SAN FRANCISCO: Tech billionaire Elon Musk sparred with defence lawyers for a third consecutive day on Thursday during his high-stakes California trial against OpenAI. Throughout the proceedings, Musk struggled to articulate how his own for-profit artificial intelligence empire fundamentally differs from the organisation he is currently attempting to dismantle in court.
The tense exchanges prompted U.S. Federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to intervene multiple times, compelling the world’s richest man to directly answer the questions posed to him. The multibillionaire appeared visibly irritated during the morning session, complaining about the opposing counsel’s conduct.
“Few answers are going to be complete, especially when you cut me off all the time,” Musk stated. Tensions further escalated when Judge Gonzalez Rogers reprimanded Musk for attempting to play lawyer by objecting to “leading” questions. Conceding the point, Musk admitted he is not a legal professional, though he drew courtroom laughter by quipping that he had technically taken a “Law 101” class in school.
At the heart of the legal battle is Musk’s accusation that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman abandoned the startup’s founding charitable mission. As an early benefactor who contributed $38 million between 2015 and 2017, Musk is demanding that the ChatGPT creator-now valued at over $850 billion and preparing to go public-revert to its nonprofit status.
This ruling will significantly influence who controls AI innovation in the United States, particularly as OpenAI competes fiercely with industry rivals like Google and Anthropic. During the cross-examination, OpenAI attorney William Savitt attempted to paint Musk’s stance as hypocritical.
Savitt highlighted that Musk’s portfolio-comprising Tesla, Neuralink, X, and his own AI venture xAI, which was recently absorbed into SpaceX-is entirely for-profit, despite being promoted as beneficial to humanity. Unfazed, Musk defended his business model while repeating his core argument: “There’s nothing wrong with having a for-profit organization… You just can’t steal a charity.” He insisted OpenAI should have simply launched as a traditional commercial entity from the beginning.
The proceedings also featured moments of levity and sharp observation. Seizing an opportunity presented by his own attorney, Musk smiled while referencing the apocalyptic film “Terminator,” suggesting the “worst-case situation would be that AI kills us all.”
However, Judge Gonzalez Rogers maintained focus on the business realities, pointing out the irony of Musk highlighting AI risks while actively building a company in the exact same sector.Musk concluded his current testimony on Thursday, though he may be recalled to the stand before mid-May.
Sam Altman, Musk’s former protégé, observed Thursday’s exchanges from the gallery and departed shortly after the testimony ended. Both Altman and Brockman are scheduled to take the witness stand in the coming weeks, with a final ruling on the merits expected by mid-May.
