Musk Testifies Against OpenAI in High-Stakes Courtroom Drama

The high-stakes courtroom drama involving Elon Musk and Sam Altman entered the 3rd day and, and once again, it was Elon Musk in the witness stand, for a lengthy and combative cross-examination by OpenAI’s lawyers, led by William Savitt. The proceedings remained sharp and testy after the statements from Day 2, with Musk defending his claims that OpenAI breached its charitable mission. OpenAI, on the other hand, attempted to portray him as inconsistent and motivated by competitive interests. Once the OpenAI team was done, Musk’s testimony stretched into the afternoon with cross-examination from Microsoft’s lawyers, too. Throughout the testimony, Musk made a lot of allegations, assumptions, and revelations around the developments surrounding OpenAI and his interests in it for transitioning to a for-profit company. Since the testimony went on for a long while with a lot being said, we have curated some of the highlights from the testimony based on what Musk stated. Musk’s lawyer opened the day by stressing the relevance of AI safety to the case. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers acknowledged the existential risks but firmly reminded both sides that the trial is about breach of charitable trust, not a referendum on who should control the future of humanity. “We could all die as a result of artificial intelligence,” said Musk’s lawyer to Judge Gonzalez, who, in response, said, “Despite these risks, your client is creating a company that’s in the exact space. I suspect there’s plenty of people who don’t want to put the future of humanity in Mr Musk’s hands. The question here is whether there was a breach of charitable trust. This is not a trial on whether or not artificial intelligence has damaged humanity.” When asked if the OpenAI foundation is the same nonprofit he co-founded, Musk replied sharply: “It’s not the same company because most of the value has been taken by the for-profit.” OpenAI pressed Musk on the statute of limitations, pointing to a 2019 term sheet for the for-profit arm (OpenAI LP) that allowed capped returns potentially exceeding $250 billion. Musk responded that a capped-profit structure did not yet violate the nonprofit mission, so he said, “had no basis for me to file a lawsuit at the time.” Microsoft’s lawyer questioned why Musk didn’t sue when Microsoft made massive investments and secured an exclusive license to GPT-3 in 2020. Musk replied that Altman had personally assured him OpenAI would remain committed to its original open-source nonprofit goals. When OpenAI’s lawyer asked if xAI distilled other companies’ models for Grok. Musk responded by saying, “Partly.” The lawyer also asked Musk if xAI has hired any third parties to distil OpenAI’s models, to which Musk denied having any knowledge about it. OpenAI stands on the notion that Musk is suing the company just to bring down his biggest competitor. OpenAI also questioned Musk whether he will open-source Grok 4.1 and 4.2 models, to which Musk says there are plans. OpenAI added that despite his lawsuit, Musk himself isn’t committed to running an open-source company. OpenAI lawyer also presented old emails, showing that Musk was aware of the need for some closed-source elements. In 2016, Ilya Sutskever told Musk it would “make sense to start being less open” as AI advanced, to which Musk replied “Yup.” Another email from Greg Brockman stated it was “fine to make money off this stuff.” Musk responded at the time with “whoa, that’s really interesting…” The trial continues to draw significant attention from the industry as it dives deep into founding emails, donation terms, governance decisions, and the fundamental question of whether OpenAI violated the charitable intent under which it was created.