OpenAI Rebuts Apple's Lawsuit Claims, Releases iMessage and Email Evidence
OpenAI issued a statement questioning Apple's description of pre-litigation communications, denying allegations that former employees used confidential information, and publicly releasing some iMessages and email records as rebuttal evidence.
OpenAI pointed out that Apple's claim that "OpenAI never responded" to its concerns in February is untrue, as there were email exchanges between the two parties, but Apple's external lawyers confused the names and email addresses of two OpenAI employees (last names Wang and Chang), leading to a breakdown in communication.
OpenAI emphasized that it "is not aware of any evidence supporting Apple's lawsuit claims," stating its belief in fair competition and the free movement of talent, focusing on independent technological innovation, and suggesting that Apple's accusations lack substantive basis.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
OpenAI's rebuttal strategy presents a typical "narrative counterattack" model: it does not deny the core accusation (theft of trade secrets) but attacks Apple's "procedural flaws" (the communication breakdown attributed to lawyer errors), similar to the defense paths in the 2021 Facebook vs. Peak case and the 2019 Uber vs. Waymo case of "shifting focus + questioning the evidence chain."
Similar cases can be compared to the 2024 Tesla lawsuit regarding former employees stealing autonomous driving technology—the defendants also used "email records as rebuttal" and "questioning the integrity of evidence" as defense strategies, reflecting the standard rhetoric of tech giants in disputes over "talent mobility + knowledge spillover": "We didn't steal; they leaked it themselves."
On the capital path, OpenAI chose a dual strategy of "public evidence + public opinion pressure": responding for the first time on July 13 with "not aware of evidence," leaking email details through NBC News on July 14, and further releasing iMessages on August 4, aiming to weaken Apple's accusations of "malicious disregard" through "transparent narratives" and gain public opinion advantage for subsequent settlements or court defenses.
Essentially, this belongs to the "intellectual property offense and defense battle" in the context of industry chain restructuring: as AI hardware competition shifts from "technological leadership" to "supply chain speed," companies transition from "R&D barriers" to "legal barriers," with the underlying reason being that "reverse engineering + talent poaching" shortens the half-life of technological moats to mere months, and the only way to delay competitors is to "trade litigation for time + trade public opinion for space."
ABAB News · Laws of Cognition
The first battle of a lawsuit is not in court, but in narrative control.
When the defendant publicizes evidence, the plaintiff has already lost public opinion.
The truth of the intellectual property war: it's not about who is right, but who can drag it out longer.