These guys are betraying their promise.
In a federal courtroom in Oakland, Elon Musk took the stand against the company he once helped birth, calling himself a fool for trusting that a promise made in the idealism of 2015 would survive the gravitational pull of billions of dollars. The lawsuit against OpenAI cuts to a question as old as human ambition itself: when a noble mission meets extraordinary wealth, which one yields? The trial's outcome may determine not only the fate of two powerful men, but the architecture of an industry that will shape generations to come.
- Musk testified under oath that OpenAI's leadership quietly abandoned a founding promise to remain a nonprofit, leaving him feeling deceived after contributing $38 million to the venture.
- OpenAI fired back, arguing Musk's lawsuit is less about broken ideals and more about sabotaging a rival while his own competing AI company, xAI, races to catch up.
- The courtroom grew tense as Musk sparred with opposing counsel over emails suggesting he once entertained a for-profit model himself, snapping that the questions were designed to trick him.
- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers cut through the theater with a laugh, but the stakes remain grave — Musk's legal victory could unseat CEO Sam Altman and freeze OpenAI's IPO plans.
- A company now valued at over $85 billion hangs in the balance, with the trial's four-week arc set to decide who controls the future of artificial intelligence.
Elon Musk sat in a federal courtroom in Oakland and described himself, without apparent irony, as a fool. He was testifying in his civil lawsuit against OpenAI — the company he co-founded and funded with $38 million — alleging that its leadership, including CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, had betrayed a foundational promise to keep the organization a nonprofit dedicated to human benefit. OpenAI says no such promise was ever made.
Now in its fourth day, the trial is expected to last about four weeks and carries consequences far beyond the two men at its center. Musk is seeking Altman's removal from OpenAI's board, and a ruling in his favor could also derail the company's planned initial public offering — a seismic disruption for an organization now valued at more than $85 billion.
On the stand, Musk traced his relationship with OpenAI's founders through three phases: early enthusiasm, creeping doubt, and a final reckoning in late 2022 when he concluded the company had broken faith with its mission. He said he continued funding the organization after receiving assurances from Altman that it would remain nonprofit — but those assurances, he now believes, were hollow.
OpenAI's legal team offered a sharply different interpretation. They argued that Musk's lawsuit is less a principled stand than a strategic maneuver to weaken a competitor while his own AI venture, xAI, grows. During cross-examination, lawyer William Savitt pressed Musk on early emails suggesting he had once considered a for-profit structure himself. Musk resisted, accusing the questioning of being designed to mislead him. When Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stepped in with a direct question of her own, Musk's combative answer drew a laugh from the courtroom.
Musk also acknowledged he had once sought majority control of OpenAI's board, though he framed this as a temporary arrangement that would naturally diminish as the company matured — much as his stake in Tesla had shrunk over time. OpenAI disputes that any such understanding was ever reached.
What began as a shared conviction that artificial intelligence should be developed for humanity's benefit has become one of the most consequential legal battles in the technology industry's history — a fight over promises, power, and who will be allowed to shape what comes next.
Elon Musk sat in a federal courtroom in Oakland on Wednesday and called himself a fool. He was testifying in his own civil lawsuit against OpenAI, the company he helped launch and funded with $38 million between late 2015 and mid-2017. The case hinges on a fundamental disagreement about a promise: Musk says OpenAI's leadership, led by CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, swore the company would remain a nonprofit dedicated to advancing human progress. He says they broke that promise. OpenAI says they made no such commitment.
The trial, now in its fourth day in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is expected to run about four weeks. What happens here could reshape the artificial intelligence industry. Musk's lawsuit seeks to remove Altman from OpenAI's board. If Musk prevails, it could also derail OpenAI's plans for an initial public offering—a prospect that would fundamentally alter the company's trajectory. OpenAI is now valued at more than $85 billion, a staggering leap from the startup Musk helped seed.
On the stand, Musk described his relationship with Altman and the other founders in three distinct phases. There was initial excitement, then a gradual loss of confidence, and finally, in late 2022, a moment of clarity: "wait a second, these guys are betraying their promise." He said he continued funding the company after receiving assurances from Altman that it would stay nonprofit. But doubt crept in. Eventually, he felt betrayed.
OpenAI's legal team rejected this narrative entirely. Lawyers for the company argue that Musk's challenge is really about something else—an attempt to undercut OpenAI's explosive growth while boosting xAI, the competing artificial intelligence venture Musk launched in 2023. They contend that company leaders never promised OpenAI would remain a nonprofit in perpetuity. During cross-examination, OpenAI lawyer William Savitt pressed Musk on emails he wrote before the company's founding, asking whether a for-profit structure might have made more sense and whether tax deductions factored into his thinking. Musk bristled. "Your questions are not simple," he said. "They are designed to trick me essentially."
When Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers intervened and asked Musk directly whether it was true or false that OpenAI was formed as a nonprofit in December 2015, he said yes—but then pushed back on the premise itself, comparing the question to asking someone if they had stopped beating their wife. The judge cut him off with a laugh that rippled through the courtroom.
Musk also addressed the question of control. He acknowledged that he initially sought a majority stake in OpenAI and four of seven board seats, but he argued this was always meant to be temporary. As the company grew and brought in more shareholders, his stake would naturally dilute, just as his ownership of Tesla had shrunk from a majority to around 15 percent over two decades. OpenAI disputes this account, saying Musk was never given assurances that he would eventually step back from board control.
The falling out between Musk and Altman has been bitter and visible throughout the trial. What began as a partnership between two figures who believed they were building something for humanity's benefit has curdled into a legal battle with enormous stakes. The outcome will determine not just whether Altman stays on OpenAI's board, but whether the company can proceed with its plans to go public—and perhaps, more broadly, who gets to shape the future of artificial intelligence.
Citas Notables
Musk said he felt betrayed after initially receiving assurances from CEO Sam Altman that OpenAI would remain a nonprofit dedicated to human progress.— Elon Musk, testifying in federal court
OpenAI's legal team argues that Musk's challenge is an attempt to undercut OpenAI's growth while boosting his competing xAI venture, and that company leaders never promised permanent nonprofit status.— OpenAI legal representatives
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Musk say he was a fool? What changed his mind about OpenAI?
He funded them for years believing they'd stay nonprofit, focused on human benefit. But he watched the company shift toward profit-making, and he felt lied to. By 2022, he was convinced the founders had abandoned their founding promise.
But OpenAI says they never made that promise. How do we know who's telling the truth?
That's exactly what the trial is supposed to determine. Musk has emails and testimony about conversations with Altman. OpenAI has their own account of what was said and what was always understood. The judge and jury will weigh the evidence.
If Musk wins, what actually happens?
Altman gets removed from the board. OpenAI's IPO plans could collapse. It would be a seismic shift in who controls one of the most powerful AI companies in the world.
Is this really about principle, or is Musk trying to sabotage a competitor?
OpenAI's lawyers argue it's the latter—that Musk wants to slow them down while his own xAI catches up. Musk says it's about a broken promise. Both things could be true. People rarely have just one motive.
Why does it matter to the rest of us?
Because OpenAI is shaping how AI develops and gets deployed. If Musk can control the board, he influences that direction. If he can't, Altman and the current leadership do. The trial is really about who gets to decide what artificial intelligence becomes.