https://x.com/ns123abc/status/2051132472650354761?s=46&t=QFOWTrWugZO277BPfeUD_w
this is an excellent read and way, way better than any coverage I’ve seen on the trial given how deep the specifics are grounded in actual legal motions and documents.
that said, the author is openly very anti-OpenAI and seemingly very Pro-Elon … so there’s obvious bias from an editorial perspective.
however, the author seems to be very clear and seemingly correct about topics most media coverage gets wrong or ignores altogether:
- the jury’s verdict is advisory, the judge will ultimately decide the case and any actions taken
- The brief Toberoff filed on April 30, walking the court through the charitable-solicitations statute that converts each Altman donation request into a fiduciary trust, is the cleanest answer to the $38M does not justify $134B objection. It does not have to justify it. It has to create the duty. The duty is what travels.
- generally, the drama surrounding or motivations of either OpenAI or Elon Musk seem more for show for a jury who can only advise the judge making the decision based on the law … it has little to do with the matter of OpenAI being founded as a non profit and switched to for profit being legal or not.
- the Elon vs. Sam juicy reality show stuff drives clicks but really doesn’t seem relevant to the legal question of OpenAI’s for profit conversion. outside PR points it seems almost a waste of time for the court …
I wonder if the author is simply over confident in his interpretation of the law or if the media is truly misreading and misrepresenting reality in a way that seems somewhat egregiously foolish …
i’d be curious for Ed to have a legal expert and non biased lawyer annotate this piece … if it holds up to scrutiny and ends up reflecting reality more than the widely seen press coverage, that would be pretty damning …