk asked for the removal of Altman and Brockman, and for OpenAI to stop operating as a public benefit corporation.
People to Know
Plaintiff
Elon Musk — plaintiff, OpenAI cofounder and now CEO of rival xAI
Steven Molo — lead counsel for the plaintiff
Jared Birchall — manager of Musk’s family office
Shivon Zilis — former OpenAI board member who shares multiple children with Musk
Defendant
Sam Altman — defendant, CEO of OpenAI
William Savitt — lead counsel for the defendant
Greg Brockman — president of OpenAI as well as a cofounder
Ilya Sutskever — former chief scientist at OpenAI and a cofounder
Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers — aka YGR, trial judge
Here’s all the latest on the trial between Musk and Altman:
Musk v. Altman: Much ado about nothing
Today I’m talking with Liz Lopatto, who spent the last month covering the Musk v. Altman trial in all its chaos. You’ll hear her describe the courthouse as a “zoo” and explain that there were protests of one kind or another happening outside every day.
Both Elon Musk and Sam Altman are big personalities, and people have a lot of feelings about both of them and the AI industry. And in the end… nothing happened! The jury found that Elon had filed his lawsuit after the statute of limitations had run out. You’ll hear Liz explain exactly what’s going on there.
Read Article >Musk v. Altman proved that AI is led by the wrong people
The tech trial of the year, Musk v. Altman, was ultimately a fight for control. Elon Musk argued that Sam Altman, with whom he helped found the now-massive company OpenAI, shouldn’t direct the future of AI. Altman’s lawyers, in turn, poked at Musk’s own credibility. A jury came to a verdict on Monday after just two hours of deliberation, dismissing Musk’s claims due to the statute of limitations.
In a strictly legal sense, three weeks of testimony added up to nothing. But the trial offered a more damning broader takeaway: Almost nobody in this saga seems worth trusting. Some of the most powerful people in tech seem temperamentally incapable of dealing with each other honestly. And if that’s true, it raises a bigger question: Why are they in control of a trillion-dollar industry that’s set to upend people’s lives?
Read Article >Elon Musk loses his case against Sam Altman
After around two hours of deliberation, the jury has reached a unanimous verdict in Musk v. Altman, the tech trial of the year. The group found that two claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and a third failed thanks to the dismissal of one of these.
The jury here is an advisory jury, meaning the group is installed solely to offer another opinion to the judge, and its verdict is technically not legally binding. Ultimately, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is the ultimate legal authority — and she accepted the decision.
Read Article >- The jury has delivered a unanimous verdict.
That was quick (about two hours).
Elon Musk lost his case against Sam Altman
Hayden Field - An observer has just been ejected from the court by the US marshals.
I assume because he was recording, since the marshal said, “Give me your phone.” There have been several incidents of people attempting to record or take pictures throughout the trial — but I honestly am not sure why you’d record today of all days.

• C. Paul Wazzan is the expert called by Musk to determine damages.
  Unfortunately he does not have a lot of details YGR is asking for. He doesn’t know how many investments Musk has made (11 to date, according to Pitchbook), or how many were successful. He’s getting some pretty tough questioning from YGR in the direct exam. Among the things she’d asked, he didn’t know how many startups fail in Silicon Valley, or the success rate for assorted VC firms.
  Musk v. Altman accomplished nothing but airing dirty laundry
  Today was closing arguments in the Musk v. Altman trial, and I almost feel bad writing about the unbelievable demolition derby I just witnessed. Steven Molo, Musk’s lawyer, stumbled over his words. He at one point called Greg Brockman — a co-defendant — Greg Altman. He erroneously claimed that Musk wasn’t asking for money and had to be corrected by the judge. He made it clear we’ve heard from many liars over the past few weeks, but offered little evidence for Musk’s actual legal claims.
  OpenAI’s lawyer Sarah Eddy countered this by simply arranging the mountain of evidence that the company introduced in chronological order. She didn’t spend time trying to pretend anyone in this trial is especially reliable. She did, however, get the zinger of the day, about Musk: “Even the mother of his children can’t back his story.” William Savitt, who took the defendant baton after her presentation, demonstrated the number of times Musk “didn’t recall” some critical detail — and wondered how a sophisticated businessman couldn’t understand or read a four-page term sheet OpenAI had sent to him.
  Read Article >- “I told you in my opening statement you wouldn’t hear very much from Microsoft, and you haven’t.”
  God bless. We are in the Microsoft closing statements. “Microsoft never found a single page of a single document” that referenced Musk’s alleged restrictions on his donations during the due diligence process.
  Microsoft doesn’t want any of this
  Elizabeth Lopatto - “I feel like I’m going to miss you all,” Savitt tells the jury.
  He may be laying it on thick, but he did get a big laugh.
• Savitt calls out the fact that Musk is abroad with President Trump today.
  He reminded the jury that Musk isn’t in the courtroom while Altman and Brockman are. (Musk posted yesterday that he was en route to Beijing on Air Force One.) “They are here because they care a lot about this,” Savitt said. “Mr. Musk isn’t here. Mr. Musk came to this court for exactly one witness — Elon Musk — and he hasn’t been seen since. Now he’s in parts unknown.”
• Savitt says Musk has “selective amnesia.”
  “He claims to have heard things high atop a windy hill where no one else can hear,” Savitt told the jury. (Strange phrasing, but after the bridge metaphor from Molo, I wouldn’t expect anything less.) He also says Musk has “unclean hands” due to his “unconscionable conduct” related to the claims he’s bringing. “Only after OpenAI succeeded, against Musk’s prediction, only then did he start threatening litigation,” Savitt said.
  Behold, the Elon Musk jackass trophy
  Yesterday, in Musk v. Altman, before the jurors came in, Sam Altman’s team passed up what looked — from a distance — like a Little League trophy. It was not. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had the lawyers read the inscription aloud for the press: “Never stop being a jackass.” It’s a commemoration OpenAI employees bought for research scientist Josh Achiam, who testified yesterday.
  How exactly did this come up in a trial about nonprofit contract law? Allegedly, when Elon Musk was leaving OpenAI, he talked about wanting to race ahead of Google. Achiam, who worked on AI safety, asked if that was really such a good idea. Musk called him a jackass. Years later, Musk is portraying his lawsuit as an attempt to avoid AI causing serious harm — something that, Altman’s team suggests, wasn’t high on his list of concerns back then.
  Read Article >- Savitt is talking about the statute of limitations.
  He said that by his calculations, people said things like “I don’t remember” and “I don’t recall” between 150 and 200 times during this trial so far — using this to bolster his argument that Musk had waited too long to bring his claims.
• Here’s the jackass trophy that the jury didn’t get to see.
  You may remember that yesterday I was completely tickled by the possibility that the jury might get to see this. Even YGR seemed tickled by it. Unfortunately, she ruled that discussing it was fine but unless the Musk team gave them reason to introduce it, the jurors wouldn’t see so much as a photo. But this is the trophy Josh Achiam got for getting yelled at by Elon Musk.
• We are back from our break. William Savitt is taking it home for the OpenAI defense.
  There’s one more thing that Savitt is harping on. “Has the OpenAI nonprofit respected its general founding principles?” The question doesn’t matter, legally, since Musk didn’t create a charitable trust, but Savitt is going to spend some time on this because Molo emphasized it.
• Tesla AI is evidence of Musk’s failure, Eddy says.
  Musk doesn’t want to admit that trying to build an AGI lab in Tesla was a failure — whether that was by acquiring OpenAI or trying to poach all its talent, maybe even putting Altman on the board. Eddy suggests this case is revenge on OpenAI for succeeding.
• “The documents tell the truth here,” Eddy says.
  That’s kind of where I’ve landed! The idea of the “adjunct” for-profit (Eddy says this is a moving target, and though Musk used it twice in testimony, when Savitt used it, Molo objected and accused him of making up a term) doesn’t show up in any of the brainstorming structure documents. We do see parallel for-profits, and the idea of a conversion to a for-profit and shutting down the nonprofit. Jared Birchall also testified that he filed to register a company for this.
• Eddy suggests that Musk’s donated Teslas were, effectively, bribes.
  They went to Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman, among others, right before he proposed that he get 62.5 percent of a for-profit company. We are now looking at tax forms and letters — neither of which show any specific purpose. Jared Birchall also testified that there was no specific purpose for the donations. Shivon Zilis doesn’t remember it. Sam Teller doesn’t remember it. This is like watching the Warriors play a team of 6-year-olds.
• Eddy is, wisely, leaning hard on chronology in explaining their defense.
  Chronology and documents. Musk’s performance on the stand does give credence to the suggestion from Eddy that Musk “took his marbles and went home” when he couldn’t get his way.
• Sarah Eddy is giving the closing argument for OpenAI.
  She opens with a banger. Musk has said he made donations with strings attached. “Even the mother of his children can’t back his story.”
• Molo is done presenting Musk’s closing argument.
  I do wonder how this would have played in the hands of a better lawyer. Molo’s book report did not overwhelm me with confidence in his case, particularly because a lot of his point-blank assertions were profoundly arguable.
• For all of the very irritating testimony about “the blip,” Molo hasn’t convincingly connected it to his case.
  In all that chaos, Microsoft did suggest board members. But OpenAI didn’t take those suggestions — except one, well after the crisis. I don’t know man, I don’t really understand how this goes to the Microsoft case. It might be a suggestion the nonprofit board doesn’t really control the for-profit — but Helen Toner’s and Tasha McCauley kind of came off as amateurs in their approach, not least because there was no investigation before the firing.
• Molo is now attempting to make a case against Microsoft.
  So far he’s got “they’re a for-profit corporation,” “they know Musk was a co-founder,” and “they read the announcement OpenAI existed.” This is easily the thinnest part of a very thin case — on the OpenAI part, there’s at least Brockman’s diaries.
• During our break, the jurors were out of the room, and the lawyers were beefing again.
  During his speech, Molo told the jury he wasn’t asking for money. That is in fact not true — otherwise I wouldn’t be sitting through phase 2 of the trial next week. “You slipped it in nicely,” YGR says. But Molo needs to retract that statement.
• We are back on the millions and billions of OpenAI equity that employees have interest in.
  I am just going to break from telling you what Molo is saying to say what my personal impression was from sitting here all these weeks: Everyone was improvising. There was no plan. This is especially true of “the blip.” I do wonder if there’s a way to incorporate that into Musk’s case. Anyway, Molo just referenced an exhibit he didn’t have handy, asked for an exhibit number, and then said he’d get it for the jury late.r I have to say, I know Musk’s team is smaller than OpenAI’s, but this might have been a moment to call in another lawyer to handle the close. Someone who could have prepped better, perhaps. Marc Toberoff, who’s theoretically a key figure on this team, hasn’t stood up to do a single thing. Maybe this could have been his moment, I don’t know!