[phatskat]

> under false pretenses because the other owners deceived you.

Even your bread/pastry scenario doesn’t quite make this part clear. And this is what will be difficult to prove - did OpenAI know and discuss a rug-pull of “we willingly plan to say we’re going to be doing non-profit work, but actually our plan is to be a for-profit company”.

If their pivot was pre-meditated then I could see Musk having a case, but if they pivoted purely from market factors and realizing they wouldn’t be able to cut it as a non-profit, I’d think he’s SOL

[_diyar]

Yes, I agree with your take.

But please reread the comment which is the root of this discussion: > The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company.

I was never arguing that Musk is entitled to damages. I am merely arguing that it is possible to not own the shares of a company and be entitled to damages. Whether Musk specifically is owed damages is something a judge has to decide.