zeeshan khan
California’s Oakland (AP) Elon Musk’s demand for a court injunction preventing OpenAI from becoming a for-profit business was refused by a federal judge, but she did agree to accelerate a trial to examine Musk’s allegations regarding the ChatGPT manufacturer and its chief executive officer.
In his argument for an injunction, Musk “has failed to demonstrate the probability that he will prevail on the merits,” according to a decision made late Tuesday by the U.S. District Court judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. “Given how much is at stake and the possibility of damage if an alteration against to law occurred,” she said, she would be willing to convene an investigation in her California jurisdiction as early as this autumn.
One year ago, Mr.Musk, a former OpenAI investor, launched a legal battle against ChatGPT creator and President Sam Altman, alleging violation of agreement for allegedly betraying the nonprofit’s original goals.
Late last year, he intensified the legal battle by bringing in more victims and claims, particularly Microsoft, and requesting a court injunction to halt OpenAI’s intentions to become a for-profit company. Musk recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of his own AI startup, xAI, alleging that OpenAI was unjustly suppressing commercial rivals.
The court decided that Musk’s “claim of permanently damaged harm” was weakened when he and an organization of partners recently launched an unsolicited $97.4 billion proposal to purchase a majority share in a nonprofit organization.
According to OpenAI, it applauded the court’s ruling.
“This has never been about competition,” the firm stated in a statement. According to Elon’s own communications, he intended to combine Tesla with the for-profit OpenAI. For his own gain, it might be considered fantastic, but not for our objective or the interests of the United States.
In the complaint, Musk claims that the businesses are breaking the conditions of his initial donations to the nonprofit. According to his lawyer, he had spent over $45 million dollars in the firm between its inception and 2018.
Read More: Elon Musk Will Back Out of OpenAI Deal If Demands Aren’t Met
In a statement late Tuesday, Marc Toberoff, a counsel for USK, expressed his satisfaction with the court’s decision to grant an accelerated trial on the main allegations.
“A jury’s confirmation that Altman received Musk’s donations to charities understanding completely that they were going to be put toward the public good rather than his personal enrichment is something we are looking forward to,” Toberoff stated.
Gonzalez Rogers referred to the case as “billionaires vs. millionaires” at the hearing a month ago, calling it a “stretch” to allege “irreparable harm” to Musk. She asked why Musk did not have a formal contract before investing tens of millions in OpenAI. Toberoff retorted that this was because Altman and Musk were extremely close at the time and their connection was “constructed on confidence.”
The court said, “That is certainly a lot of dollars” to spend “on a handshake.”
The conflict stems from a power struggle within the young business in 2017 that resulted in Altman being appointed CEO of OpenAI.
According to communications made public by OpenAI, Musk had also applied to be CEO and became irate when two additional OpenAI co-founders claimed that if the startup was successful in its mission to develop Artificial General Intelligence a superior AI to that of humans he would have too much power as CEO and an important shareholder. Musk has long expressed worries that mankind may be in danger from highly developed AI.
With the exception of a brief time in 2023 during which he was sacked and then restored a few days later where the committee that had removed him was changed, Altman ultimately succeeded in becoming CEO and has stayed in that position.
Last month, Gonzalez Rogers, who was nominated by then-President Barack Obama in 2011, stated that Musk’s lawsuit is “nothing like” the tech sector issues she has handled, such as Apple’s battle with Epic Games. Eight months prior to the lawsuit’s trial, the case also marked the final instance in which she issued an interim injunction.
