![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/1778922853_923_LNM-20260427-MUSKVALTMAN-01-2.jpg\")
(AI illustration by Joe Dworetzky\/Bay City News via ChatGPT)<\/p>\n(AI illustration by Joe Dworetzky\/Bay City News via ChatGPT)<\/p>\n
OAKLAND, CA., 5\/15\/26 \u2014 The third week of trial in Elon Musk\u2019s lawsuit against Sam Altman, Greg Brockman and OpenAI finished Thursday with closing arguments.<\/p>\n
The nine-person jury \u2014 six women, three men \u2014 will begin deliberations on Monday and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict in the high-profile trial. Musk\u2019s suit involves the governance of a frontier AI developer as the technology continues to advance toward artificial general intelligence, or AGI. AGI will be achieved when computers are as smart as people in virtually all endeavors.<\/p>\n
Musk claims that his fellow OpenAI co-founders, Altman and Brockman, betrayed the company\u2019s nonprofit mission by opening a for-profit arm for their own personal enrichment. Microsoft is a named defendant for what Musk alleges was aiding and abetting the \u201csteal\u201d of the charity.<\/p>\n
Closing arguments<\/p>\n
Closing arguments are an opportunity for the parties\u2019 lawyers to assume the role of storytellers. The jury has heard all the evidence, but it has not come chronologically nor been organized by subject matter. In their closings, the lawyers from each side extract threads from the evidence to make their cases, weaving the fabric into a comprehensive vision of what it all means.<\/p>\n
READ MORE<\/p>\n
For a deeper dive into the origins of the Musk v. Altman case, see Joe Dworetzky\u2019s four-part report on how OpenAI\u2019s founders went from tech allies to bitter courtroom enemies.<\/p>\n
\u2018Before the Bell Rings\u2019<\/p>\n
Part 1<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part 2<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part 3<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part 4<\/a><\/p>\n In their opening statements three weeks ago, each of the principal lawyers \u2014 Steven Molo for Musk, William Savitt for the OpenAI group, and Russell Cohen for co-defendant Microsoft \u2014 told the jurors their versions of what the evidence would show. In their presentations they hammered on key themes that would be shown in the evidence. In their closings, the lawyers returned to those themes.<\/p>\n For Musk the theme was that Altman and Brockman \u201cstole a charity,\u201d a phrase that encapsulates his claim that they used a charitable enterprise \u2014 OpenAI was formed as a nonprofit \u2014 to unjustly enrich themselves and co-defendant Microsoft.<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s theme was \u201cthis suit is not about concern for humanity; it\u2019s all about Musk.\u201d They kept their focus on what they depict as Musk\u2019s hypocrisy. They claim Musk styled himself as out to protect the world from the risk that AI could be under the control of one company, when he actually aimed to control the technology himself.<\/p>\n Microsoft\u2019s theme was \u201cwe dotted the I\u2019s and crossed the T\u2019s.\u201d Cohen didn\u2019t use that precise phrase, but it reflects his argument that Microsoft did everything appropriately, conducted deep due diligence and never had reason to think that they could not make the investments that it made.<\/p>\n Molo speaks for Musk<\/p>\n After profusely thanking the jury for engaging attentively, Molo started swinging. His primary target was Altman, though Brockman was also pilloried.<\/p>\n Molo reviewed the evidence showing that Altman had a history of lying to and misleading the people he dealt with. He summarized points from his examination of Altman, reminding the jury that one trial witness after another \u2014 including three former board members of OpenAI \u2014 testified that Altman had lied to them and\/or colleagues.<\/p>\n He used that testimony to pose a rhetorical question to the jury. He painted a scene where a person was about to cross a bridge over a deep chasm and asked, \u201cIf the bridge was built on Sam Altman\u2019s version of truth, would you walk over that bridge?\u201d<\/p>\n From there he walked through the main elements of Musk\u2019s claim for breach of charitable trust \u2014 arguing that there was a charitable trust, and that it had been violated. He reminded the jury of evidence that the trust was created by the state charter that established nonprofit OpenAI and defined its mission, as well as by OpenAI\u2019s statement on its website that shared the mission with the world.<\/p>\n He identified Musk\u2019s contributions \u2014 $38 million in cash donations \u2014 and argued that the funds were directed not for general charitable purposes but to support something specific: the pursuit of safe AI for the purpose of benefiting humanity and not for the financial benefit of any individual. He reviewed Musk\u2019s testimony about why these purposes were important to him, bringing out that Musk could have easily set up the company as a for-profit, as he had all the other companies he has formed over the years.<\/p>\n Molo reminded the jury that Musk has long been concerned about the risk that a single owner of super machine intelligence would be very dangerous. He recounted Musk\u2019s meeting with then President Barack Obama to urge \u2014 unsuccessfully \u2014 for regulation, and his meeting with Larry Page, former CEO of Google, who called Musk a \u201cspecies-ist\u201d for being in favor of humankind.<\/p>\n Molo then turned to a delicate subject. Because of concerns about the statute of limitation, he wanted to explain to the jury why Musk was okay with transactions between OpenAI and Microsoft in 2019 and 2021, but not okay with a third transaction between those parties in 2023. He explained that the first two deals were not objectionable because Microsoft\u2019s return on its investments was capped and the amounts were consistent with Musk\u2019s idea of what was appropriate.<\/p>\n In late 2022, Musk learned the terms of a proposed third transaction with Microsoft. He recognized that this deal would be different from the earlier transactions both in its size and in the scope of the grant of rights to OpenAI\u2019s technology. It was so different, he believed, that it amounted to \u201cstealing the charity.\u201d<\/p>\n Molo used Brockman as the poster boy to illustrate the results of the breach. Brockman, he reminded the jury, had promised $100,000 in donations \u2014 hoping to induce other donors to the nonprofit \u2014 but he did not actually make any contributions. Instead, Brockman got a share of equity in the for-profit corporation formed after Musk left OpenAI\u2019s board. Though Brockman did not invest any money, his share today is worth $30 billion, an amount that Molo repeated multiple times to emphasize its enormity.<\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s closing<\/p>\n The legal team for the OpenAI defendants \u2014 OpenAI, Brockman and Altman \u2014 divided their time between Sarah Eddy and Savitt. While the argument was shared, both lawyers went hard at Musk\u2019s credibility.<\/p>\n Eddy began by saying that Musk now claims that he had \u201cstrings\u201d on his donations that go on \u201cforever\u201d and can be used to \u201ctie OpenAI in knots.\u201d She went through Musk\u2019s primary contentions, characterizing each one as unsupported by the evidence or completely \u201cmade-up.\u201d<\/p>\n Eddy went through document after document with granularity, using those exhibits to contradict Musk\u2019s claims. She painted Musk as the only person who testified at the trial \u2014 on either side \u2014 who supported his story about the conditions of his donations. She said that Musk made up his claim that a for-profit had to be \u201ca small adjunct\u201d to the nonprofit, one that occupied a \u201csubservient\u201d role. She supported it with exhibits that showed Musk had no objection to raising sums as large as $10 billion.<\/p>\n She used the discussions among the co-founders in August and September 2017 as a way to reframe Musk\u2019s contentions that the other founders \u2014 Brockman, Altman and Ilya Sutskever \u2014 were scheming to steal the charity. She said that the three ultimately rejected Musk\u2019s demands to prevent Musk from obtaining \u201cabsolute control\u201d over AGI.<\/p>\n Savitt took up where Eddy stopped and savaged Musk\u2019s credibility and his motives.<\/p>\n He also spoke up for Altman, addressing claims that Altman was a liar. Savitt acknowledged that harsh things were said about Altman by other members of the board in November 2023 and that there were problems at OpenAI that had to be addressed, but he suggested that those things were not about safety as Molo had suggested.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are here because Mr. Musk didn\u2019t get his way,\u201d Savitt told the jury.<\/p>\n He concluded by noting that his clients were in court for the closing statements because the case is important to them. He noted that Musk was not present and had only come to court when he testified. He said that Musk was \u201coff somewhere\u201d likely a reference to reports that Musk was in China.<\/p>\n Microsoft\u2019s counsel Cohen<\/p>\n After thanking the jury, Russell Cohen began by stating, \u201cMicrosoft was responsible at every step and did its due diligence.\u201d He went on to repeat the core argument from his opening statement that Microsoft never knew that there were any conditions on Musk\u2019s donations.<\/p>\n Cohen told the jury, \u201cNow you know why. Because they do not exist.\u201d<\/p>\n Cohen then walked through Microsoft\u2019s contributions to OpenAI and explained how they have helped the company achieve its mission. He said they were creating success \u2014 not substantially assisting in a breach of a trust. He asked the jury to recall Sutskever\u2019s testimony that the difference in the technology between 2018 and 2024 was the difference between an ant and a cat, showing a graphic of a very small ant and a very large cat. Cohen noted that the period included much of Microsoft\u2019s involvement.<\/p>\n In his telling, Microsoft\u2019s involvement has led to a \u201cvirtuous cycle\u201d in which Microsoft\u2019s funding fueled success, creating demand for more capital. Microsoft supplied the capital, which in turn spurred more success. He said Microsoft has spent or will spend $100 billion to fulfill its commitments to OpenAI.<\/p>\n He closed with the statute of limitations. Given the date of suit against Microsoft in 2024, the key date was Nov. 14, 2021. If Musk knew or should have known of its claim before that date, his claim is barred. Cohen pointed out that in September 2020, well before the relevant date, Musk tweeted that Microsoft had \u201ccaptured\u201d OpenAI.<\/p>\n What it means, Cohen said, is that Musk is out of time.<\/p>\n He told the jury that when they deliberate, \u201cJust remember the tweet.\u201d<\/p>\n Molo Rebuttal<\/p>\n Molo had much to accomplish during his minutes of rebuttal, and he scrambled to hit as many points as he could in his limited time.<\/p>\n He finished by telling the jury that \u201ceverybody has rights, even a very rich guy like Elon Musk.\u201d<\/p>\n He added that the jury had an opportunity to do something that \u201cnot many people in life get a chance to do: right a wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n At the end of the day, he said, \u201cWe are asking for justice.\u201d<\/p>\n When he finished, the judge gave the jury their instructions and excused them until Monday.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/LNM-20260514-MUSKVALTMAN-03.jpg\")
Of course it\u2019s safe. It\u2019s still in beta, but I built it myself. (AI illustration by Joe Dworetzky\/Bay City News via ChatGPT)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/LNM-20260514-MUSKVALTMAN-04A.jpg\")
It was never about the money\u2026 until it was about the money. (AI illustration by Joe Dworetzky\/Bay City News via ChatGPT)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/LNM-20260514-MUSKVALTMAN-05.jpg\")
Musk demonstrates the principles of string theory. (AI illustration by Joe Dworetzky\/Bay City News via ChatGPT)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/LNM-20260514-MUSKVALTMAN-07.jpg\")
Where\u2019s Musk? Has anyone seen Musk? (AI illustration by Joe Dworetzky\/Bay City News via ChatGPT)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/LNM-20260514-MUSKVALTMAN-06.jpg\")
Justice is blind, but just a few billion would help her see better. (AI illustration by Joe Dworetzky\/Bay City News via ChatGPT)<\/p>\n