Elon Musk vs. Ultraman: If he loses the lawsuit, the bottom line of American charity will be exposed

On the first day of the trial, the judge said a blunt truth: "Many people indeed dislike Elon Musk"

U.S. Federal Court in Oakland, April 28, 2026.

The world's richest man sits face-to-face with the CEO of the world's most powerful AI company in the courtroom.

Musk clenches his teeth, his tongue pressed against the inside of his cheek, flipping through his notes.

Ultraman crosses his arms, expressionless, whispering to his lawyer.

This is not a business war; this is war.

$130 billion in claims. Demanding Ultraman's removal. Demanding OpenAI restore its nonprofit status.

If Musk wins, the OpenAI empire valued at $730 billion will collapse instantly.

If Musk loses... then all charitable organizations in the U.S. will be sitting ducks from today.

---

Opening statements from both sides' lawyers

Musk's lawyer's version:

This is a play of "Knight of Light defeating greedy villains."

OpenAI's 2015 charter states—"For the benefit of all humanity."

Not "a tool to make people rich."

Ultraman and Brockman "stole from a charity."

Microsoft's $13 billion investment shattered the promise.

Musk says, he doesn't want a single cent of the money won in the lawsuit, all goes to OpenAI's nonprofit department.

Ultraman's lawyer's version:

This is a revenge after a failed power grab.

"We're here because Musk didn't get his way."

What did he want back then? Absolute control. To directly merge OpenAI into Tesla.

Guess what? Ultraman and Brockman said "no."

Musk walked away in 2018. Even sent an email saying OpenAI's success probability was zero.

It wasn't until 2023, when he launched xAI himself, and ChatGPT exploded in popularity, that he returned to sue.

Sour grapes? You decide.

---

Musk spoke for half an hour about lumberjacks, then suddenly threw out "speciesist"

On the witness stand, Musk didn't start by talking about AI.

He spent half an hour recounting leaving South Africa at 17, working as a lumberjack and doing farm work in Canada.

Working 80 to 100 hours a week, no vacation homes, no yachts.

— "I like working."

Then he shifted tone.

He predicted: next year, AI will be smarter than any human.

Developing AI is like raising an "extremely intelligent child." You can't control it at all. Only pray that the values you teach are useful.

"We don't want a Terminator ending."

Then he dropped a bombshell.

He once had a good relationship with Google co-founder Larry Page.

In a chat, Page was indifferent to AI losing control. Musk said no, human survival must come first.

Page immediately cursed him: "You're a speciesist."

What does that mean?

In Page's eyes, silicon-based AI life and carbon-based human life are equal. Even—AI is a more advanced direction of evolution.

Musk thought Page was crazy on the spot.

It was precisely because he feared Google's monopoly on AI that he funded OpenAI, as a "counterforce to Google."

Sounds quite heroic, right?

---

But then, the mutual digging begins

Musk's camp's killer move:

OpenAI President Brockman's private diary from 2017.

Written in black and white:

"Our plan: it would be great if we could make money. We've always thought, maybe we should go directly for profit."

And a more naked statement:

"In financial terms, what can make me a billion dollars?"

Five years ago, when ChatGPT was not even on the horizon, they were already planning how to become billionaires.

Counterattack from Ultraman’s camp:

An email from Musk in 2017 demanding full control.

He was more than just a "donor who gives money without asking questions."

When Ultraman and Brockman refused to relinquish control—

In 2018, Musk sent an email: OpenAI's success probability was zero.

Then, withdrew funding and left.

---

A terrifying detail: Is the mother of three children an insider?

The court also revealed a name: Shivon Zilis.

She is a former OpenAI board member.

And an executive at Musk's neural interface company Neuralink.

And the mother of Musk's three children.

Text messages show she once proactively asked Musk: Do you want me to stay on the OpenAI board and keep you informed?

OpenAI's lawyer accused her of being an insider planted by Musk during her time on the board.

An idealistic shell, peeled layer by layer, revealing money, power, and control desires inside.

---

Whoever wins this lawsuit, there are no winners

If Musk wins:

OpenAI is forced to revert to pure nonprofit.

The $730 billion valuation vanishes into thin air.

IPO plans are directly canceled.

But capital won't stop AI development? Impossible.

Musk's own xAI will lose its strongest competitor.

If Ultraman wins:

That loophole will be completely torn open—

From now on, all tech entrepreneurs can play the same game:

Pretend to be "nonprofit," enjoy tax exemptions, public trust, top talent.

Once the technology breaks through, switch to profit, privatize, cash out and walk away.

"Charities looted," becomes legal from then on.

Judge Rogers caused a small scene in court: the microphone and display screen broke.

She jokingly said: "What can I say? We’re funded by the federal government."

The court burst into laughter.

On one side, trillions of dollars, human survival, Terminator crises.

On the other, a federal court that can't even fix a microphone.

Is this surreal?

But more surreal is—

Despite the fierce courtroom brawl, GPU clusters around the world continue to roar day and night, devouring electricity and data.

The wheels of AI won't wait for anyone's verdict.

Do you think Musk is truly afraid AI will destroy humanity, or is he just not tasting the grapes?