A lawyer representing tech billionaire Elon Musk expressed regret on Thursday regarding Musk’s absence from court as closing statements commenced in Musk’s lawsuit against artificial intelligence company OpenAI. The lawyer, Steven Molo, urged jurors not to misinterpret Musk’s absence.
As a high-profile federal trial approached its conclusion, Musk was in China, attending an official state visit alongside President Donald Trump and other American business leaders. He travelled there despite a court order mandating his presence, with the judge indicating he could be recalled for testimony.
In Beijing, Musk, who leads Tesla and SpaceX, described his discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping as “awesome.” His lawsuit targets OpenAI’s creation of a for-profit division to enhance funding for its research and the development of its prominent application, ChatGPT. Musk claims that OpenAI has deviated from its nonprofit roots, a point contested by the organisation and its CEO, Sam Altman, who asserts that a nonprofit foundation still oversees OpenAI and that Musk agreed to the establishment of a for-profit arm.
Despite initiating the case, Musk has not attended court for two weeks following three days of testimony. He did not return during the trial’s evidence phase, which concluded on Wednesday. In contrast, Altman appeared in court on Thursday to witness the closing statements.
Molo did not specify Musk’s whereabouts during the closing arguments, suggesting the billionaire’s travels may continue. Musk is scheduled to speak at a mobility conference in Israel on Monday, coinciding with the jury’s initial day of deliberation.
OpenAI’s attorney, Bill Savitt, highlighted Musk’s absence in his closing remarks. He remarked that Musk had only attended court for his testimony, which he had not returned to since.
Legal arguments expanded to the credibility of witnesses, with Molo asserting that five sworn testimonies labelled Altman as dishonest. He compared Altman’s reputation to a dangerous bridge and insisted that wealth disparities within OpenAI should not detract from Musk’s claims regarding the organisation’s direction.
Savitt countered Molo’s analogy, arguing that the value generated by Altman and his colleagues was integral to the discussion, asserting that the creators of the company cannot be equated to bank robbers. Meanwhile, a second OpenAI lawyer, Sarah Eddy, accused Musk of dishonesty about his intentions, stating he sought to profit from OpenAI, even proposing a merger with Tesla in the past. Eddy further claimed Musk’s delay in legal action invalidated his complaints, emphasising that discussions about changing OpenAI’s structure began in 2017.
Test Your Understanding
How much do you know?
