The dispute between Musk and OpenAI has made new progress. In response to Musk’s lawsuit, OpenAI submitted a legal document to the court, requesting the local court to identify the case as a “complex case” in accordance with California law, thereby preventing Musk from taking advantage of the law. Obtain OpenAI’s technical and commercial secrets in accordance with the procedural rules.
In the six-page document, OpenAI emphasized that it had not breached any agreement with Musk because it “did not have any founding agreement, or any other agreement of any kind, with Musk.”
OpenAI further clarified that Musk’s lawsuit was not to safeguard human interests as it claimed, but was motivated by promoting personal business interests. This was evident in Musk’s early proposals to merge or take full control of OpenAI, which ultimately fell through when the two sides failed to reach an agreement.
Faced with the complexity of the case, OpenAI anticipates there will be a large number of pretrial motion proceedings and discovery disputes. Therefore, the company recommended that the case be characterized as a “complex case” and requested to be heard by a full-time judge to ensure the efficiency and fairness of case handling.
OpenAI specifically highlighted concerns about the evidence disclosure process, fearing that Musk could use the process to gain access to the company’s proprietary technology and sensitive information. To this end, the company asked the court to carefully control the process.
As OpenAI advances its fightback process, Musk’s basis for the lawsuit seems increasingly untenable.
OpenAI: We have never reached a so-called “founding agreement” with Musk
On Monday local time, OpenAI filed a legal document with Francisco State Court in San Francisco in response to Musk’s lawsuit against it last month, saying his claims “are based on convoluted and often incoherent factual premises.” on.” This legal document is OpenAI’s first official response to the lawsuit filed by Musk at the end of February this year.
Previously, Musk’s lawsuit claimed that OpenAI had strayed from its mission to build responsible artificial intelligence and claimed that the company had become a closed-source subsidiary of Microsoft, the world’s largest technology company.
Last week, OpenAI refuted the accusations in a memo to employees and a blog post, and published early emails from Musk with company employees to back it up. OpenAI said in a blog post that Musk had previously proposed that OpenAI merge with Tesla or be fully controlled by him, but the two parties failed to agree on the terms of a for-profit entity. Musk chose to leave, saying the probability of OpenAI’s success was 0, and stating that he planned to build an AGI competitor within Tesla.
In the latest legal documents, OpenAI further stated that Musk originally supported the establishment of a for-profit structure for OpenAI, but only if he could control the company. “Seeing that OpenAI has made significant technological progress, Musk now hopes that he can also succeed,” OpenAI’s lawyer said.
OpenAI made it clear in the legal filing that they had not breached any agreement with Musk because they “did not have any founding agreement, or any other agreement of any kind, with Musk.”
OpenAI further noted that the measures Musk is seeking are as extraordinary as his claims — including a request to order OpenAI to make all of its technology and research available to the public that would benefit Musk , along with his own for-profit artificial intelligence company xAI has not been successful in the market yet. Additionally, Musk sought to use legal means to force OpenAI to reorganize and distribute its technology under the terms of his fictitious contract.
Moreover, OpenAI also warned in the filing that Musk may use this lawsuit to obtain OpenAI’s proprietary records and technology if the pre-trial fact-finding and information-sharing process begins. Therefore, OpenAI asked the court to carefully control the requirements for this process and recommended that the case be designated a “complex case” in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on the court and relevant parties under California rules.
As OpenAI gradually makes the original facts public, Musk’s previous request for OpenAI to compensate, restore open source, and continue to develop in the direction of “benefiting mankind rather than profit” seems to have become a bit ironic. Especially when his own artificial intelligence company, xAI, has yet to succeed in the market.
The following is the main content of the legal document:
I. Introduction and Background
While Elon Musk was a former backer and board member of OpenAl Corporation (collectively known as “OpenAI” with its affiliates), he left the company years ago and founded his own for-profit artificial intelligence venture.
If the case proceeds to discovery, the evidence will show that Musk supported the creation of a for-profit structure for OpenAI that he controlled and then abandoned the project when his wishes were not followed. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit, accusing OpenAI of breaching a contract and agreement that did not actually exist, and asking the defendants to provide compensation measures to benefit OpenAI’s competitors.
Musk claims the lawsuit is to protect the public interest, but his true purpose is to advance his own business interests, as can be seen from his contradictory complaint. The complaint states that all of the defendants signed a “founding agreement” with Musk, promising that OpenAI would never operate for profit and would publicly release all of its artificial intelligence technology – all of which were allegedly The defendants all violated these promises, including OpenAI’s core GPT-4 technology.
Musk also claims that all defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in unfair business practices by leveraging his early contributions. However, OpenAI’s purpose is not consistent with the so-called “founding agreement” because OpenAI has never reached any form of founding agreement with Musk.
The so-called “founding agreement” is just a fiction created by Musk to claim the fruits of his initial support, then abandonment, and ultimately watching the business succeed after his departure. The so-called binding contractual documents Musk relied on—OpenAI’s certificate of registration and several emails—didn’t actually commit him to anything.
The measures Musk is seeking are as extraordinary as his claims — including a request to order OpenAI to make all of its technology and research available to the public that would benefit Musk while his own for-profit artificial intelligence company, xAI, is on the market Not yet successful. Additionally, Musk sought to use legal means to force OpenAI to reorganize and distribute its technology under the terms of his fictitious contract.
II. Discussion
According to the California Trial Rules, a “complex case” is one that “requires special judicial management to avoid undue burdens on the court or participants in the proceedings, and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and facilitate the court, the parties and effective decision-making by lawyers.”
When assessing whether a case should be considered “complex,” the court will consider a non-exhaustive list of factors, including whether it is expected to involve:
(1) A large number of pretrial motions that raise difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;
(2) Managing large numbers of witnesses or large amounts of documentary evidence;
(3) manage large numbers of independently represented parties;
(4) coordination with related actions pending in other counties, states, or countries, or in federal courts;
(5) Substantial post-sentence judicial supervision.
This case should be considered a “complex case” under this framework. Therefore, the defendant’s application should be granted.
A. This case will involve a large number of pretrial motion procedures
The pretrial motion process can be onerous and complex. The defendants plan to challenge the apparent procedural and substantive flaws in the complaint. Although the defense believes the case should be dismissed as quickly as possible, handling a critical legal motion will require the investment of significant judicial resources. In order to deal with these complex issues more effectively, it would be more appropriate to assign a full-time judge to the case from a department that specializes in complex cases.
Musk’s claims are based on intricate and often contradictory facts. For example, he claimed that the founding agreement between him and OpenAI had been “formally recorded,” but no actual agreement could be found in the complaint. The description of the documents that constitute this “official record” provided by Musk appears to be contradictory.
The factual allegations made by Musk cover a time span of nearly ten years and involve multiple parties. It will require a significant investment of time and effort to sift through the numerous and scattered allegations in the complaint to identify those that are consistent with applicable legal principles.
If the case makes it to trial, the practice of further legal motions—including motions for summary judgment—will be equally onerous.
B. This case may involve major evidence disclosure disputes
Considering that serious and far-reaching evidence disclosure issues are likely to arise after the case enters the litigation stage, it is appropriate to characterize it as a complex case. There is a direct competitive relationship between Musk and OpenAI. Once the discovery process is initiated, Musk may use the opportunity of this lawsuit to try to obtain OpenAI’s proprietary information and technology and promote extensive disclosure of the facts of the case. These requirements require strict management and control, including through the processing of related discovery motions. Given Musk’s purported doubts about technical facts, it is also expected to trigger the disclosure of expert evidence and related disputes. Therefore, it is appropriate to refer this case to a department that specializes in complex cases.
Such a departmental configuration will give the court greater power to actively manage the evidence disclosure process, ensuring that OpenAI’s competitiveness is protected in a fair, efficient and expeditious manner, while resisting Musk’s possible strategic evidence disclosure requirements. As stated in the relevant legal literature: “Trial courts have broad discretion to develop appropriate methods to manage complex litigation”; “When dealing with complex litigation, judicial management should intervene as early as possible and consider the specific circumstances of each case.” , continue and actively.
C. Musk seeks special injunction involving complex facts
Musk requested the court to issue a special injunction in this case, involving “the need for continued judicial supervision after the judgment.” This request supports the characterization of the case as a complex case. In his complaint, he proposed a series of special measures aimed at benefiting himself because his own for-profit artificial intelligence company was not having the expected success in the market. Musk asked the court to order OpenAI to operate and disclose its technology according to the terms he envisioned; asked the court to rule that GPT-4 constitutes artificial general intelligence; and other atypical mandatory injunctive measures. If the case reaches an advanced stage of the proceedings and Musk prevails on any of the claims, the measures he seeks would be unlawful and should not be approved.
III. Conclusion
For the above reasons, the defendant’s application should be allowed.
For more such interesting article like this, app/softwares, games, Gadget Reviews, comparisons, troubleshooting guides, listicles, and tips & tricks related to Windows, Android, iOS, and macOS, follow us on Google News, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Pinterest.
- Musk Mock OpenAI with “lie” logo
- Musk: Artificial intelligence could be smarter than all humans by 2029
- Musk and Altman finally went to court
- OpenAI Disagrees with Elon Musk’s lawsuit
- Elon Musk is Now Suing OpenAI for this reason
