Judge Warns Both Sides in Musk vs. OpenAI Case to Stop Social Media Attacks
Judge Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over the OpenAI lawsuit, warned both parties in court on Tuesday to "control the impulse to worsen the situation outside the courtroom through social media."
The day before, both sides had been intensely attacking each other on X, with Musk even paying to promote negative reports about Altman; Musk argued that OpenAI posted first, prompting his response. The judge suggested they "turn the page and start fresh from today," to which Musk, Altman, and Brockman all agreed.
In market dynamics, the dispute over AI control is intensifying expectations for a reassessment of OpenAI's valuation and governance structure. Musk and supporters of the original mission benefit from public opinion and the lawsuit's outcome, while OpenAI's management and profit-seeking investors like Microsoft face short-term pressure, leading capital to flow toward AI equities sensitive to litigation.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Judge Gonzalez Rogers has previously shortened court session times, and this warning directly addresses the high-profile attacks on X, aiming to prevent external public opinion from influencing the jury.
The trial has officially entered the opening statement phase, where the jury will focus on reviewing years of emails, texts, and company documents from OpenAI's founders to determine whether the leadership betrayed its original non-profit commitments when transitioning to profit and accepting Microsoft's investment. Expected witnesses include Microsoft CEO Nadella, former OpenAI executives Mira Murati and Ilya Sutskever, and Shivon Zilis.
In terms of capital pathways, Musk is demanding a return to the original charitable structure and seeking damages of up to $134 billion, while OpenAI emphasizes the necessity of transformation; both sides are mobilizing resources to support the lawsuit, and the strategic outcome will directly impact the distribution of control in the AI industry and future valuation benchmarks.
Similar cases include control lawsuits arising from mission conflicts among early tech founders; the current case is at a critical stage before jury deliberation, expected to begin before May 12.
Essentially, this is about capital concentration: AI companies are reconstructing from non-profit missions to commercial control, as the mechanism under the massive demand for computing capital makes it difficult to maintain non-profit constraints, leading to the concentration of pricing power from early donors and open-source commitments to management and strategic investors who hold actual control, while also setting legal precedents for the commercialization boundaries of charitable organizations in the industry.