Musk’s trial day 1 against Otman: “There would be no OpenAI without me”

Article: Golden Deer

Editor: Boyang

On April 28, U.S. time, the Musk vs. OpenAI case opened in the Federal Court in Oakland, California.

As the first witness to testify, Musk attempted to explain to the nine-member jury why he initially made OpenAI a non-profit organization. Meanwhile, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman attended as observers.

Ten years ago, they were partners sharing a vision for the future of AI. Now, Musk is demanding that Altman and Brockman resign from OpenAI and return all “ill-gotten gains” to the OpenAI charitable organization.

The core of this trial is a trillion-dollar-valued AI giant and the complete collapse of trust between two former friends.

01 Three Major Disputes

On April 27, the jury selection for this case was completed. The presiding judge is Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California Federal District Court, who previously presided over the Epic Games vs. Apple antitrust case in 2021.

Musk’s lawsuit filed in 2024 originally contained 26 charges. After preliminary rulings, only two remain for trial: violation of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. The trial is divided into two phases—liability phase, with recommendations from the jury; if liability is found, the remedy phase will be handled solely by the judge.

On the morning of April 28, opening statements were made in sequence. Three legal teams representing Musk, OpenAI (including Altman and Brockman), and Microsoft engaged around three core issues.

Dispute One: What is OpenAI’s mission, and are Musk’s $38 million donation conditional?

Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo presented OpenAI’s founding charter from 2015 in court. The document states that the organization “is not organized for any personal benefit” and aims to create “open-source technology serving the public interest.” Based on this, Molo argued that Musk’s donation of approximately $38 million constitutes a charitable trust requiring OpenAI to remain a non-profit organization permanently.

During the opening statement, Molo posed three key questions for the jury to remember:

• Does OpenAI have a charitable mission as a non-profit, i.e., to develop safe, open-source AI for the benefit of humanity?
• Did Altman and Brockman violate this mission by establishing profit-making businesses?
• Did Microsoft know about this mission and assist Altman and Brockman in violating it?

He explicitly stated, “Without Musk, there would be no OpenAI,” and claimed that shifting OpenAI to profit-driven operations “violates every promise.” “No one should be allowed to steal from a charitable organization,” he said.

Musk also echoed this stance on the witness stand. “It specifically refers to a charity that does not benefit any individual,” he pointed to the founding charter, “I could have founded it for profit, but I chose not to. I chose to make it something that benefits all of humanity.”

Musk as the first witness

Musk further characterized the case as a fundamental issue regarding charitable donations: “Stealing from a charity is wrong. If Altman and OpenAI win, it will open the door to plundering every charity in the U.S.” He warned, “The consequences of this case go far beyond me or everyone here. The entire foundation of charitable giving in the U.S. will be destroyed.”

OpenAI’s lawyer William Savitt responded very differently. He told the jury, “The question is whether OpenAI made specific promises to Musk when he donated. The answer is no.” Savitt insisted that the donation was unconditional. He also revealed that Musk had never fulfilled his full donation commitment, forcing the organization to seek additional support.

Savitt also attempted to counter Musk’s claims by referencing OpenAI’s current structure. He told the jury that, despite Musk’s accusations, the company has not abandoned its non-profit mission. The non-profit foundation “still controls the organization” and is “doing cutting-edge work in disease treatment and promoting economic diversity.” He pointed out that Altman does not hold shares in OpenAI but profits from various companies doing business with OpenAI and has indicated he might acquire equity in OpenAI in the future.

Dispute Two: Did Musk ever approve of OpenAI’s transition to profit?

Savitt submitted an email from former OpenAI board member Shivon Zilis, addressed to Sam Teller, who worked for Musk.

The email discussed two restructuring options: integrating everything into a Class B company (a public benefit corporation) or establishing a C-corp and a non-profit. Savitt claimed Musk “never expressed the view that OpenAI must remain purely non-profit,” and said he “only supports profit-making entities as long as he controls everything.”

He also provided details about equity distribution. Evidence shown to the jury indicated Musk’s chief of staff discussed giving Musk 55% of the profit entity’s shares, and Altman 7.5%.

Molo responded preemptively in his opening statement. He acknowledged Musk did discuss creating a profit-oriented version of OpenAI but emphasized Musk’s condition was always that “the non-profit must control the profit-making entity.” Molo said the plan at the time was for Musk to control the profit subsidiary, and that the importance of this subsidiary would “diminish over time,” serving only as a short-term funding mechanism.

Musk himself directly responded to the structural dispute on the witness stand. He admitted that between 2017 and 2018, OpenAI internally discussed establishing a profit entity. He was open to “a small profit-making organization providing funding for a non-profit,” but only “as long as it’s not a case of putting the cart before the horse”—the non-profit must maintain control.

He also explained why he ultimately left: when other founders demanded too much equity in the proposed profit division, he expressed in an email in 2017 that it was “very frustrating” and seemed determined to leave. He officially left the OpenAI board in 2018.

Dispute Three: What is Musk’s true motivation for suing?

Savitt explained, “We are here because Musk was unable to get what he wanted from OpenAI.”

He outlined a timeline: Musk left after a power struggle in 2018, stating “they would definitely fail,” but Altman and others “had the courage to continue without him and succeeded”; after the release of ChatGPT at the end of 2022, which sparked a global AI frenzy; Musk founded his own profit-driven AI company, xAI, in 2023, and then filed suit in 2024.

Savitt characterized Musk’s motivation as “sour grapes,” saying “Mr. Musk doesn’t like this, but that’s not grounds for a lawsuit.” He also bluntly stated that “Musk doesn’t understand AI very well.”

He further detailed this timeline, saying Musk only became dissatisfied with OpenAI’s pursuit of profit after ChatGPT triggered a global AI arms race, by which time Musk had already founded xAI.

Microsoft’s lawyer Russell Cohen aligned with the OpenAI camp on this point, offering two specific arguments.

First, he cited Musk’s September 2020 post on X—“OpenAI has basically been captured by Microsoft”—as evidence that Musk was aware long ago but did not sue in time, thus raising a statute of limitations defense. Second, he revealed a more personal connection between Musk and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: “Musk knows how to contact Nadella. Over five years since the partnership was announced, Musk has never picked up the phone to say ‘You can’t do this.’”

Microsoft’s lawyer claimed Musk could have contacted Nadella directly.

He emphasized that Musk personally has Nadella’s phone number. Cohen summarized, “After the success of ChatGPT, Musk launched xAI, and then suddenly he’s making claims against Microsoft.”

Molo tried to disconnect the case from Musk’s personal interests. “This case isn’t about Elon Musk,” he told the jury, “but about the defendants ‘lining their pockets’ and violating the fundamental principles of the organization’s founding.” Molo said this case is for “the benefit of all humanity,” not for financial gain. He urged jurors to set aside preconceptions about Musk: “Everyone seems to know Musk and has opinions about him. Not all opinions are good, and not all are bad.”

Molo also admitted that Altman has no shares in OpenAI, which might weaken Musk’s claim that Altman is profiting through the non-profit. But he argued that Altman profits from various companies doing business with OpenAI and has indicated he might acquire equity in OpenAI in the future.

02 Off-Court Disputes: Musk on AI Doomsday

Outside the courtroom, the public exchanges between the sides continued.

Before the trial, Judge Rogers called Musk and Altman to the bench, urging them to stop social media attacks and to start with “a clean slate,” “speak as little as possible” on social media. Both agreed.

Regarding the industry impact of the trial, AI safety expert Vivian Dong predicted it would “mainly be limited to OpenAI.”

“No specific AI safety policies or industry practices are involved in the trial,” she said. “Ordering structural changes to OpenAI in a private breach of charitable trust would be unprecedented.” She added that the officials overseeing OpenAI’s charitable mission are the attorneys general of Delaware and California, not Musk himself.

Emarketer chief analyst Nate Elliott offered another perspective: “If Musk wins, it would be a rare case of a tech CEO being held accountable. It could also mean the end of OpenAI’s business, giving xAI and Grok a much-needed competitive opportunity they currently lack.”

After this trial concludes, Musk is scheduled to return to court on April 29 U.S. time, to continue direct examination by lawyer Molo, followed possibly by cross-examination from Savitt. The judge has explicitly ordered Musk not to communicate with his lawyers overnight.

More witnesses will be called in subsequent sessions. Musk’s legal team said Musk will be followed by Jared Birchall, who manages Musk’s billions at his family office Excession LLC, and also serves as an executive at xAI and Neuralink.

Expert witnesses for Musk include UC Berkeley AI researcher Stuart J. Russell and Columbia Law Professor David M. Schizer.

Key witnesses expected to testify include Altman, Nadella, Murati, Sutskever, among others.

Additionally, witnesses expected to appear include Microsoft CEO Nadella, OpenAI’s former CTO Mira Murati, and early key researcher Ilya Sutskever. Musk specifically mentioned the difficulty of poaching Sutskever—calling it “a huge effort” and “extremely difficult,” which led Page “to refuse to speak to me anymore.” He called Sutskever “the most important researcher” contributing to OpenAI.

The trial is expected to last about four weeks. During cross-examination, Musk’s testimony regarding founding intentions, the nature of charitable donations, and structural changes will be examined for the first time by the opposing lawyers.