Because no one has commented yet on the legal significance:
Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims. The jury answers only yes/no questions, so we do not know their exact thoughts, but it is likely they determined that the 2019 and 2021 Microsoft deals were too similar to the 2023 Microsoft deal that was the centerpiece of Musk’s lawsuit. Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.
Because the statute of limitations is a precondition, the jury was not asked to find any other facts. They may tell the press what they thought on other issues, or they may not.
The judge was prepared to immediately accept the jury’s finding, and said she agreed that the jury’s decision was supported by the evidence.
It is possible for Musk to appeal, but success is vanishingly unlikely. Whether Musk’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations is a quintessential question of fact, and appellate courts are extraordinarily deferential to factual findings by juries so as a practical matter it’s almost impossible to appeal this verdict.
granzymes 8 minutes ago [-]
My own thoughts:
If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point.
His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019.
Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into Tesla. His complaints fell flat for me given the number of emails where he said that a non-profit was likely a mistake.
This is technical, but Musk clearly never created a charitable trust, which was a precondition for his claims. His funds were donated for general use by OpenAI, not for any specific use that would allow him to claim breach of charitable trust. Also, all of his funds were spend by no later than 2020 which is before his alleged breach in 2023.
Musk unreasonably delayed bringing this case until the success of ChatGPT and starting a competing AI company, and he had unclean hands because he attempted to sabotage OpenAI repeatedly by poaching its key staff while on the board.
Arodex 10 minutes ago [-]
>Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.
Why is a hypothetical ground for this decision? "You didn't complain immediately the first time you got robbed, therefore all the robbing since then is covered by a statute of limitation".
granzymes 5 minutes ago [-]
The statute of limitations exists to prevent unreasonable delay, to protect defendants from prejudice due to loss of evidence to the passage of time, and to recognize that people who are injured tend to complain immediately and not sit on their claims.
This case demonstrates why. Musk only complained after OpenAI was commercially successful with ChatGPT and after he started a competing effort. He repeatedly said “I do not know” and “I do not recall” on the stand, and argued that the passage of time made it hard for him to remember facts that would have been helpful for OpenAI.
Arodex 1 minutes ago [-]
I know why statutes of limitation exist. I was wondering why it applied here. Apparently it wasn't completely straightforward, as nine jurors were needed to reach a decision on that point, instead of a single judge or even clerk.
chipsrafferty 6 minutes ago [-]
There are multiple reasons why statutes of limitations exist, one of them being that the further away in time, the harder it is to prove evidence. Witnesses may have died, or their memory may be more faulty.
hnfong 2 minutes ago [-]
Also criminal liability is generally handled differently. Some jurisdictions have no limit, and where the limits exist for criminal liability, limitations on serious crimes can be much longer than the civil ones.
mustaphah 38 minutes ago [-]
The strongest evidence against Musk was Musk. His own 2017 emails supporting for-profit chats made the "betrayal" narrative very hard to sell.
dzonga 34 minutes ago [-]
Muskys problem is does things in the moment as a way to increase popularity without thinking that end up bitting him.
e.g the twitter thing - forced to buy when he didn't want.
Freedom2 22 minutes ago [-]
I wonder if a more "hardcore" team, by his words, would have handled this legal case better?
19 minutes ago [-]
exe34 30 minutes ago [-]
To be fair, twitter ended up useful for him when he used it to buy his way into the US government and close down all the departments that were investigating his companies for breaking all sorts of laws.
bonesss 24 minutes ago [-]
As a business transaction: Twitters acquisition is among the worst deals in human history.
As means to buy an election an Presidency: highly efficient use of capital with an undeniable short and long-term ROI.
nebula8804 3 minutes ago [-]
Too early to write closing arguments on this. A vengeful future administration might make us realize that the entire transaction was a huge mistake.
BeetleB 11 minutes ago [-]
> Twitters acquisition is among the worst deals in human history.
That he won't have to pay for. Shareholders will, as part of the SpaceX IPO.
ngruhn 23 minutes ago [-]
On the other hand, buying twitter was the turning point for his public image. Before that, he was Tony Stark. Now he's Lex Luthor.
nebula8804 1 minutes ago [-]
Key word being public. People from the industries he operates in were screaming from the rooftops about him for years. Tech people chose to actively ignore their colleagues in automotive and space. I remember the circumstances that led to the creation of /r/realtesla.
outside2344 22 minutes ago [-]
And the Trump thing, which cratered his car business
shimman 21 minutes ago [-]
Yeah but he was able to personally make the call to kill millions of people around the world, he's just going back to his roots.
blurbleblurble 18 minutes ago [-]
I don't believe in racial essentialism myself but I know someone who does
*ducks to dodge downvotes for not only making a bad dad joke but a political one*
tahoeskibum 30 minutes ago [-]
Did you read the article:"...that his lawsuits had been filed too late."
mustaphah 30 minutes ago [-]
Extreme smartness has its own failure modes
tombert 2 minutes ago [-]
I'm not convinced he's all that smart. Space datacenters seems like an unbelievably stupid idea to me, and I cannot imagine anyone who is ostensibly surrounded by tech seriously considering it. Well, no one sober anyway.
jjordan 22 minutes ago [-]
There was no decision made on this basis. It was dismissed entirely due to the elapsed statute of limitations.
ls612 18 minutes ago [-]
He lost the lawsuit on a legal technicality about the statute of limitations not on substantive grounds.
tahoeskibum 30 minutes ago [-]
Anybody read the article:"...that his lawsuits had been filed too late."
pj_mukh 15 minutes ago [-]
Wait but that’s the crux of his argument that he was “wronged”. Not “wronged but only once xAI started competing with OpenAI”. He can’t prove the former, if the latter is true.
If anyone is/was truly still wronged by OpenAI changing corporate structure they are still able to sue and prove damages. Yet surprisingly no one has come forward on this.
modeless 20 minutes ago [-]
Yeah people are going to make up a lot of reasons why Elon lost that have nothing to do with the actual and very simple reason.
dcow 19 minutes ago [-]
Right. Nobody cares whether Musk won or lost (well maybe a few do). People actually following the case wanted to know whether OpenAI would be held in any way accountable for anything. And this “resolution” does not satisfy. Before Musk got involved, what happened at OpenAI was a BigProblem for many people.
alok-g 5 minutes ago [-]
The lawsuit side, genuinely asking, how does the for-profit under non-profit setup work? What are the respective roles? Is the combination effectively a non-profit still? Or is this some kind of legal loophole to make profits under a non-profit?
jgalt212 47 seconds ago [-]
Who cares if the plaintiff or defendant won? The trial had great expository value regarding all the players involved.
thesdev 9 minutes ago [-]
I hope he appeals. Not cheering for Musk, cheering for the fight.
enraged_camel 8 minutes ago [-]
There's nothing to appeal. Statute of limitations is... just that.
paulpauper 4 minutes ago [-]
For criminal cases at least, the statue of limitations is not set in stone. But probably for civil, its much more cut and dry.
2b3a51 40 minutes ago [-]
Reached for comment by TechCrunch, Musk’s lead counsel Marc Toberoff said, “One word: Appeal.”
One wonders on what grounds?
In the UK, in a civil case like this, the judge I think comments on the likelihood of an appeal avenue once the verdict has been reached.
ryandrake 37 minutes ago [-]
To be fair, is there any corporation or high net worth individual ever who, after losing a lawsuit, said “You know what, we accept the court’s decision that we were wrong and will be reflecting on how to do better in the future.”
Never. That never ever happens.
Legend2440 38 minutes ago [-]
On the grounds of "I have infinite money and lawyers to drag this thing out forever, whether I'll win or not."
There is, but it's a pretty high bar to clear. Merely exhausting one's appeals does not qualify as vexatious. He could keep going for years as long as his lawyers make vaguely plausible arguments each time.
artninja1988 28 minutes ago [-]
To any lawyers in here, is there an argument to be made for the statue of limitations not to apply here
duskwuff 32 minutes ago [-]
> One wonders on what grounds?
Invent a time machine; send a lawyer back to file a new lawsuit within the statute of limitations.
colechristensen 26 minutes ago [-]
He lost on the grounds of a statue of limitations defense which is exactly the kind of thing which is easily appealable.
frankchn 2 minutes ago [-]
In this case, I think it is a jury's finding of fact re: the statute of limitations. Unless the appellate court finds that the trial court and jury is clearly erroneous, it will usually give significant deference to that finding.
qyph 18 minutes ago [-]
Are you a lawyer? IANAL but my understanding is it would be difficult for an appeal to succeed. Appeals courts only evaluate review matters of law, not of fact. Whether is has been more than the 3 year limit the statute of limitations places is a matter of fact I think. And the advisory jury makes this much harder to appeal. What do you think the grounds for appeal will be?
enraged_camel 7 minutes ago [-]
Pretty sure it's the opposite: appeals mostly only work when the decision is not clear cut, and the statute of limitations is.
pixl97 28 minutes ago [-]
Typically if they bring up a case like this a judge again will get pissy and dismiss it with prejudice.
You can try to file it again, but that gets to the point where the judge can throw your ass directly in jail for 30 days, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.
cityofdelusion 15 minutes ago [-]
This should clear the path to the IPO and lead to a VERY profitable payday for those holding OpenAI equity. Millionaires and billionaires will be minted ~one year from now.
cubefox 12 minutes ago [-]
So you are allowed to violate the law if you aren't sued quickly enough.
pocksuppet 7 minutes ago [-]
Yes. This has always been, and will always be, the case. It's the same in things like copyright law - you can violate any software license if the copyright holder doesn't know you're doing it, or doesn't want to sue you, or doesn't sue you in time. It's the same with taxi medallions or hotel regulations if you're trying to start Uber or AirBNB.
cubefox 34 seconds ago [-]
What Altman and Brockman did still seems highly unethical.
tskj 18 minutes ago [-]
Annoying that it had to be Musk to take this fight, but isn't it very unfortunate that OpenAI is allowed to do this non-profit whoopsie we're now a for-profit thing?
energy123 15 minutes ago [-]
Laws were broken?
33 minutes ago [-]
tptacek 27 minutes ago [-]
I think a lot about how there's a very plausible alternate history where Elon Musk controls most of the frontier of AI.
Aurornis 21 minutes ago [-]
I've thought about that, too, but it would require that all of the key individuals at OpenAI would have been willing to stay at OpenAI under his ownership.
That seems unlikely to me given how divisive he is. OpenAI already had one existential leadership crisis without Musk. I doubt it would have fair better under his notoriously difficult leadership. If he had wrestled control away, I would expect an exodus of employees going to new companies.
Hikikomori 16 minutes ago [-]
They're willing to work under the current snake, even got him back after he was removed, so why not musk?
paulpauper 3 minutes ago [-]
This is what he Grok hopes to become, but probably too late
sanderjd 22 minutes ago [-]
There but for the grace of god go we...
dragontamer 21 minutes ago [-]
You speak as if Elon Musk didn't buy tons of AI chips for full self driving (Dojo) and COMPLETELY flub it.
It's the same as always. Musk himself is an awful business man. He relies upon buying the success of others and taking over. Outside of that, he's kind of awful. Initiatives started by Musk himself almost inevitably fail.
fastball 9 minutes ago [-]
Tesla wasn't "successful" before he "took it over" (read: invested most of their seed capital and ran the actual day-to-day operations).
SpaceX, founded entirely by him alone, is also the most valuable space technology company on earth, so...
pizzafeelsright 8 minutes ago [-]
10 years returns
S&P 500 (index of all those better than Musk): 261%
Tesla: 2700%
Disclaimer: My portfolio is 65% Tesla.
Calavar 3 minutes ago [-]
GME also beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Is this evidence that Ryan Cohen is a business genius?
Tesla has been a meme stock for about five years now, maybe more. Its valuation correlates with Musk's abilities as a showman and media figure, not a businessman.
HardwareLust 18 minutes ago [-]
And how much worse things would be if that had come to pass?
geek_at 16 minutes ago [-]
why would he run Anthropic?
paxys 36 minutes ago [-]
> A nine-person jury found that Elon Musk did not bring his lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman until after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations.
Intersting outcome. So it's more of a dismissal on technical grounds rather than a complete loss.
sdenton4 36 minutes ago [-]
A dismissal on technical grounds, which is also a complete loss.
mrcwinn 47 minutes ago [-]
Advice for Elon: you can actually use ChatGPT on the web or the desktop app to schedule reminders for you, like "file lawsuit against OpenAI."
jordanb 43 minutes ago [-]
The consequences of relying on grok..
LarsDu88 33 minutes ago [-]
Did you not read the article at all? He had to do this in 2021, well before such GPT apps existed.
freejazz 28 minutes ago [-]
That's not what the article stated. The jury had to find that the harms occurred prior to certain dates in 2021, not that Musk had to file before then.
dirtbagskier 43 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
mugivarra69 29 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
rvz 44 minutes ago [-]
Sam is just too good at this game and as I said before [0] is far worse than Elon and also outsmarted him.
Of course this will be appealed but, as you see the claims just don't stick.
I’m not a Sam Altman fan, but I think it’s debatable if he’s worse than the guy who did a sieg heil at a political rally
armchairhacker 40 minutes ago [-]
Why do you think Sam is worse than Elon?
cozzyd 30 minutes ago [-]
Presumably better at being devious. Elon is sloppy...
trilogic 38 minutes ago [-]
Elon Musk lost? Judging by historical facts he nails it all the time, he is a winner. OFC California can´t cut it´s life line supply, but they will need to compromise somehow, Elon plan is ongoing :)
Edit: He will surprise everyone like always
iamkrazy 38 minutes ago [-]
It's funny how they are still calling it "open"AI.
> OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.
> Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact. We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, as broadly and evenly distributed as possible.
> We publish at top machine learning conferences, open-source software tools for accelerating AI research, and release blog posts to communicate our research. We will not keep information private for private benefit, but in the long term, we expect to create formal processes for keeping technologies private when there are safety concerns.
This was pretty much the quality of Elon's argumentation in court. Turns out "getting sick dunks" wins likes on Twitter, but it doesn't win lawsuits.
dbbk 36 minutes ago [-]
They have open models
wotsdat 36 minutes ago [-]
lol
foofyter 42 minutes ago [-]
He didn’t lose anything, it was a technicality that is up for interpretation. It’ll be appealed for sure. Both sides would agree with that.
russellbrandom 41 minutes ago [-]
He lost in the sense that he filed a lawsuit and that lawsuit was dismissed.
It seems like a reasonable way to use the word, no?
donkyrf 38 minutes ago [-]
Obviously so.
You're either responding to an LLM or a badly malfunctioning human.
stirfish 30 minutes ago [-]
An account that's two minutes old, defending Elon Musk in a way that makes no sense.
foofyter 27 minutes ago [-]
Attacking me instead of looking at the evidence makes no sense.
jonlucc 9 minutes ago [-]
You didn't cite any to look at?
18 minutes ago [-]
petesergeant 31 minutes ago [-]
I think it's fair to say the headline misleads, even if technically accurate. My initial read was that he had lost on the merits of the case, and not "jury rules Musk sued too late".
Legend2440 39 minutes ago [-]
He can appeal if he wants to, but if he had a good argument for why the statute of limitations shouldn't apply, he would already have brought it up.
Odds of him winning on appeal are low.
LastTrain 28 minutes ago [-]
Sure, losing is winning. I mean what are words anyway?
jhatemyjob 16 minutes ago [-]
Yep. Headline is clickbait. Never bet against Elon.
39 minutes ago [-]
loxodrome 33 minutes ago [-]
Ending a trial over a bureaucratic technicality is not good justice.
paxys 30 minutes ago [-]
Statute of limitations is not a "bureaucratic technicality", it is the law.
Arodex 14 minutes ago [-]
Then why did the American justice system needed nine jurors when a clerk could have sufficed?
The American judicial system is completely Byzantine and rotten, from top to bottom. Worse than many third world countries.
jonlucc 3 minutes ago [-]
There are questions of fact involved, and the judge empaneled the jury to resolve the factual dispute. In this case, when did the clock on SoL start ticking? Was it tolled for any amount of time to extend the date? Those are more than just counting 3 years on a calendar.
wagwang 25 minutes ago [-]
Can some lawyer explain the rationale of statute of limitations? Like why does a robber get to get away with the crime if they are able to evade the police for x number of years. Is it just because the trials suck after a while cuz no one remembers anything?
throwway120385 17 minutes ago [-]
The easier scenario to think about where statutes of limitation really make sense is in collection of payment through the court system. Suppose you buy something on post-payment terms and then the supplier bumbles around forgetting to bill you for it. At what point should you reasonably be expected to pay the bill? In my state you get 7 years, and I think that's probably pretty generous because it covers the entire tab from when you get the thing to when you start a proceeding in court.
For a robbery that doesn't involve a weapon I think we should generally forgive and forget if it's been long enough. Nobody cared enough to bring action in court for whatever reason, and it would be awful for someone in their 40's to be jailed and brought into court for something that happened in their 20's. At that point if the government fails to prosecute that's on them, and on us for failing to hold them accountable. But 20 years is a long time and people can change over that timespan, so it probably doesn't make sense to hold a grudge for that long.
There are especially egregious crimes that have no statute of limitations like murder and sexual assault, but we might find our society better off for keeping the statute of limitations for injuries that we can recover from.
badlibrarian 13 minutes ago [-]
Evidence degrades, memories fade, witnesses die. Generally the worse the crime, the longer the statute of limitations. Murder in most places has no limit.
Also, if someone hasn't committed a crime in, say, 20 years, there's questionable need to lock them up for three years to deter the behavior. Goal is to optimize the overall system even if some people slip through the cracks.
qyph 13 minutes ago [-]
Not a lawyer but generally it is as you say: "because the trials suck after a while cuz no one remembers anything". It's not fair to have a trial when the evidence is unreliable because of the flow of time.
Encouraging timely action is another factor. Generally people with real harms will file sooner than later, otherwise why wait?
It's also to grant peace of mind -- so people can stop worrying about potential litigation after some amount of time.
nradov 15 minutes ago [-]
Are you asking about criminal or civil law? This was a civil case. The general reason for imposing filing time limits is that it's better for businesses and society in general to have certainty about outcomes rather than perfect justice. If a plaintiff tries to dredge up old issues from many years ago it just wastes everyone's time and clogs up the court system.
repelsteeltje 7 minutes ago [-]
+1
Wasting everyone's time and clogging up the court system perfectly describes the heart of this matter. Plain bullying and hype.
sobellian 10 minutes ago [-]
Not a lawyer, but - fugitives don't get to run the clock on statute of limitations.
tim333 14 minutes ago [-]
To a large extent.
wvenable 12 minutes ago [-]
That's definitely one of the reasons; evidence gets worse over time. Memories fade, witnesses die or become unavailable, documents get lost or destroyed, and physical evidence degrades. In this case specifically which is centred around a lot of discovery of emails and text chats, you can imagine that in other 5-10 years a lot of that discovery might become impossible to get and could drastically alter the outcome of the case.
It's also generally considered unfair for someone to have an indefinite threat of being sued or prosecuted hanging over them when their ability to defend themselves gets weaker over time. Limitations discourage strategic delays or using old claims as leverage far into the future. Without limitation periods, old business transactions could be reopened forever, estates could never fully settle, people and businesses would face constant uncertainty.
Ultimately, the courts are just better at resolving current disputes than reconstructing old ones.
jacobp100 25 minutes ago [-]
It can be both
dcow 24 minutes ago [-]
I am absolutely certain that if Sam was suing xAI and the case got dismissed on a technicality people would be lined up with screeds about the injustice of the situation.
tim333 6 minutes ago [-]
I think it would depend on the facts of the case. This one seemed a bit of a non case. Quote from a law expert in the FT which I thought good:
>the spectacle of these two multibillionaires fighting about power and money has distorted and obscured what the law is meant to care about here, which is the public interest
That's just a point about how any Sam-boosters are.
newaccountman2 12 minutes ago [-]
If you consider a statute of limitations to be a mere bureaucratic technicality, then you might as well say we shouldn't have the entire Anglo-American legal system.
Moreover, there is no "justice" here either way--it's just rich people suing each other.
freejazz 29 minutes ago [-]
The jury found against Musk - what exactly are you talking about?
pixl97 27 minutes ago [-]
Like any case involving legal matters, they are talking about things they deeply do not understand.
freejazz 18 minutes ago [-]
More shocking than the sheer incorrectness of the legal analysis I see here often is the confidence with which it is offered.
25 minutes ago [-]
jdw64 12 minutes ago [-]
It turns out 'stealing a charity' is strictly defined in California law as 'commercializing it with Microsoft instead of my car company.' Glad we finally got that clarified
Rendered at 18:34:37 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims. The jury answers only yes/no questions, so we do not know their exact thoughts, but it is likely they determined that the 2019 and 2021 Microsoft deals were too similar to the 2023 Microsoft deal that was the centerpiece of Musk’s lawsuit. Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.
Because the statute of limitations is a precondition, the jury was not asked to find any other facts. They may tell the press what they thought on other issues, or they may not.
The judge was prepared to immediately accept the jury’s finding, and said she agreed that the jury’s decision was supported by the evidence.
It is possible for Musk to appeal, but success is vanishingly unlikely. Whether Musk’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations is a quintessential question of fact, and appellate courts are extraordinarily deferential to factual findings by juries so as a practical matter it’s almost impossible to appeal this verdict.
If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point.
His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019.
Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into Tesla. His complaints fell flat for me given the number of emails where he said that a non-profit was likely a mistake.
This is technical, but Musk clearly never created a charitable trust, which was a precondition for his claims. His funds were donated for general use by OpenAI, not for any specific use that would allow him to claim breach of charitable trust. Also, all of his funds were spend by no later than 2020 which is before his alleged breach in 2023.
Musk unreasonably delayed bringing this case until the success of ChatGPT and starting a competing AI company, and he had unclean hands because he attempted to sabotage OpenAI repeatedly by poaching its key staff while on the board.
Why is a hypothetical ground for this decision? "You didn't complain immediately the first time you got robbed, therefore all the robbing since then is covered by a statute of limitation".
This case demonstrates why. Musk only complained after OpenAI was commercially successful with ChatGPT and after he started a competing effort. He repeatedly said “I do not know” and “I do not recall” on the stand, and argued that the passage of time made it hard for him to remember facts that would have been helpful for OpenAI.
e.g the twitter thing - forced to buy when he didn't want.
As means to buy an election an Presidency: highly efficient use of capital with an undeniable short and long-term ROI.
That he won't have to pay for. Shareholders will, as part of the SpaceX IPO.
*ducks to dodge downvotes for not only making a bad dad joke but a political one*
If anyone is/was truly still wronged by OpenAI changing corporate structure they are still able to sue and prove damages. Yet surprisingly no one has come forward on this.
One wonders on what grounds?
In the UK, in a civil case like this, the judge I think comments on the likelihood of an appeal avenue once the verdict has been reached.
Never. That never ever happens.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants
Invent a time machine; send a lawyer back to file a new lawsuit within the statute of limitations.
You can try to file it again, but that gets to the point where the judge can throw your ass directly in jail for 30 days, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.
That seems unlikely to me given how divisive he is. OpenAI already had one existential leadership crisis without Musk. I doubt it would have fair better under his notoriously difficult leadership. If he had wrestled control away, I would expect an exodus of employees going to new companies.
It's the same as always. Musk himself is an awful business man. He relies upon buying the success of others and taking over. Outside of that, he's kind of awful. Initiatives started by Musk himself almost inevitably fail.
SpaceX, founded entirely by him alone, is also the most valuable space technology company on earth, so...
Disclaimer: My portfolio is 65% Tesla.
Tesla has been a meme stock for about five years now, maybe more. Its valuation correlates with Musk's abilities as a showman and media figure, not a businessman.
Intersting outcome. So it's more of a dismissal on technical grounds rather than a complete loss.
Of course this will be appealed but, as you see the claims just don't stick.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41651664
> OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.
> Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact. We believe AI should be an extension of individual human wills and, in the spirit of liberty, as broadly and evenly distributed as possible.
---
https://web.archive.org/web/20180323231344/https://openai.co...
> We publish at top machine learning conferences, open-source software tools for accelerating AI research, and release blog posts to communicate our research. We will not keep information private for private benefit, but in the long term, we expect to create formal processes for keeping technologies private when there are safety concerns.
---
It's about open research.
https://openai.com/research/index/
It seems like a reasonable way to use the word, no?
You're either responding to an LLM or a badly malfunctioning human.
Odds of him winning on appeal are low.
The American judicial system is completely Byzantine and rotten, from top to bottom. Worse than many third world countries.
For a robbery that doesn't involve a weapon I think we should generally forgive and forget if it's been long enough. Nobody cared enough to bring action in court for whatever reason, and it would be awful for someone in their 40's to be jailed and brought into court for something that happened in their 20's. At that point if the government fails to prosecute that's on them, and on us for failing to hold them accountable. But 20 years is a long time and people can change over that timespan, so it probably doesn't make sense to hold a grudge for that long.
There are especially egregious crimes that have no statute of limitations like murder and sexual assault, but we might find our society better off for keeping the statute of limitations for injuries that we can recover from.
Also, if someone hasn't committed a crime in, say, 20 years, there's questionable need to lock them up for three years to deter the behavior. Goal is to optimize the overall system even if some people slip through the cracks.
Encouraging timely action is another factor. Generally people with real harms will file sooner than later, otherwise why wait?
It's also to grant peace of mind -- so people can stop worrying about potential litigation after some amount of time.
Wasting everyone's time and clogging up the court system perfectly describes the heart of this matter. Plain bullying and hype.
It's also generally considered unfair for someone to have an indefinite threat of being sued or prosecuted hanging over them when their ability to defend themselves gets weaker over time. Limitations discourage strategic delays or using old claims as leverage far into the future. Without limitation periods, old business transactions could be reopened forever, estates could never fully settle, people and businesses would face constant uncertainty.
Ultimately, the courts are just better at resolving current disputes than reconstructing old ones.
>the spectacle of these two multibillionaires fighting about power and money has distorted and obscured what the law is meant to care about here, which is the public interest
(https://www.ft.com/content/846479c8-4ab0-4812-a1d5-08abdd8b9...)
Moreover, there is no "justice" here either way--it's just rich people suing each other.