In a recent lawsuit filed by Elon Musk against OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and president Greg Brockman, legal experts are working hard to analyze the claims made. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair competition, all centered around the idea that OpenAI prioritized profits and commercial interests in developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) over its responsibility to protect the public good.
VentureBeat reached out to two legal experts for their insights on the case: Anat Alon-Beck, an associate professor at Case Western University School of Law specializing in corporate law and governance, and James Denaro, an attorney and chief technologist at CipherLaw, a Washington DC-based firm focusing on AI and intellectual property.
The question of whether the OpenAI agreements were well-defined contracts was raised by Denaro. He pointed out Musk’s efforts in the suit to make OpenAI open-source all of its research and technologies. Denaro explained that when Musk was funding OpenAI, he had the expectation that it would be open source. However, enforcing these generalized understandings as well-defined contracts could be challenging.
Denaro also questioned whether the agreements between Musk, Altman, and Brockman clearly specified whether OpenAI could have proprietary for-profit products or a combination of open-source and closed-source technologies. He suggested that the lack of clarity in the agreements might make it difficult for a court to strictly enforce them as contracts.
While Musk has been openly frustrated with OpenAI, Denaro believes that the breach of contract claim is uncertain. He argued that the agreements do not explicitly exclude OpenAI from having closed source technologies or profiting from them. However, Denaro acknowledged that Musk makes a strong policy argument regarding the potential problematic shift for technology start-ups if a company can transform from non-profit to for-profit and transfer intellectual property.
Alon-Beck, on the other hand, expressed no surprise at Musk’s lawsuit. However, she mentioned that as the founder of X.ai and now a competitor to OpenAI, Musk has clear incentives to sabotage the company. She questioned which judge would not see through Musk’s motives. Alon-Beck also argued that the lawsuit should have been brought in Delaware, where all OpenAI corporate and nonprofit entities were formed. Musk’s choice to file in California could lead to a competition between the two states and potentially escalate the case to the Supreme Court.
Regardless of the jurisdiction, Denaro emphasized that enforcing informal agreements and expectations in court is notoriously difficult. He believes that the outcome of the Elon Musk vs. OpenAI case will depend on whether these informal agreements can be enforced, potentially having significant consequences for OpenAI.
In conclusion, the legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI has legal experts divided. While some see challenges in enforcing generalized agreements and expectations, others acknowledge the policy argument Musk presents. The choice of jurisdiction could also add complexity to the case. Only time will tell how this high-stakes debate unfolds and whether it will shape future laws and policies surrounding technology start-ups.
VentureBeat continues to provide a platform for technical decision-makers to stay informed about transformative enterprise technology and engage in transactions.
