Epic Trial! Musk shouts in court, "Without me, there is no OpenAI," on the eve of the collapse of the trillion-dollar AI empire, should retail investors go all-in or run away?

Come on, grab a small stool, the tea has already been brewed. Today, let’s talk about a trillion-dollar story—two brothers who once drank and celebrated together, now drawing swords in court. On April 28th, in the Oakland Federal Court in California, Musk vs. OpenAI, the battle officially begins.

Elon Musk was the first to take the witness stand, facing a nine-person jury, and he needed to clarify: why did he turn OpenAI into a non-profit organization back then? Who was sitting in the courtroom? Ultraman and Brockman, the buddies who started the company together. Now Musk’s demand is straightforward: Ultraman and Brockman must be ousted from OpenAI, all “ill-gotten gains” must be returned, and given to charitable organizations.

There are three main points of dispute. First, what exactly is OpenAI’s mission? Musk’s lawyer Steven Mollo presented a founding charter from 2015, clearly stating “not for any personal private benefit,” and that it should “serve the public interest with open-source technology.” Musk donated about $38 million, which he considers a charitable trust—you must always keep it non-profit. Mollo said directly: “Without Musk, there would be no OpenAI. No one should be allowed to steal from a charity.” Musk even declared in court: if Ultraman and OpenAI win, the foundation of all charitable donations in the U.S. will be destroyed.

OpenAI’s lawyer William Savitt was relentless: donations came with no conditions. He also revealed that Musk never fulfilled all his donation commitments, which forced OpenAI to seek funds elsewhere. As for now, Ultraman has no stake in OpenAI, and the non-profit foundation still controls the company.

Second, did Musk himself agree to the transition to a profit-driven model? Savitt produced an email, addressed to Musk’s chief of staff Sam Telle, from former OpenAI director Sifan Zilis. The email discussed two restructuring options: a Class B public benefit corporation, or a split between a C-corp and a non-profit. Savitt said Musk never insisted on being non-profit; he just wanted to control everything. Evidence shows Musk’s team once discussed giving him 55% profit share, and Ultraman 7.5%.

Musk admitted that during 2017-2018, there were discussions about building a profit entity, but his condition was that the non-profit must control the profit entity, not the other way around. The reason he left was simple: others wanted too much equity. In 2017, he complained in an email that it was “very frustrating,” and in 2018, he resigned from the board.

Third, why is Musk suing now? Savitt summarized it in four words: sour grapes. The timeline is clear: Musk left in 2018, saying “they will definitely fail”; ChatGPT exploded in late 2022; Musk founded his own AI company, xAI, in 2023; and only in 2024 did he file the lawsuit. Savitt even added: “Musk doesn’t really understand artificial intelligence.”

Microsoft’s lawyer Russell Cohen also chimed in: Musk posted on X in 2020 that “OpenAI has basically been captured by Microsoft,” so he knew about it. Now he’s suing after the fact, and the statute of limitations has expired. Plus, Musk has Microsoft CEO Nadella’s phone number, but over five years, he never called to say “you can’t do this,” until he launched xAI and suddenly started complaining.

Musk’s lawyer Mollo insisted: this isn’t just Musk’s personal matter; it’s about the defendant “lining their pockets,” violating the original principles. He asked the jury to set aside personal opinions about Musk—whether good or bad.

During the trial, there was also a segment of “AI doomsday” performance. Musk portrayed himself as a veteran entrepreneur working 80-100 hours a week, carrying $100k in student debt, working in Canada. Regarding AI, he used an analogy: training AI is like raising a child—you can’t truly control it once it grows up. He concluded: “AI can make us more prosperous, but it could also kill us all. We want ‘Star Trek,’ not ‘Terminator.’”

A small side note: when asked who Sifan Zilis is, Musk stammered and said “chief of staff” with a smile. Actually, she’s a former OpenAI director and the mother of Musk’s several children. Ultraman remained low-key, crossing his arms with a worried look, typing on his phone during recess, saying nothing.

Outside the courtroom, things weren’t calm either. Before the hearing, Judge Rogers called both parties forward, demanding they stop social media spats; both nodded in agreement. AI safety expert Vivian Dong predicted that this trial’s impact will mainly be limited to OpenAI itself, unlikely to shake the entire industry policy. But eMarketer analyst Nate Elliott said if Musk wins, it would be a rare case of holding a tech CEO accountable, potentially ending OpenAI entirely and creating opportunities for xAI and Grok.

The next day, Musk will continue to be questioned by his own lawyers, then face cross-examination from the other side. The judge explicitly prohibited communication with lawyers at night. Future witnesses include Jared Burchard from Musk’s family office, UC Berkeley AI researcher Stuart Russell, Columbia Law Professor David Hizer. Later, there will be Nadella, former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, early researcher Ilya Sutskever—Musk called recruiting Sutskever a “huge effort,” which caused a falling-out with Page. The trial is expected to last four weeks.

Every detail seems like money burning. Even a divorce isn’t this dramatic. Retail investors, this case isn’t just tech gossip. The internal conflict among AI giants signals a reshuffle of capital and talent—xAI might benefit, OpenAI could be dismantled, and stricter regulation risks are rising. Don’t just watch the show—think about whether you hold any AI concept coins in your portfolio. It’s time to use your brain.