Caden Crain age has taken the digital world by storm at the remarkable age of just insert age]. His story...
Elon Musk Takes Legal Action Against OpenAI
Today, Elon Musk Takes Legal Action Against OpenAI, presenting several explosive claims. One of these claims is that GPT-4 is truly an artificial general intelligence. The complaint is quite entertaining, essentially accusing OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman of running a standard tech corporation focused on profit-making, while pretending to operate a nonprofit organization aimed at aiding humanity. This critique offers a solid perspective on the OpenAI situation. At some juncture, a capable attorney with intellectual integrity should consider running for that position.
Legal Strategies and Contract Violation Allegations
#legalstrategies
Unfortunately, Elon Musk takes legal Action against OpenAI isn’t that individual, and his attorneys have found that enabling the richest man in the world to accumulate billable hours by bringing absurd cases is more profitable than fitting the “facts” into the “law,” or doing whatever ordinary lawyers do.
Let’s delve into the lawsuit’s primary cause of action. It claims breach of contract, a matter even first-year law students can grasp. The process starts by establishing the contract’s existence and then defining its terms. Attorneys, in their quest to complicate matters and raise fees, insist on “consideration” — involving an offer, acceptance, and value exchange — as crucial components of a legal contract.
The Significance of Written Agreements
Most significantly, parties must write contracts. The courts disapprove of proving unwritten contracts. They dislike having to establish terms and enforceability in such cases. This is especially true when dealing with highly sophisticated parties with a long transactional history.
My friend Musk is blatantly claiming that OpenAI violated an imaginary contract. It just doesn’t exist! The complaint refers to a “Founding Agreement,” although there isn’t one among the exhibits, and the breach of contract allegation acknowledges that the document is essentially a hunch that everyone saw in a few emails. This is what Musk’s attorneys actually wrote, folks:
The original Articles of Incorporation of OpenAI, Inc., along with the numerous documented correspondences between Plaintiff and Defendants over a multi-year period, memorialize this Founding Agreement.
(Lawyers use the term “memorialized” to mean “written down” because, once again, obscure language is what earns payment.)
The “Articles of Incorporation,” which Elon Musk takes legal action against OpenAI and which are not a contract, are then quoted. They just state the following:
Absence of a Formal Agreement and Intricate Corporate Framework
This corporation’s specific goal is to finance artificial intelligence-related research, development, and technology dissemination. The public will profit from the generated technology.
When appropriate, the company will work to make technologies open source. The corporation was not set up for any individual’s personal benefit.
There is no agreement there. Elon Musk takes legal Action against OpenAI for violating the principles outlined in this document since the company’s complex corporate structure, which involves a nonprofit owning a for-profit corporation, is not a contract.
The breach of contract allegation also makes reference to an email exchange between Elon Musk and Sam Altman in which Altman states that the technology developed by OpenAI will be utilized for “the good of the world,” to which Musk responds, “Agree on all.”
Unpredictable Reactions and Legal Absurdities
When I questioned if any of that resembled a contract, some of my lawyer acquaintances gave me quizzical looks. This mirrors Elon Musk takes legal Action against OpenAI increasing confusion about contract nature. Interestingly, just yesterday, a court informed X’s attorneys that the breach of contract action by the Centers for Combating Digital Hate featured “one of the most vapid extensions of law I’ve ever heard.”
The second reason Elon Musk Takes Legal Action Against OpenAI action is “promissory estoppel,” a concept that intrigues law professors but is rarely encountered in practice. Consequently, this entire complaint resembles more of a 1L test question than a legitimate case. It’s essential to grasp that the world’s wealthiest individual is now trying to persuade a judge that his decision to donate millions of dollars to a foundation without a formal contract was influenced by relying on its promises. It’s quite amusing, to say the least.
The case eventually wanes into a wet fart, with a few broad state claims and a last-ditch cause of action for “accounting” that requires OpenAI to owe Musk money, among other requirements under California law. To put it mildly, this is an odd request for gifts to a nonprofit.
In any case, Elon Musk Takes Legal Action Against OpenAI response will be another 1L favorite—a 12(b)(6) move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim”—which means that this case will likely remain a gold mine for law schools across the nation.
