OpenAI new court documents exposed: Musk lied! The prosecution seeks to obtain proprietary technology and sensitive information

So, is Musk’s lawsuit based on lies?

Author | Lian Ran

Editor | Zheng Xuan

The dispute between Musk and OpenAI has made new progress In response to Musk's prosecution, OpenAI submitted a legal document to the court, requesting the local court to identify the case as a "complex case" in accordance with California law, thereby preventing Musk from using legal procedural rules to obtain OpenAI's technology and business secrets. .

In the six-page document, OpenAI emphasized that they had not breached any agreement with Musk because they "had no founding agreement, or any other agreement of any kind" with Musk ."

OpenAI further clarified that Musk's lawsuit is not to safeguard human interests as stated above, but is motivated by promoting personal business interests. This was evident in Musk's early proposals to merge or take full control of OpenAI, which ultimately fell through after the two sides failed to reach an agreement.

Faced with the complexity of the case, OpenAI anticipates that there will be a large number of pretrial motion proceedings and evidence disclosure disputes. Therefore, the company recommended that the case be characterized as a "complex case" and requested to be heard by a full-time judge to ensure the efficiency and fairness of case handling.

OpenAI particularly highlighted concerns about the evidence disclosure process, fearing that Musk could use the process to obtain the company's proprietary technology and sensitive information. To this end, the company asked the court to carefully control the process.

As OpenAI gradually advances the fightback process, Musk’s lawsuit foundation seems increasingly untenable.

OpenAI: We have never reached a so-called "founding agreement" with Musk

On Monday local time, OpenAI submitted to the Francisco State Court in San Francisco OpenAI filed a legal filing in response to a lawsuit Musk filed against it last month, saying his claims "are based on convoluted and often incoherent factual premises." The legal filing is OpenAI's lawsuit against Musk. The first formal response to the lawsuit filed in late February this year.

Previously, Musk’s lawsuit claimed that OpenAI had strayed from its mission of building responsible artificial intelligence and claimed that the company had become a closed-source subsidiary of Microsoft, the world’s largest technology company.

Last week, OpenAI refuted the accusations in a memo to employees and a blog post, and published early emails between Musk and company employees to support it. OpenAI said in a blog post that Musk had previously proposed that OpenAI merge with Tesla or be fully controlled by him, but the two parties failed to agree on the terms of a for-profit entity. Musk chose to leave, saying OpenAI had a zero chance of success and saying he planned to build an AGI competitor within Tesla.

In the latest legal documents, OpenAI further stated that Musk originally supported the establishment of a for-profit structure for OpenAI, but only if he could control the company. "Seeing that OpenAI has made significant technological progress, Musk now hopes that he can also succeed," OpenAI's lawyer said.

OpenAI made it clear in the legal filing that they had not breached any agreement with Musk,

because they "did not enter into any founding agreement, or any other agreement of any kind, with Musk."

OpenAI further noted that the measures Musk is seeking are as extraordinary as his claims -- including a request to order OpenAI to make all of its technology and research available to the public that would benefit Musk while , his own for-profit artificial intelligence company, xAI, has yet to succeed in the market. Additionally, Musk sought to use legal means to force OpenAI to reorganize and distribute its technology under the terms of his fictitious contract.

Moreover, OpenAI also warned in the document that

If the pre-trial fact-finding and information-sharing process begins, Musk may use this lawsuit to obtain OpenAI’s proprietary records and technology. Therefore, OpenAI asked the court to carefully control the requirements for this process and recommended that the case be designated a "complex case" in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on the court and relevant parties under California rules.

As OpenAI gradually makes the original facts public, Musk’s previous request for OpenAI to compensate, restore open source, and continue to develop in the direction of “benefiting mankind rather than profit” seems to have become a bit Satire. Especially when his own artificial intelligence company, xAI, has yet to succeed in the market.

The following is the main content of the legal document:

I. Introduction and background

Although Elon Musk was a backer and board member of OpenAl (together with its affiliates, "OpenAI"), but he left the company years ago to start his own for-profit artificial intelligence venture.

If the case proceeds to deposition, the evidence will show that Musk supported the creation of a for-profit structure for OpenAI that he controlled and then abandoned the project when his wishes were not followed. As a result, he filed suit, alleging that OpenAI breached a contract and agreement that did not exist, and asking the defendants to provide remedies that would benefit OpenAI's competitors.

Musk claims that the lawsuit is to safeguard the public interest, but it can be seen from his contradictory complaint that his true purpose is to promote his own business interests. The complaint states that all of the defendants signed a "founding agreement" with Musk, promising that OpenAI would never operate for profit and would publicly release all of its artificial intelligence technology - all of which were allegedly The defendants all violated these promises, including OpenAI's core GPT-4 technology.

Musk also claims that all defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in unfair business practices by leveraging his early contributions. However, OpenAI’s purpose is not consistent with the so-called “founding agreement” because OpenAI has never reached any form of founding agreement with Musk.

The so-called "founding agreement" is just a fiction created by Musk to claim the results of his initial support, then abandonment, and ultimately watching the company succeed after he left. The so-called binding contractual documents Musk relied on — OpenAI’s certificate of registration and several emails — didn’t actually commit him to anything.

The measures Musk is seeking are as extraordinary as his claims — including a call to order OpenAI to make all of its technology and research available to the public that would benefit Musk, along with his own for-profit artificial intelligence Intelligent company xAI has not yet achieved success in the market. Additionally, Musk sought to use legal means to force OpenAI to reorganize and distribute its technology under the terms of his fictitious contract. II. Discussion create unnecessary burdens, and in order to expedite the case, keep fees reasonable, and promote effective decision-making by the court, the parties, and the attorneys."

In assessing whether a case should be considered "complex," the court A non-exhaustive list of factors will be considered, including whether it is expected to involve:

(1) A large number of pretrial motions that raise difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;

(2) Managing a large number of witnesses or a large amount of documentary evidence;

(3) Management of large numbers of independently represented parties;

(4) Coordination with related actions pending in other counties, states, or countries, or in federal courts;

(5) Substantial post-sentence judicial supervision.

This case should be considered a "complex case" based on this framework. Therefore, the defendant's application should be granted.

A. This case will involve a large number of pretrial motion procedures

The pretrial motion procedure may be very onerous and complicated. The defendants plan to challenge the apparent procedural and substantive flaws in the complaint. Although the defense believes the case should be dismissed as quickly as possible, handling a critical legal motion will require the investment of significant judicial resources. In order to deal with these complex issues more effectively, it would be more appropriate to assign a full-time judge to the case from a department that specializes in complex cases.

Musk’s claims are based on intricate and often contradictory facts. For example, he claimed that his founding agreement with OpenAI had been "formally documented," but no actual agreement could be found in the complaint. The description of the documents that constitute this "official record" provided by Musk appears to be contradictory.

The factual allegations made by Musk cover a time span of nearly ten years and involve multiple parties. It will require a significant investment of time and effort to sift through the numerous and scattered allegations in the complaint to identify those that are consistent with applicable legal principles.

If the case makes it to trial, the practice of further legal motions — including motions for summary judgment — will be equally onerous.

B. This case may involve major evidence disclosure disputes

Considering that serious and far-reaching evidence disclosure issues are very likely to arise after the case enters the litigation stage, It is appropriate to characterize this as a complex case. Musk is in direct competition with OpenAI. Once discovery proceedings are initiated, Musk is likely to use the lawsuit as an opportunity to try to obtain OpenAI's proprietary materials and technology and push for extensive factual disclosure of the case. These requirements require strict management and control, including through the processing of related discovery motions. Given Musk's purported doubts about technical facts, it is also expected to trigger the disclosure of expert evidence and related disputes. Therefore, it is appropriate to refer this case to a department that specializes in complex cases.

Such a departmental configuration will give the court greater power to actively manage the evidence disclosure process, ensuring that OpenAI’s competitiveness is protected in a fair, efficient and prompt manner, while resisting Musk’s possible tactics. Sexual evidence disclosure requirements. As stated in the relevant legal literature: "Trial courts have broad discretion to develop appropriate methods to manage complex litigation"; "When dealing with complex litigation, judicial management should intervene as early as possible and consider the specific circumstances of each case." , proceeding continuously and aggressively.

C. Musk seeks a special injunction involving complex facts

Musk requested the court to issue a special injunction in this case involving " Continuous judicial supervision is required after judgment”, a requirement that supports the characterization of the case as complex. In his complaint, he proposed a series of special measures aimed at benefiting himself because his own for-profit artificial intelligence company was not having the expected success in the market. Musk is asking the court to order OpenAI to operate and disclose its technology under the terms he envisions; asking the court to rule that GPT-4 constitutes artificial general intelligence; and other atypical mandatory injunctive measures. If the case reaches an advanced stage of the proceedings and Musk prevails on any of the claims, the measures he seeks would be unlawful and should not be approved.

III. Conclusion

Based on the above reasons, the defendant’s application should be granted.

This article comes from the WeChat public account: Geek Park (ID: geekpark), author: Lian Ran

The above is the detailed content of OpenAI new court documents exposed: Musk lied! The prosecution seeks to obtain proprietary technology and sensitive information. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!