Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI uncovers new evidence: a former engineer stole circuit diagrams and instructed colleagues to destroy evidence.

The legal battle between Apple and OpenAI continues to escalate. In its latest court filings, Apple accuses OpenAI of actively destroying key evidence, turning this commercial battle over AI hardware into a fierce confrontation involving evidence-gathering procedures.

According to Bloomberg, Apple filed a lawsuit with the court on Monday alleging that former Apple engineer Chang Liu not only downloaded Apple's confidential circuit schematics but also used them in his work at OpenAI.

Apple also disclosed that Liu had sent instructions to an OpenAI colleague to destroy evidence, and the colleague confirmed that they would cooperate. Apple is asking the court to grant its motion to expedite pretrial evidence collection and to order OpenAI to immediately cease using the stolen trade secrets.

The allegations have further exacerbated the already strained relationship between the two tech giants. The judge is scheduled to hear statements from both sides regarding the motions on October 1st.

Key evidence: A MacBook with delayed handover

Apple disclosed in its filings that OpenAI submitted, "only recently," an Apple-issued MacBook laptop that Liu had been using since leaving the company, after weeks of delays.

Preliminary forensic analysis of the device indicates that "Liu and other personnel within OpenAI were aware of his continued unauthorized access to Apple's third-party cloud storage services."

Apple's lawyers wrote in the filing: "This MacBook represents the extremely limited information the defendant has provided to date—and only after weeks of delay— which demonstrates that Apple is not engaging in 'fishing,' but rather that its trade secrets are being used and evidence is being destroyed."

Furthermore, the device also showed that Liu used a tool with the same name as an internal Apple engineering application for his work at OpenAI. Apple claims that related confidential technical information has been substantially transferred and used.

OpenAI's defense

OpenAI has maintained that it followed industry-standard hiring practices when interviewing former Apple employees and claims that Liu's access to relevant cloud data was solely for the purpose of helping his former Apple colleagues.

OpenAI has released some text message records to support this claim and is seeking to have the case dismissed.

However, Apple has accused OpenAI in its original complaint of encouraging Apple employees to share information, components, drawings and other materials related to unreleased products, while taking measures to cover up such behavior.

Liu is the key figure in this case. He left Apple in January of this year to join OpenAI, and is one of more than 400 former Apple employees who switched to OpenAI.

The deeper background to the falling out between the two powers

This legal dispute reflects a profound shift in the business relationship between Apple and OpenAI.

Over the past year, the relationship between the two sides has shifted from cooperation to confrontation. One of the triggers was OpenAI's recruitment of former Apple chief designer Jony Ive to jointly develop hardware product lines—which directly pushed OpenAI into Apple's traditional core business area.

The first device resulting from this collaboration will be a smart speaker shaped like a donut and about the size of an ice hockey puck, equipped with moving parts to give the product a personalized experience.

Apple is currently seeking monetary damages and an injunction requiring OpenAI to cease its actions and destroy all proprietary materials involved. With the October 1st court hearing date approaching, this landmark legal battle in the tech industry is reaching a crucial juncture.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerInvesting involves risk; please exercise caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.