OpenAI's for-profit U-turn apparently isn't enough for Elon Musk
Elon Musk apparently is not satisfied with the announcement that OpenAI (OPAI.PVT) would ensure its nonprofit remains in control of the artificial intelligence upstart.
Musk's lawyer, Marc Toberoff, said OpenAI's latest corporate reshuffling plan changes nothing about Musk's legal claims against the creator of ChatGPT, according to Reuters and Bloomberg.
Toberoff told the media outlets that transitioning OpenAI's profit-seeking limited liability company to a public benefit corporation amounts to a "transparent dodge" that fails to address the core issues in Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI and that it "changes nothing."
Musk, who helped start OpenAI and is also the CEO of Tesla (TSLA), has alleged that transitioning OpenAI to a for-profit business would violate OpenAI's legal responsibility to carry out its original mission of ensuring artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.
According to Toberoff, OpenAI's new restructuring plan would still violate its mission if it continues to develop closed-source AI, rather than open-source AI, for the benefit of private parties.
Elon Musk, left, and Sam Altman, middle, in 2015. (for Vanity Fair)
·
Mike Windle via Getty Images
The problem for Musk, Toberoff said, according to the report, is that OpenAI's charitable assets have been, and still will be, transferred for the benefit of private persons, including Musk's co-founder and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Altman's investors, and Microsoft (MSFT).
Bloomberg reported that Microsoft has yet to sign off on the new OpenAI structure.
The decision is bound to impact Musk's ongoing litigation against the startup that on Thursday received a judge's permission to go forward on multiple claims.
It's unclear how the judge, Yvonne Gonzales Rogers, a federal district court judge in California's Northern District, will respond to OpenAI's about-face.
The judge ruled last week that some of Musk's claims against OpenAI could proceed to trial and prevented others from going forward. The case is currently set for trial in March 2026.
OpenAI began in 2015 as a nonprofit under the name OpenAI Inc., a nod to its mission of advancing humanity instead of pursuing profits. Musk helped fund OpenAI with a $45 million donation before leaving the organization.
Things got more complicated in 2019 when Altman and his team created a for-profit subsidiary to raise outside venture capital — including billions from Microsoft.
It was structured in such a way that the for-profit subsidiary, technically owned by a holding company owned by OpenAI employees and investors, remained under the control of the nonprofit and its board of directors while giving its biggest backer, Microsoft, no board seats and no voting power.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
11 startups from YC Demo Day that investors are talking about
At Y Combinator's Spring 2025 Demo Day on Wednesday, nearly every presenting startup had something to do with AI — they're either developing AI agents or creating tools to facilitate their development. Indeed, several founders seem to be taking a leaf out of the pages of several successful AI startups: about half a dozen startups were presenting variations of 'Cursor for X.' For example, Den is building a 'Cursor for knowledge workers,' and Vessence is on its way to make a 'Cursor for lawyers.' It wasn't all only about AI, though. We noticed several startups are working on robotics, which seems to be having a bit of a revival at the moment. Below are some of the startups that caught both investors' and our attention. What it does: SEO for LLMs Why it's a fave: How people search for content is changing, with folks using various AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity to find content. Understandably, brands need to find a way to increase their visibility on these platforms. Anvil claims it helps brands measure, optimize and increase their presence on these AI tools. What it does: Builds 3D chips Why it's a fave: Transistors aren't getting smaller as fast as they used to, so Atum's founders propose the best new way to put more transistors on a chip, and therefore increase processing power, is to stack them in three dimensions. Investors told me that Atum's vision is so revolutionary that the company has a chance to become the next NVIDIA. What it does: Automates enterprise software implementation Why it's a fave: The startup says prominent software vendors like SAP, ServiceNow, AWS and Box have already reached out to use Auctor's solution themselves and potentially for help with integrating software at customer sites. What it does: AI copilot for solopreneurs Why it's a fave: Cactus says people who run businesses all by themselves are often too busy to pursue new opportunities. The startup says its AI bot can take off some of the load by answering calls and accepting payments on your behalf. What it does: Cursor for enterprise knowledge workers Why it's a fave: Investors told me this is one of the hottest companies in the batch. Den promises its AI agents can replace Slack and Notion, enabling a company's employees to interact and share information with software tailored to each enterprise's specific needs. What it does: Automates customer operations with AI Why it's a fave: Eloquent says its AI bots can help customers of financial services companies do things like automatically unfreeze bank accounts or add drivers to car insurance policies. In other words, Eloquent promises an end to long waits for human customer service. The startup claims financial companies can deploy its AI near instantly without needing to involve internal engineering teams. Eloquent has already raised 'a large seed round,' Tugce Bulut, the startup's co-founder and CEO said on the TBPN podcast. What it does: Tooling for evaluation and reinforcement learning Why it's a fave: Evaluating all the new AI tools for quality is snowballing into a big, difficult problem. LLM Data Company says it can help with its own LLMs that can evaluate the quality of an AI agent, and it's already working with customers including Perplexity. What it does: AI-powered Bloomberg terminal Why it's a fave: 'Terminals are dashboards and not thinking tools,' says Amandeep Singh, co-founder of Scalar Field. While the startup's AI agents won't 'think' for you, it claims they can manipulate financial data with more flexibility than existing financial tools. What it does: Quantum accelerated AI servers to speed up AI training and inference Why it's a fave: While a fully functioning quantum computer may still be years away, the industry has been making progress. What caught my eye about Sygaldry is that its co-founder and CEO is Chad Rigetti, who founded and took his company public via a SPAC in 2021. What it does: Vibe coding to build applications Why it's a fave: Investors who saw a demo of Vybe building apps told me that it can create all sorts of cool tools. One person I talked to even called it a 'clear winner' of the batch.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Microsoft plays both 'offense and defense'
Microsoft's (MSFT) recent climb is a result of the tech giant's role as both an artificial intelligence (AI) play and a stable megacap play due to its enterprise business, D.A. Davidson head of technology research Gil Luria tells Brad Smith on Morning Brief. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Morning Brief here.
