-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Litigation Department
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
It was March 2019 when they announced they were splitting the company into a "for profit", by creating OpenAI LP, and keeping the not-for-profit part called OpenAI Foundation. Soon after the Microsoft contract was announced.
I'll be interested to see what will come out in discovery...
I'll be interested to see what will come out in discovery...
Lots of interesting stories.
The revenge of Elon against Bill Gates for shorting TSLA. Impact on MSFT.
Could Elon find himself back in charge of OpenAI. Could be used to power Grok for free.
Has Ilya provided information? Where will he go?
The revenge of Elon against Bill Gates for shorting TSLA. Impact on MSFT.
Could Elon find himself back in charge of OpenAI. Could be used to power Grok for free.
Has Ilya provided information? Where will he go?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Moving this to more appropriate thread-
Matt Levines coverage gets into this a bit-- one issue is the lawsuit references the "founding agreement" several times- but that's Not A Thing that actually exists.
(and indeed the lawsuit provides no copy of such a document)
Instead the complaint says you can "infer" what the founding agreement was by OTHER documents like the charter and emails between Elon and others (some of which IS included in the suit).
And the issue there is none of that says they must open source everything forever.
The nearest to that is in one of the emails
With "we'd" being the board... and that statement making it clear nobody expected 100% open sourcing of everything.
Likewise the charter ALSO makes it clear they weren't obligated to open source everything, instead saying "the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable." and that's entirely a subjective judgement call.
Moreover- the certificate of incorporation was not a contract between Musk and OpenAI: He didn’t sign the certificate, and he wasn’t a shareholder, because there were no shares. He donated $ to a non-profit, he didn't acquire any ownership of it and the company had no fiduciary duty toward him in the typical sense.
Even when they first spun-off the for-profit branch, Elon donated another 3.48 million after so it's hard to accept an argument NOW that was totally a deal breaker for him? Why'd he keep donating millions after if that's the case?
Other parts of the suit seem better grounded, potentially around the Microsoft deal. OTOH Microsoft has pretty good lawyers that probably looked that stuff over before ever signing it.
Matt Levines coverage gets into this a bit-- one issue is the lawsuit references the "founding agreement" several times- but that's Not A Thing that actually exists.
(and indeed the lawsuit provides no copy of such a document)
Instead the complaint says you can "infer" what the founding agreement was by OTHER documents like the charter and emails between Elon and others (some of which IS included in the suit).
And the issue there is none of that says they must open source everything forever.
The nearest to that is in one of the emails
With "we'd" being the board... and that statement making it clear nobody expected 100% open sourcing of everything.
Likewise the charter ALSO makes it clear they weren't obligated to open source everything, instead saying "the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable." and that's entirely a subjective judgement call.
Moreover- the certificate of incorporation was not a contract between Musk and OpenAI: He didn’t sign the certificate, and he wasn’t a shareholder, because there were no shares. He donated $ to a non-profit, he didn't acquire any ownership of it and the company had no fiduciary duty toward him in the typical sense.
Even when they first spun-off the for-profit branch, Elon donated another 3.48 million after so it's hard to accept an argument NOW that was totally a deal breaker for him? Why'd he keep donating millions after if that's the case?
Other parts of the suit seem better grounded, potentially around the Microsoft deal. OTOH Microsoft has pretty good lawyers that probably looked that stuff over before ever signing it.
An agreement can exist in firms other than a filed legal document. Verbal agreements can be legally enforced, but the filling has more than just oral reports...
That's not the issue. The issue is that things which were open sourced in previous versions are not now in any form.
And that the properties of OpenAI are being used to enrich Microsoft/ partners of the for-profit arm in potential violation of the Articles of Incorporation (a filed legal document) clause 5->3.
As originally presented, the for-profit arm did not alter the spirit of the original goals:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Right.
But what the filing does NOT have is an actual "founders agreement" despite it claiming one was violated.
And the documents they DO provide don't support the claims of what was violated as I pointed out.
The emails elon included say there'd be "discussion" about which things to open source or not among the leadership. So that discussion could've concluded newer stuff wouldn't be open sourced withuot violating anything.
Ditto the charter which also makes clear not EVERYTHING will be open sourced.
As I say, the profit aspect of the case is a lot less flimsy than the THEY PROMISED TO OPEN SOURCE EVERYTHING IN AN AGREEMENT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF claims.
But as I also say, I bet MS had some really good lawyers review everything before they signed it.
Other than the original goal of not making a profit?
Again I think this bit is Elons least-bad argument--- but it's not made easier when they can point out "After announcing they'd have a for-profit arm Elon donated another ~3.5 million....but NOW he's mad they're doing something for profit?"
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Oh in other Elon lawsuit news- Xs lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate had its hearing yesterday in federal court.
It did not go well for X....with the judge seeming to mock the legal theories they were presenting.
www.wsiu.org
It did not go well for X....with the judge seeming to mock the legal theories they were presenting.
Judge skeptical of lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's X over hate speech research
The nonprofit sued by Elon Musk's X says the legal tactic is an attempt to silence criticism of the company. The Center for Countering Digital Hate published reports documenting hate speech on X.
www.wsiu.org
Oh in other Elon lawsuit news- Xs lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate had its hearing yesterday in federal court.
It did not go well for X....with the judge seeming to mock the legal theories they were presenting.
Judge skeptical of lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's X over hate speech research
The nonprofit sued by Elon Musk's X says the legal tactic is an attempt to silence criticism of the company. The Center for Countering Digital Hate published reports documenting hate speech on X.
None of the recent posts are related to Tesla Litigation. Thread name might need changed.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that second bit where they claim everything would be open source excepting only "countervailing safety considerations"
That's not in any of the documents given that claim to "memorialize" the founders agreement that, itself, does not actually exist per se.
Instead it says they'd discuss among the board what to open source and what not to, without any specifics about why they'd do one versus the other.
Exhibit 2:
Still, where is the claim "THEY PROMISED TO OPEN SOURCE EVERYTHING IN AN AGREEMENT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF"? Emphasis on "everything". Or was that just for dramatic effect?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
You...seem to be quoting the same things I already quoted back to me?
Again YOU cited the part where Elon is claiming a wider scope of open sourcing than anything for which any evidence was actually provided.
CLAIM in Elon suit:
Only ACTUAL evidence of what the "founders" said about open-sourcing or not (also from the suit)
That first claim is not at all supported by the only actual relevant evidence given.
There's NO criteria at all for deciding what should or should not be open sourced other than having a discussion to decide.
Yep, because you're saying two conflicting things...
You: claim is "THEY PROMISED TO OPEN SOURCE EVERYTHING IN AN AGREEMENT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF"?
Also you: claim is "would be open-source, balancing only countervailing safety considerations, and would not keep its technology closed and secret for proprietary commercial reasons."
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Err...that second one isn't MY claim-- it's Elons. You yourself quoted it from his cause of action.
And it's not supported by the actual evidence. His claim is vastly overstating the degree to which they were obligated to open-source things.
But really read the twitter thread right above your post Buckminster provided, it does a WAY better job than anything I wrote clearly and cleanly explaining why this case is such a loser. The open sourcing bit is addressed specifically here (though they go through all of it)
And it's not supported by the actual evidence. His claim is vastly overstating the degree to which they were obligated to open-source things.
But really read the twitter thread right above your post Buckminster provided, it does a WAY better job than anything I wrote clearly and cleanly explaining why this case is such a loser. The open sourcing bit is addressed specifically here (though they go through all of it)
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
LOL as the kids say.
www.cnbc.com
OpenAI shares Elon Musk emails urging startup to raise $1 billion, see Tesla as a cash cow in its early years
Last week, Elon Musk sued OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, alleging breach of contract and unfair competition.
www.cnbc.com
Similar threads
