Text | Sleepy.md

April 28, 2026, Oakland Federal Court, California.

No shouting or banging on the table like in Hollywood legal dramas, only cold lists of evidence, sharp-suited top lawyers, and an overwhelming sense of oppression.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman sit on opposite sides of the courtroom. Musk sits beside the central table, clenched jaw, tongue pressed against the inside of his mouth, flipping through his notes. Altman crosses his arms, sitting solemnly in the front row of the audience, whispering with his lawyers.

This is the world’s wealthiest man attempting to destroy the largest AI unicorn through legal means.

The curtain of the trial began the day before, with jury selection.

In the tech hub of the East Bay in San Francisco, selecting nine ordinary people who can remain completely neutral toward Musk and ChatGPT is no easy task.

Candidates were questioned one by one: “Do you often use ChatGPT?” “Do you follow Elon Musk on X?” “Have you bought Tesla or SpaceX stock?”

After five hours of back-and-forth, both sides exhausted their five unconditional strikes. Presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers even sighed in court: “The reality is, many people don’t like Musk.”

This lawsuit, dubbed the “Century Trial” by the media, appears on the surface to be a legal battle over hundreds of billions in claims and the non-profit status of an organization. But behind these dry legal terms lies a deeper, core question.

When a once-flagship open-source project, championing “benefiting all humanity,” transforms into a business empire valued at $852 billion, are the original idealists driven away by moral purity, or are they enraged by losing in a power struggle? Is this a long-overdue justice, or a capricious tantrum of capital giants unable to get their way?

Two Narratives

After the trial officially begins, the opening statements from the chief lawyers on both sides present two completely different scripts to the jury.

In Musk’s lead lawyer Steven Mollo’s narrative, this is a “knight of light fighting against greedy tyrants.”

Mollo deliberately avoids obscure technical jargon, citing OpenAI’s 2015 founding charter repeatedly, emphasizing one concept: OpenAI’s original purpose was “to benefit all humanity,” and it “is not a tool for making money.”

In his accusations, Mollo claims Altman and CEO Greg Brockman “stole a charity.” He points directly to Microsoft’s $13 billion investment into OpenAI, arguing that this completely shattered OpenAI’s commitments to Musk and the world.

To prove his innocence, Musk’s side even promises that if they win the case and receive hundreds of billions in damages, all the money will go to OpenAI’s nonprofit foundation, with Musk personally taking nothing.

However, from OpenAI’s lead lawyer Bill Savitt’s perspective, it’s a different story. This is no longer a moral defense but a straightforward business retaliation after a failed power grab.

“We’re here because Musk didn’t get his way,” Savitt said sharply.

He told the jury that Musk is the one who truly smells the opportunity, sees the commercial value of AI, and tries to take it for himself. Years ago, Musk not only demanded absolute control over OpenAI but also proposed merging OpenAI directly into Tesla.

Savitt exposes Musk’s “AI safety advocate” persona. He points out that AI safety has never been Musk’s real priority; Musk even sneers at employees overly focused on AI safety. According to Savitt, Musk only sued OpenAI after founding his for-profit AI company xAI in 2023—purely out of business competition.

“My client thrived and succeeded after parting ways with him. Even if Musk is dissatisfied, he has no right to initiate malicious lawsuits,” Savitt said.

Even more intriguing is Microsoft’s subtle stance. Microsoft lawyer Russell Cohen vigorously distanced Microsoft from the case, claiming they have been “responsible partners at every step” and did nothing wrong.

But just before the trial, OpenAI suddenly announced an update to its partnership terms with Microsoft. Microsoft no longer has exclusive rights; OpenAI’s products can be deployed on other cloud platforms. This is not just a move to counter antitrust investigations but appears to be a carefully planned PR stunt, aiming to prove in court that OpenAI is not a puppet of Microsoft.

Beneath the banner of morality, both sides hide deep business calculations.

Musk’s Testimony

As the first heavyweight witness, Musk sat on the stand for a full two hours.

In an era of anti-elite sentiment, Musk knows how to connect with ordinary jurors. Instead of starting with esoteric AGI talk, he spent nearly half an hour recounting his grassroots struggle. He talked about leaving South Africa at 17, working as a lumberjack in Canada, doing rough work on farms; he emphasized that he still works 80 to 100 hours a week, with no vacation homes or yachts.

“I like working, I like solving problems that make people’s lives better,” Musk tried to portray himself as a diligent, pragmatic, no-frills doer.

Then he shifted the topic to the chilling AI crisis.

Musk predicts that AI will be smarter than any human by next year at the latest. He likened developing AI to raising a “very smart child,” which, as it grows up, you can’t control—only pray that the values you instill early on will take effect.

“We don’t want a Terminator ending,” Musk warned gravely.

To prove his original intention in founding OpenAI was pure, Musk recounted his falling out with Google co-founder Larry Page.

He recalled that they were close friends, often discussing AI’s future. But during one exchange, Musk found Page unconcerned about AI out-of-control risks. When Musk insisted that human survival must come first, Page retorted that Musk was a “speciesist.”

This term is extremely offensive in Silicon Valley. It implies that in the minds of tech maniacs like Page, silicon-based AI life and carbon-based human life are equal, or even that the former represents a higher evolutionary path.

Musk told the jury he thought Page was crazy. It was this extreme fear of Google’s potential monopoly and abuse of AI that motivated him to fund OpenAI as a “counterforce” against Google.

This narrative is coherent and tragic, but not without flaws.

Musk declared in court: “If we allow them to steal a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in the U.S. will be destroyed.” Yet, his Musk Foundation was exposed for failing to meet the IRS minimum charitable donation rate of 5% for four consecutive years, with a shortfall of $421 million in 2023 alone.

More paradoxically, a person deeply fearful of AI destroying humanity quickly set up a fully for-profit AI company, xAI, in 2023, tying it deeply into his business empire.

Is Musk’s claim of “benefiting all humanity” a pure belief or a perfect excuse to crush competitors? Do the private diaries and emails presented in court reveal the inner world of Silicon Valley elites?

Diaries, Texts, and Silicon Valley’s Dark Side

If courtroom statements are carefully crafted PR, then internal communications as evidence directly tear open Silicon Valley’s facade.

The killer evidence from Musk’s side is a private diary written by OpenAI President Greg Brockman in 2017. It reads: “Our plan: if we can make money, that would be great. We’ve been thinking, maybe we should go fully for-profit.”

And a more blunt question: “Financially, what can make me a billion dollars?”

These black-and-white records instantly shatter OpenAI’s early image as a “pure research, non-profit” organization. They prove that five years before ChatGPT’s explosion in popularity, the core management was already planning how to monetize the technology and join the billionaires’ club.

OpenAI’s counterattack is equally devastating. They presented emails from Musk in 2017 demanding full control over OpenAI. The records show Musk was not just a generous donor who gave money without asking questions; he insisted on absolute control over the potential profit-making OpenAI.

When Altman and Brockman refused to relinquish control, Musk’s attitude changed 180 degrees. In a 2018 email, Musk pessimistically declared that OpenAI’s success was impossible. He then resigned from the board and stopped funding.

OpenAI’s lawyers aim to show the jury that Musk’s departure was not due to moral purity or ideological differences, but simply because he saw no future in the project and couldn’t get control, so he cut his losses.

In this mutual expose-and-attack, a name surfaces: Shivon Zilis.

She is a former OpenAI board member, an executive at Musk’s Neuralink, and mother of Musk’s three children. Court-disclosed texts show Zilis once asked Musk if she should stay inside OpenAI to keep information flowing. OpenAI’s side claims she was an insider planted by Musk during her tenure.

This tangled web of interests, personnel infiltration, and emotional ties beneath lofty slogans of changing the world reveals a deep craving for money, power, and control.

When the idealistic veneer is peeled away layer by layer by court evidence, will this lawsuit truly change the trajectory of the AI industry?

Future Uncertainties

No matter what the judge ultimately rules, there are no true winners in this trial.

If Musk wins and OpenAI is forced to revoke its “profit cap” structure, reverting to a pure non-profit, its $852 billion valuation and IPO planned for late 2026 will vanish instantly. But this won’t stop capital from pouring into AI; Musk’s own xAI would then face no formidable opponent.

If OpenAI wins, the legal loophole allowing a non-profit to transform into a for-profit will be fully exposed. Future tech entrepreneurs could then operate under the guise of “non-profit,” leveraging tax exemptions and public moral support to attract top talent and early funding at low cost. Once breakthroughs are achieved, they could privatize and commercialize through complex equity structures.

Viewed in the context of the long history of technological revolutions, this is just another footnote in business competition. Like Edison vs. Tesla’s AC/DC battle at the end of the 19th century, or Microsoft’s browser war with Netscape in the late 20th, the giants’ courtroom battles are about current profit-sharing rules.

The outcome in court cannot alter the objective laws of technological evolution. The true force shaping human destiny is not the lawyers’ carefully prepared speeches but the GPU clusters humming tirelessly in data centers worldwide, devouring electricity and data.

Back in Oakland court, midway through the trial, the microphone and display suddenly malfunctioned. Judge Rogers joked: “What can I say? We are funded by the federal government.”

Laughter erupted in the courtroom. This self-deprecating moment starkly contrasted with the Silicon Valley giants discussing hundreds of billions in claims, human survival, and terminator crises. In this surreal reality, AI’s relentless march is crushing old business ethics and legal boundaries, heading toward a future even its creators cannot foresee.

Click to learn more about Rhythm BlockBeats’ job openings

Join the Rhythm BlockBeats official community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter Official Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia