The century-long lawsuit has ended! The AI battle between Musk and Ultraman, does it secretly hold the retail investors' ultimate trump card?

Let’s talk about something interesting. On May 14th, a lawsuit in the U.S. just wrapped up closing arguments, and the jury began deliberation on the 18th.

On the surface, it’s a personal feud between Elon Musk and Ultraman, but essentially it’s a legal issue: whether the money Musk donated to OpenAI back then counts as binding a “charitable trust”? If it does, then OpenAI’s profit-making, Microsoft investments, and executives’ personal gains—are they breaches of trust?

Don’t worry, I’ll break it down into three core allegations, and the jury will consider these three points.

First, whether there was a violation of the charitable trust. Musk needs to prove that his $38 million donation was not just a regular donation, but designated for a purpose—creating safe, open AI for all humanity, not for personal or corporate profit.

OpenAI’s lawyer directly countered: there are no written restrictions. Would you believe that someone capable of building rockets wouldn’t set conditions when donating money? They even presented evidence that in 2017, Musk submitted a profit plan aiming for over 50% ownership, with Altman and Brockman each only taking 7.5%. So the OpenAI lawyer said, “Musk never cares about non-profit; he cares about winning.”

Second, whether executives profited improperly. The numbers are striking. Brockman never invested a penny, yet his shares are now worth nearly $30 billion. Musk’s lawyer read from his diary in court: “It would be great to make tens of billions.” Altman is even more precise, claiming he doesn’t hold direct shares, but Musk’s side uncovered that Altman indirectly holds via Y Combinator, and has invested in many companies related to OpenAI.

OpenAI responded: Musk’s money was spent before 2020, and after that, it has nothing to do with him. Moreover, when equity was granted in 2019, no one knew if OpenAI could survive, but looking back now, of course it seems satisfying.

Third, is Microsoft a co-conspirator? Musk accused Microsoft of pushing OpenAI toward commercialization, citing an internal email where CEO Satya Nadella said he “doesn’t want to be IBM.” But Microsoft’s lawyer directly asked: “Musk has Nadella’s phone number, why has he never called directly?”

Now, the most lethal blow: the statute of limitations.

Musk only filed the lawsuit on August 5, 2024. OpenAI claims he knew by August 2021 that OpenAI was moving toward profit. More importantly, Musk publicly tweeted in 2020 that “OpenAI is basically controlled by Microsoft.” The lawyer also pointed out that he has an email with a 2018 terms list, which Musk said he never read. The lawyer exclaimed, “Would one of the smartest businessmen in the world bury his head in the sand? Absurd.”

Musk’s lawyer provided an exact date: October 20, 2022. That day, he sent Altman a link about Microsoft reinvesting $10 billion, calling it a “bait-and-switch.” That was when he truly realized the trust was being violated. The judge has already indicated that if the claim is filed after the deadline, he will win outright.

Let’s also discuss the narrative battle.

Musk’s side frames the lawsuit as “a charity being robbed.” The lawyer in court compared it: “If you’re walking across a dangerous bridge and someone tells you Altman says it’s safe, would you dare to cross?” and showed a photo resembling Altman as a suspect.

OpenAI’s side portrays the lawsuit as “retaliation after losing control.” They straightforwardly say Musk selectively forgets, claiming 150 to 200 times on the witness stand, “I don’t remember.”

Who might win in the end?

Mainstream media’s judgment: Musk’s moral narrative is sharper, but OpenAI’s legal defenses are stronger. AP reports that the statute of limitations could directly determine the outcome. TechCrunch reminds us that the jury’s decision isn’t about who is more evil, but about three strict legal questions. The Guardian notes Musk can’t produce a written contract, and OpenAI must prove Musk knew and wanted control.

Reuters says that regardless of who wins, both have lost credibility. Axios’s most biting summary: this trial proves that in AI safety, no one can stand morally high ground cleanly.

What does this mean for us retail investors?

Basically, Musk and Altman’s fight is a power struggle, not a matter of faith. If Musk wins, OpenAI’s IPO prospects, its partnership model with Microsoft, and corporate governance could be reshaped. But more critically, this lawsuit exposes a fact: in the face of huge profits, the so-called promise to “benefit all humanity” may be worthless.

In the crypto market, projects that tout “decentralization” and “public goods”—you should also ask: do they have written restrictions? Or are they just another Altman?