Musk returns to the witness stand: Says he “only read the headline” and did not read the details of the profit transformation plan.

Musk's lawsuit with OpenAI enters its third day. This case may not only reshape the governance structure of the world's most valuable AI company but could directly impact its potential trillion-dollar IPO process.

According to Reuters, during cross-examination in a California court on Thursday, Musk admitted he was aware that OpenAI had early discussions about transforming into a for-profit company, but he did not read the detailed regulations, claiming he was assured by Altman that the company would remain nonprofit.

This statement became the focus of the trial and is the main point for OpenAI to rebut his lawsuit.

Musk seeks $150 billion in damages and demands OpenAI return to its nonprofit status and replace current management.

This case involves major interests for all parties: If Musk wins, OpenAI’s governance and its path toward IPO will face fundamental changes; if he loses, it will further consolidate the for-profit transformation led by Altman.

Meanwhile, Microsoft, as one of OpenAI's largest investors, is also a co-defendant after being accused of assisting in violating charitable trust.

Musk: "I only read the headline, not the details"

The most dramatic moment of the trial occurred during OpenAI lawyer William Savitt’s cross-examination of Musk.

Savitt presented Musk with a term sheet dated August 31, 2017, forwarded by Altman, which described OpenAI’s structure for transitioning from a nonprofit to a "for-profit entity governed by a nonprofit."

Musk, dressed in a dark suit, admitted: "My testimony is, I did not read the details—I only looked at the headline." He further stated that at the time, he was assured by Altman and others that OpenAI would continue to maintain its nonprofit structure.

During the trial, Savitt also cited several emails sent by other OpenAI co-founders to Musk, showing they had discussed the possibility of turning the technology closed-source or profiting from it.

When asked why he failed to notice the company’s shift to for-profit earlier, or why he did not file suit sooner, Musk showed obvious dissatisfaction.

"When you keep interrupting me, it's rare for an answer to be fully expressed," Musk told Savitt. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers then advised Savitt to allow Musk to answer fully, but also rejected Musk's complaint that the other side used leading questions.

Core of the Lawsuit: Dispute over Misappropriation of Charitable Assets

In the suit, Musk accused OpenAI, Altman, and President Greg Brockman of promising to "build a nonprofit organization prioritizing AI safety" to secure his $38 million donation and personal support, then later turning to for-profit motives for personal gain.

On this basis he filed claims of violation of charitable trust and unjust enrichment, also suing Microsoft for assisting in violating the charitable trust. Musk stated in court:

"I believe you shouldn't turn a nonprofit into a for-profit company. There's nothing wrong with a for-profit organization, but you can't steal a charitable institution."

Musk further pointed out that the for-profit entity had essentially seized OpenAI’s core assets. "The value lies in the for-profit company—it has taken most of the nonprofit’s value," he said.

Aside from damages, Musk also seeks to return OpenAI to nonprofit status, demands Altman and Brockman be removed from executive positions, and Altman be removed from the board. The compensation will be allocated to OpenAI’s charitable fund.

OpenAI Strikes Back: Musk Intends to Control, And Boost xAI

OpenAI presents a completely different narrative at court. The company believes after leaving the board in 2018, Musk became strongly jealous of OpenAI’s business success; his true motive is to control the company and thereby benefit his own AI company, xAI.

OpenAI points out that while Musk was on the board, he never prioritized safety issues, and xAI currently lags far behind OpenAI in user numbers. Musk also admitted during the trial that xAI used OpenAI to train its own models, describing this as "standard practice to benchmark one’s AI against another AI."

When Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo requested that "AI human extinction risk" be admitted as evidence, Judge Gonzalez Rogers responded with irony:

"I think it’s somewhat ironic that despite these risks, your client is founding a company in exactly the same field."

The judge ultimately decided not to accept the expert testimony, stating: "This case is not about the safety risks of artificial intelligence."

Case Outlook: Multiple Witnesses Await, Verdict May Impact OpenAI IPO

OpenAI was founded in 2015, originally operated as a nonprofit lab out of Brockman’s apartment. It is now valued at over $850 billion and is preparing for a potential IPO.

If Musk’s lawsuit is supported by the court, it will have a substantial impact on the company’s IPO path and valuation prospects.

The trial began Monday and is expected to last several weeks. After Musk testified for over two hours on Thursday, his chief assistant Jared Birchall took the stand. Reportedly, the witness list includes Brockman and AI safety expert Stuart Russell.

Altman and Brockman attended and listened throughout Musk’s testimony. The ultimate direction of the trial will largely determine the future fate of the world’s most watched AI company.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market involves risks, and investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account individual users' specific investment objectives, financial circumstances, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints or conclusions herein fit their own situation. Investing accordingly is at your own risk.