[granzymes]

Because no one has commented yet on the legal significance:

Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims. The jury answers only yes/no questions, so we do not know their exact thoughts, but it is likely they determined that the 2019 and 2021 Microsoft deals were too similar to the 2023 Microsoft deal that was the centerpiece of Musk’s lawsuit. Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.

Because the statute of limitations is a precondition, the jury was not asked to find any other facts. They may tell the press what they thought on other issues, or they may not.

The judge was prepared to immediately accept the jury’s finding, and said she agreed that the jury’s decision was supported by the evidence.

It is possible for Musk to appeal, but success is vanishingly unlikely. Whether Musk’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations is a quintessential question of fact, and appellate courts are extraordinarily deferential to factual findings by juries so as a practical matter it’s almost impossible to appeal this verdict.

[granzymes]

My own thoughts:

If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point.

His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019.

Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into Tesla. His complaints fell flat for me given the number of emails where he said that a non-profit was likely a mistake.

This is technical, but Musk clearly never created a charitable trust, which was a precondition for his claims. His funds were donated for general use by OpenAI, not for any specific use that would allow him to claim breach of charitable trust. Also, all of his funds were spent by no later than 2020 which is before his alleged breach in 2023.

Musk unreasonably delayed bringing this case until the success of ChatGPT and starting a competing AI company, and he had unclean hands because he attempted to sabotage OpenAI repeatedly by poaching its key staff while on the board.

[DeusExMachina]

As I read around, this lawsuit raised an important question: can a non-profit become a for-profit company?

To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important.

However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.

[rreichman]

There is a well established procedure for these things, happens in hospitals etc. Not a new question a jury needs to address.

[Pingk]

Not related to the story, but that your go-to example of converting to a for-profit organisation is a hospital is horrifying to me

[sigmoid10]

It's also not so easy. The for profit entity essentially has to buy all the previous entity's assets and assume liabilities. Since the assets are considered charitable trusts, the proceeds from the sale then need to go into a new charitable foundation. Regulators also need to approve that the assets were fairly valued and the entire process was free of conflicts of interest. Albeit complicated, the process is pretty straightforward for hospitals. But in OpenAI's case it seems more like they tried to jump through every legal loophole they found.

[philipallstar]

> can a non-profit become a for-profit company?

Presumably a non-profit can move all its staff and its stuff into a for-profit anyway.

[andy_ppp]

Would Musk have standing for asking that question about non-profit to for profit companies? I think this would be a role for the government rather than a private individual and the Trump admin is not exactly fond of enforcing regulations.

[DeusExMachina]

It does not matter what standing Musk has, the question is the important part, not the asker. You can accuse him of hipocrisy and that still makes no difference. He can still be the vehicle for the question to be asked.

The role of the government is to make the laws, and to apply them when violation are reported. It is also to regulate new situations as they arise, for example, if a court decides the law allows a non-profit to become a for-profit and that is deemed as not desirable, new laws can be passed to amend that.

It is the government roles, however, to going around to aks hypothetical questions before they are risen by someone, as there are too many possible hypotheticals, most never materialize, and that would be a conflict of interest. In that case Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided.

The Trump admin is not fond of enforcing regulations as the Biden admin was not fond of enforcing other regulations. That shows you can't expect the govenment to take that role since it's discretionary.

[ryan_j_naughton]

There is a reason standing exists. We don't want a society where anyone can litigate the ill-defined "important questions of society" at will.

I agree with you that this is an important question.

I disagree with you that, "Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided"

Standing is itself a very important and critical concept. If anyone could sue over any “important” public issue without standing, courts would be asked to referee disputes that are normally handled by elections, legislation, agency rulemaking, oversight hearings, and public debate. We don't want the courts to be such arbiters of so many matters and want their purview to be more narrow by design.

[j16sdiz]

> If I had been on the jury, I would have found ...

No, you wouldn't.

The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.

Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.

[trainfromkansas]

Juries are the "finders of fact". That's the phrase often used anyway.

[j16sdiz]

How Jury in USA work is: Judge ask a question, Jury tell the count what they found the "fact" is, based on what is presented in court.

They just can't "found" something when they are not asked. If you tell the count you found something because you saw something outside the court, that would consider invalid.

[trainfromkansas]

Practically speaking, since the jury is composed of multiple individuals, they're set up to express their "findings" via a strictly parameterized form where they check boxes or give numerical inputs.

In its more colloquial sense, I can see why you prefer to call that "answering" questions rather than "finding" facts.

However, it's silly to quibble over the parent thread's author's usage of "found" when it's the dominant phrasing used in the legal system.

[DarkBrocoli]

> The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.

No, it has been decided by the jury https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/572/musk-v-alt...

> Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.

And here the jury has been asked questions about the statute of limitation, which is exactly what the parent commenter is referring to.

[IAmBroom]

It's even more preposterous that you can predetermine what a stranger would have done on that jury.

[j16sdiz]

I am saying the rule in court won't allow that.

The problem is: As a jury, you can't answer the question you ain't asked.

In this case, they jury was instructed to answer a YES/NO question. They can say YES/NO or (sometimes, can't decide). They just can't answer something else. If they do, that is either disregarded, or consider the jury misunderstood the instruction.

You just don't understand how the jury system works.

[DoesntMatter22]

Musk should have just made another company and then he’d have another 500 billion but he had that mistake and now it’s over. Then again we’ll see how well open ai does over the long term

[granzymes]

Evidence at trial showed that Musk attempted to pursue AGI at Tesla starting in 2017 before he left the board of OpenAI. He was unsuccessful in that endeavor and later restarted his efforts in xAI after the success of ChatGPT.

[big_toast]

Musk leaves the board in 2018 I think. And something happens in DX-754 where they've pivoted to AI in SpaceX around then too. I had a lot of trouble telling what "AI" meant in late 2017 at Tesla.

---

Sept 1, 2017 DX-669: Funding paused confirmation. Elon is still on the board for a while. DX-707 specifies the board as of Sept 26, 2017, and even suggests adding Shivon, Jared, Sam Teller.

Jan 31, 2018 DX-748: Elon is still discussing things with Greg. Elon: "The only paths I can think of are a major expansion of OpenAI and a major expansion of Tesla AI. Perhaps both simultaneously"

Feb 3, 2018 DX-754: Sam Teller says Elon "just suggested we use SpaceX email for AI stuff so switching over to that"

Feb 4, 2018 DX-755: Sam Teller and Shivon Zilis discuss disabling Openai

Feb 20, 2018 DX-770: Elon officially leaves board (first document I see specifying)

[this_user]

This is not about money for him, this was always about control. When they wouldn't give him complete control over the project, he pulled out and probably expected OAI to fold without his support. But they survived, and he eventually realised that he had made a huge mistake by giving up all of his influence over SOTA AI research.

[andrei_says_]

I sometimes wonder, what does one need a second 500 billion that the first 500 billion is not enough for?

[aeternum]

Interestingly, during the trial he promised to donate any potential financial winnings to OpenAI's charity.

A move that surprisingly didn't get much press.

[burkaman]

I think you are referring to a tweet on March 16th where he said "Btw, the proceeds of any legal victory in the OpenAI case will be donated to charity. I will in no way enrich myself." Not during the trial, not a donation to OpenAI's charity, and obviously not meaningful given his track record of not following through on public statements.

[aeternum]

It was official, he amended the lawsuit to codify it, read it for yourself: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Musk-...

[oneeyedpigeon]

That man's promises aren't worth a whole lot.

[NikolaNovak]

I genuinely don't know how to make a non-sarcastic statement about Mr. Elon Musk's promises.

I especially struggle to not make a Venn diagram of people who still take Mr. Musk's promises seriously, and current state of American politics.

I simply cannot make a sentence about Mr. Musks promises that will pass Hacker News guidelines of being serious and productive.

...And that's how I feel about Mr. Musks promises, particularly those regarding donations and charities. I think the only way that promise by Mr Musk could've been made stronger, is if it were a Twitter poll :).

[laichzeit0]

You’ve written around the existence of pronouns with impressive determination.

[6510]

Each buck we spend is a vote for a business (which is a bag of ideals and methods) It is surprising that people apparently desire a future where they don't even have to bother listening to those in charge as every word is completely irrelevant. I had considered they don't understand capitalism is quite open to influence but they also do it in elections.

[the_gastropod]

Elon Musk promises a lot of things that never come to fruition.

[dmschulman]

Have we colonized Mars yet? Asking for a friend.

[vixen99]

As a straight answer (for 'one') I'm sure we could think a dozen projects that would ameliorate suffering for countless people before breakfast without trying. However I appreciate that's not your point.

[knicholes]

Getting to Mars, it would seem.

[nicolas_17]

I agree we'd all be better off if SpaceX figured out how to send Musk to Mars ASAP.

[hdndjsbbs]

Does anyone seriously still believe this? I thought as a society we had realized Musk is simply BSing whatever he feels like until it becomes untenable.

[dogscatstrees]

Oh, you mean like:

Solar Roof: https://electrek.co/2026/05/14/tesla-solar-roof-promise-vs-r...

Tesla Full Self Driving: https://electrek.co/2026/05/18/musk-unsupervised-fsd-widespr...

Hyperloop / Boring Company mass-transit vision

Mars settlement timelines

X as an everything app

[JumpCrisscross]

> Does anyone seriously still believe this?

I do. It’s not his singular focus. But he continues to personally invest himself in pushing the boundaries of human spacefaring capability. That goal seems more meaningful to him that it does to e.g. Bezos, who seems to have a rocket company to look cool.

[tim333]

Some things fail but the EVs and rockets have done well. Also Starlink.

[harrall]

Musk is like that person on Facebook you know that is really good at <welding / programming / performing surgeries / etc> then they post about their thoughts on some other topic and all you can respond with is “stay in your lane.”

Musk has been successful is pure engineering efforts led by engineers he hired achieving the next big-but-not-too-big step.

You ignore his thoughts on everything else.

[NikolaNovak]

I genuinely believe he wants to go to Mars. Desperately.

He's fundamentally a very smart socially inept largely sociopathic emotionally immature obsessively driven boy who read a lot of Heinlein as a kid. Everything about him indicates he sees himself as a saviour of humanity and the only person who has their priorities right and everybody should appreciate and adore him and it's so darn frustrating when they don't, oh wait this other party will adore me, now they don't anymore either oh HUMbug.

Do I believe any of his promises? No absolutely not. But I do think Mars is his massive obsession and that he fervently (If completely Implausibly) believes it'll work and help humanity.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Which is why we should start using 'greed' as the primary way we talk about this sort of person.

"Greediest man in the world Elon Musk..." "Captains of Greed" instead of "Captains of Industry" "Larry Ellison, notable for his legendary greed,"

[DoesntMatter22]

To build more cool stuff. Would be great if he did neurolink for cancer

[latexr]

Every <unit of currency> not in your pocket is in someone else’s. Greedy narcissists can’t stand that, they need to have it all. They don’t need the extra 500 billion to spend it, they need it so the number goes up. They need to be number one. At everything. Remember when Musk lied about being one of the top players for some difficult video game, then it turned out he was paying someone else to play for him? It’s just an ego thing, which I agree is baffling.

[_carbyau_]

Yeah, but lets practice some empathy.

Starting point: money can't buy happiness.

So what to do to be happy? Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things. Not that you can't do them, but it's not a meaningful goal to work towards.

They have to create their own meaning, whatever that is.

A billionaire trying to create purpose for themselves can be boring, or weird. Which one gets media coverage?

Gates Foundation, Zukerberg's fitness craze, MacKenzie Scott's philanthropy, Bezos and Musk's [whateverness] are all just variations on a theme. And like all people, some will be better at it than others.

Note though, that they will do what it takes to stay wealthy because what would they be without that?

[latexr]

Greedy narcissists are lacking in empathy, that’s what makes them greedy narcissists.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be empathetic, of course. Someone else’s lack of empathy does not excuse our own. However, consider that billionaires mostly reach that status by exploiting others. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, they all fit that mould. Being empathetic does not mean being a chump. I’m not going to shed a tear for the poor exploitative billionaire who underpays and overworks people to the point they literally die on the floor of their warehouses and others around them are ordered to keep working.

If given the choice to defend the one billionaire who is fucking up the world and billions of lives in the process, or those who are being exploited by said billionaire, I think it’s obvious where one should place their empathy.

It’s not my responsibility, or yours, or anyone but themselves, that they can’t find meaning in life without being massive assholes. Use some of that money to go to therapy. Use it to enhance the lives of others around you, improve your community and you improve your own well being. It’s not that hard, we’ve known for a long time that a way to happiness is to do things for others.

Musk himself has lamented that money does not buy happiness, and after that expressed the desire to become the first trillionaire. I mean, come on…

[kakacik]

> Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things.

Sorry can't agree on this at all. Helping others feels amazing to any sane human being. Doing sports is similar. Experiencing adrenaline sports is similar. Focusing on raising one's kids properly is always exceptionally well-spent time, and feels great if one is not burned out and has some help against overloading with responsibilities. Thats a plenty of meaning for one's life, regardless of fortune.

The fact is, most of those billionaires are broken human beings - various mental issues, imbalances, maniacally competitive, often sociopaths. They can't achieve what society calls 'happiness', regardless of amount of money spent. So they into various status ego competitive 'games'.

I am pretty sure we all met such people in our lives if you looked close enough, I certainly did. Ie one girl I dated even outright laughed at happiness being my life goal, she was such a mess and knew it she rather openly focused on career and money, those were at least somewhat achievable for her. Its logical - if you can't achieve something important, you focus on next best thing, however inferior it may be. And if one surrounds oneself with the right people, one is not constantly reminded how it actually sucks and there is no force in universe to change that.

[lotsofpulp]

Because money is just a proxy for power, and the goal is not to have cash, it is to have power. Perhaps via being able to make decisions at various businesses, or being able to travel to a different planet, or being able to influence other people, etc.

Could also partly be a curiosity to see what one is capable of, or maybe wanting to be known for helming an organization that accomplishes xyz.

[robocat]

Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion? Makes me think of a inverted Zeno's paradox.

Why do you need an extra dollar?

I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].

You need a fukton more than median wealth to be able to protect yourself against your own government.

The type of person that enjoys chasing money doesn't stop.

[A] via capital gains taxes and wealth taxes. Also one needs an excessive amount more to handle progressive taxation and means testing.

[KaiserPro]

> I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].

New Zeeland is an outlier in that it doesn't have capital gains tax.

Its not the end of the world to have captial gains tax.

[robocat]

CGT is fine.

I wasn't trolling, but I have unfortunately deviated from the topic.

What isn't fine is my belief that I'm going to be rug-pulled by my government. From multiple sources I believe New Zealand will tax most savings to smithereens. The lie is that I should save for retirement; when any savings will be taken from me over time via a variety of mechanisms including taxes.

Both our Labour (leftish) and National parties will screw me.

The underlying issue is that our demographics leave little choice to the government. The majority of voters are naturally happy to take everything from everyone who has more than them. Voters are selfish.

Attacking the successful is called the tall-poppy syndrome down here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome (I'm nowhere near successful enough for much backlash - but I do fear it).

I was trying to make a argument based on marginal economics. NZ should be encouraging me to increase my income from export earnings: instead it drastically discourages me. I helped found a startup, so I deeply understand the multiple ways our government discourages us from earning export income. My marginal utility from an extra dollar is already drastically diminished because I already have enough to enjoy my life. The >40% taxation on top (incl GST) reduces my motivation to earn money for NZ to nearly zero. I am not a money chaser and I dislike investing.

After some threshold, money as a marginal value becomes meaningless because other non-monetary factors like politics dominate. It seems like nobody cares how much society profits from you - they only care about their own selfish goals.

[ericmay]

It’s also not the end of the world to not have capital gains tax.

[awesome_dude]

Why did you turn that into a whine about a tax that exists in 31 of 38 OECD economies?

Go to Australia where you pay a stamp duty for buying (to pay for infra) and a CGT for selling

Edit: Changed stamp tax to stamp duty

[abustamam]

I want extra money so I can pay for simple things like food and pay my mortgage and send my kid to a school, and help family members out.

Realistically I probably need $5m and I'd be set for life.

If I had $10m instead of $5m I don't see how my life would meaningfully change.

[scottyah]

That's the difference between builders and consumers. People who are mostly consumers have a realistic number where they could stop contributing to society. Smalltime builders can imagine a lot of wealth, but at a certain point don't want to get too big. Big Dreamers are only limited by what they can imagine and make happen, and only infinite capital, labor, and time could achieve their dreams. Once you surround yourself with people dreaming of humans as multiplanetary, earthly levels of labor and wealth are obviously not going to make it happen.

[mc3301]

Hmm... I think I could be set for life with, like, $1m.

Obviously age, family, lifestyle and current savings matter.

[danaris]

Yeah, no, this is bullshit.

You can't just apply One Simple Rule like this ("more money is always better" / "more money never makes a difference"). There is, objectively, an amount of money above which another dollar, or another billion, will never make a meaningful difference in your overall lifestyle[0].

The amount isn't a single bright line, but like with so many things, there's an area below it where extra money unquestionably improves your quality of life, and an area above it where it unquestionably doesn't.

[0] unless "your lifestyle" involves manipulating major governments and controlling the way people the world over think, which I wouldn't consider a legitimate part of "lifestyle"

[drob518]

Right. But why does everyone assume that a billionaire continues to work for the money? Besides, he doesn’t “work” for the money. He’s the primary shareholder in companies that he founded and funded. He gets another billion and another billion when everyone else puts an increasing value on his shares. Even if Elon “retired,” he’d still continue to get richer.

[rolph]

"Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion"

because thats another 250 billion less for a competitor to use against you.

[robocat]

That is zero-sum thinking.

I'm not sure how one can learn to see the world in a more positive light...

[jamiek88]

> Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion?

Because billionaires are mentally unwell.

[jongjong]

I think this is missing the main point that Musk was never the owner of OpenAI, neither was Sam, nor the employees. The owners are the American people. I presume Musk got a tax rebate from his donation, courtesy of the taxpayer; so did every other donor.

The fact is, OpenAI was a non-profit belonging to the public and it was appropriated by the donors... Who already got their tax cuts.

This is setting a precedent that if you donate a certain amount of money to a charity, you can later convert it to a for-profit and claim to be an owner of the charity... On the basis of 'donations' which you got a tax rebate from. Very convenient.

OpenAI donors should have created a new, separate, for-profit entity completely distinct from OpenAI, with a different name, poached the original employees, implemented all the logic from scratch, collected all the training data from scratch... This would have been correct. Basically what Anthropic did seems more like the correct way.

[susiecambria]

OpenAI Foundation is a corporation established in Delaware. It has received it's 501(c)3 status from the IRS which means donations are deductible to the fullest extent of the law (or some such; it's been a long time since I've had to write that). The American people do not own the foundation.

As for the OpenAI that is a public benefits corporation, I know nothing about all the ins and outs of that type of corporation.

[ryan_j_naughton]

No one owns a nonprofit, so your analogy is fundamentally incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of how nonprofits work.

It is actually extremely important that no one “owns” a nonprofit in the way shareholders own a corporation. A nonprofit has no equity owners. It has directors/officers with fiduciary duties, and its assets must be used consistently with its charitable/public-benefit purpose.

But to be clear, that is in no way equivalent, even metaphorically, to it being "owned by the public".

“Public benefit” does not mean “whatever the median taxpayer would vote for” or “whatever the government currently approves of.” It includes many causes supported by small, unpopular, eccentric, religious, ideological, scientific, or advocacy-oriented communities, so long as the organization fits within an exempt purpose and does not operate for impermissible private benefit.

simple examples can easily elucidate this. One can found a nonprofit for a purpose that society generally disagree with. For instance: - a nonprofit to advocate for the rights of hemorrhagic fevers as living organisms - nonprofit museum devoted to preserving a deeply unpopular ideology’s historical artifacts - a nonprofit to educate the public about an eccentric scientific theory - a nonprofit advocating for legal recognition of some fringe moral concern

All of these could be legitimate nonprofits under the law, even though we may deeply disagree with them. This is by design.

[jongjong]

IMO, those arguments are grasping for specific definitions of 'ownership'. In its essence, the non-profit structure represents the concept of 'public ownership' to the fullest extent possible under the law. Of course, it's missing some characteristics typically associated with private ownership but it has the core component which is "It should serve the public" which mirrors the idea that a corporation should "Serve its shareholders."

I think if the non-profit retained over 50% of the shares of the for-profit subsidiary, a case could have been made that the public-benefit aspect is still dominant. But with only a 26% stake, that argument cannot be made.

[granzymes]

The intellectual property (code, data) was transferred from the nonprofit to the for-profit for about $60M, which is what an independent firm hired to assess the value said the IP was worth in late 2018 / early 2019. The nonprofit itself was never converted to a for-profit, and indeed remains a nonprofit to this day.

The $60M in IP has grown to about a $200B stake in the OpenAI for-profit.

[trivo]

So you're saying that the non-profit (OpenAI Foundation) owns a certain percentage of the for-profit (OpenAI Corporation)?

[dboreham]

The easiest way to think about this is to globally replace "non-profit" with "tax-vehicle". These things are all kinds of company. They just created the company in a tax efficient (for them) way.

[marcus_holmes]

I don't understand your reasoning here. You seem to be suggesting that non-profits are owned by the American people?

Is there some part of this that I'm missing where this was true of OpenAI at some point?

[jongjong]

I'm using the term 'owners' loosely here, but this is a much more reasonable interpretation than the interpretation that the donors are the owners.

[marcus_holmes]

I don't think you understand how non-profits work. Essentially they are exactly the same as for-profits, except they can't issue dividends. Ownership works exactly the same as for-profit companies.

A cynical take is that non-profits are for-salary; they still pay their owners, just using other means.

edit: no, my bad, apparently I misunderstood how non-profits work in the USA. Thanks for the correction :)

[granzymes]

This is not correct. jongjong is correct that a nonprofit does not have owners in the sense that a for-profit has owners. Nonprofits are dedicated to their mission, and are run by a board of directors.

You cannot have a % ownership in a nonprofit because its resources must be used exclusively to carry out its mission. You could have a % control in its decision making process.

[bambax]

I'm unfamiliar with the US legal system but do they really need a jury and a trial to determine whether the claims are barred by the statute of limitations? Couldn't this be decided by a judge before trial?

[compiler-guy]

Part of the Statute of Limitations isn't just on when he filed the claim, but when he found out or should have found out, by reasonable diligence that he had a claim at all.

So the question before the jury has a significant component of "Should he have found out by this time?" Which is a question of fact, and facts are typically decided by juries, in the US at least.

The two parties can agree together to let a judge decide facts like this, but generally, if one or the other party wants it to go to a jury, it does.

I'm guessing part of Musk's strategy was to have it go to the jury, which are often seen as easier to manipulate than judges, especially when a case is weak. Or perhaps his team already knew this particular judge would be inclined to rule against him, so did the next best thing.

[CobrastanJorji]

Also, it's worth pointing out that the jury was obviously correct. Musk was lying his ass off. There is no possible way to imagine that Elon Musk, the hyper-online dude obsessed with news, AI, and AI news, would not be aware of the well-publicized events of a company he was personally massively invested in.

[unholiness]

I'm having a hard time squaring this view with the prediction markets. 500k+ of volume on Polymarket[0] had Elon losing at only even odds until March, 2:1 until May 15th, and 3:1 before the verdict dropped.

It seems to have been widely reported from the start[1] and throughout[2] that the statute of limitations was a key thing Musk's team had to prove. If it was so clear, why did people think this case had legs?

[0] https://polymarket.com/event/will-elon-musk-win-his-case-aga... [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musk-lawsuit-over-o... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/05/14/technology/openai-tr...

[IAmBroom]

Postulate: Prediction markets are not exceptionally good at predicting everything.

[awesome_dude]

If Prediction markets were good at predicting anything, there would be no need for prediction markets (because the future is already clear to everyone).

[compiler-guy]

Prediction markets depend on the "wisdom of crowds", but often the crowd doesn't exercise its wisdom--which is generally pretty good--but instead exercises its wishful thinking or desires.

cf: Sports betting.

[lesuorac]

A lot of people on polymarket thinking something is the case is probably evidence that it's not.

https://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+people+who+los...

[CSMastermind]

Elon argued that even though the events in question took place sometime between 2017 and 2020 OpenAI intentionally hid the information from him until 2022-2023 which is why he wasn't able to file the lawsuit until 2024.

That's what the jury found against - they said he was reasonably informed enough to have brought the suit earlier and thus the 3 year clock should start ticking in 2020 not 2023.

[mrhottakes]

In the US, judges make determinations of law, but juries (in a jury trial at least) must evaluate the evidence to make findings of fact. So the jury would need to make a finding as to when the statute of limitations started ticking based on the evidence, and the judge then makes the legal determination that the statutory period has lapsed.

[cwmma]

In the American system juries figure out questions of fact and judges figure out questions of law.

In this case I guess the question was 'when did the incident actually happen' with Elon arguing it was later then Altman.

[jcranmer]

In the US (I believe all common law systems), the jury is the trier of fact. If there is a genuine factual dispute between the two parties in a lawsuit, then that dispute is resolved by a jury (unless the parties opt-out).

Statutes of limitations are usually not tried by juries because the underlying facts that cause them to kick in are usually not in actual dispute. Instead a fight over statute of limitation is more likely to be over which statute applies or whether some other mitigating circumstance is kicking in, which are matters of law which do not go to a jury.

[crossroadsguy]

I'll piggyback and I'll ask a hypothetical question: imagine a scenario where there's a jury out there and the lawyers proved something almost perfectly, as perfect as something proven by lawyers can get. Now jury goes to deliberate/discuss and for some reason unanimously decides to rule in a way that goes totally against that proof provided - for any reason (maybe just for the kicks, ignore that; because I guess it is ignored). What happens then? Can a judge say to that "bugger off, this is bs" or something like that instead offer their own judgement or have another jury or so? Or is it - tough luck, jury is jury, deal with it. And they can appeal if there's scope of appeal (don't know how that is decided whether one can appeal or not to begin with).

[awesome_dude]

I think that there have been such instances - (I can only speculate, but I think that) the judge can rule a mistrial, or it can be heard on appeal.

Ah google to the rescue:

> In the U.S., a jury’s factual findings can only be challenged post-trial if an appellate court or trial judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict based on the evidence.

And

Civil Cases - (Judgment as a Matter of Law / JNOV): Governed by Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge can overturn a jury’s factual finding if the evidence is legally insufficient to support it.

Criminal Cases - (Insufficiency of the Evidence): Under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy clause, an acquittal cannot be appealed or overturned. However, after a guilty verdict, a defendant can file a motion challenging the evidence, asserting that the facts do not support the conviction

[ViktorRay]

Things like that have happened before.

It’s called Jury Nullification.

More info below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[prepend]

In this case the judge determined that it did require a trial and refused to dismiss based on statute of limitations.

[modriano]

There was a way that the statute of limitations hadn't run out as the clock started when Elon became aware of OpenAI's shift to for-profit ambitions. That made it more subjective of a judgement than simply reading a calendar, so it went to a jury to determine when Elon knew OpenAI started planning to change structure to be for-profit, then they could look at a calendar.

[qyph]

Bit late, but since I don’t see any correct answers here - no a jury is not required here. The judge chose to convene an *advisory* jury here — likely to strengthen the factual findings of the court and maybe to save the court itself some time/effort.

[duxup]

If it’s a very clear fact yes a judge can make the call. In this case what Musk knew was part of that and a jury then had to make the call on what the fact was.

[ai-x]

That's like saying can't the Judge decide who the killer was when he literally saw the video of shooting.

[dnnddidiej]

Or like if a piece of evidence was obtained lawfully?

I can understand why people and me included might think they can decide this before trial.

[chubot]

These days, video evidence can be called into doubt pretty easily

[j16sdiz]

One still need to decide:

- if the video is real (not AI / edited / another event)

- if the subject the same person (twins, look alike, too bury to tell)

etc

[az226]

It’s quite an odd ruling given that OpenAI completed its for profit “conversion” last fall.

It seems the biggest value loss to the nonprofit was in this conversion, not in the initial for profit subsidiary creation giving investors capped profit shares.

[metalliqaz]

But this "conversion" was apparently not the focus of the suit, according to OP. Perhaps it occurred after they initiated legal proceedings?

[granzymes]

Correct, Musk based his claims on the 2023 Microsoft deal.

The 2025 recapitalization was discussed at trial, but it was ancillary since all that changed was the existing for-profit changed from a capped-profit with weird cash flow mechanics to a traditional public benefit corp with ordinary equity.

[reaperducer]

It is possible for Musk to appeal, but success is vanishingly unlikely.

He doesn't have to win to succeed.

The richest man on the planet can keep his enemies tied up in court needlessly until the day he dies.

[CobrastanJorji]

The guy he's suing is also a billionaire who can keep his enemies tied up in court needlessly until the day he dies, although that billionaire's net worth is only around 1% of Elon Musk's, so in a sense you're right that Musk is picking on the little guy.

[overgard]

Or just ruin their already shaky reputations.

[danny_codes]

I assumed it was trash already.

[mrandish]

> Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims.

I think Musk's lawyers told him he'd probably lose this suit before he filed it. I suspect he proceeded mostly out of spite and to embarrass Altman by ensuring the concerns even his friends had about his candor and trustworthiness went on the record and were splashed across the media. Musk knew he had little chance of unwinding the theft of a non-profit (and I doubt he cared much about that).

It would have been much better if Musk had actually cared enough about OAI's original mission to bring suit in 2019. However, I'm still glad Musk did this now because Altman and Brockman (with the help of MSFT and others) DID steal a non-profit, or at least subverted it's mission. And this fleeting bit of public embarrassment (funded by Musk for other spiteful reasons) is the only penalty they'll ever see.

[jmyeet]

For people unfamiliar, generally speaking in trial courts the jury is the finder of facts and the judge is the finder of law (yes, there are bench trials where the judge does both). As an aside, appeals courts deal in legal issues (ie statutory interpretations and constitutional issues).

So not being within the statute of limitations is typically a legal issue so what must've happened here is the jury would've been asked if the earlier OpenAI-MS deals were substantially similar to the latest deal. I can't find the verdict form or the jury instructions but I'll bet that was the key issue the jury decided.

[snark42]

That fact here was if Musk should have known about the potential breach of charitable trust before 2021 given it started in 2019, if not before, with Microsoft investment and he didn't sue until 2024. There is a 3 year statute of limitations.

[epolanski]

Don't forget rich people spend their lives suing for the sake of annoying each other.

More often than not the sentences are irrelevant, it's known that it's a lost cause, and they will still proceed if it can bring any dirt or bad publicity or annoyance to the counter party.

[Arodex]

>Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.

Why is a hypothetical ground for this decision? "You didn't complain immediately the first time you got robbed, therefore all the robbing since then is covered by a statute of limitation".

[granzymes]

The statute of limitations exists to prevent unreasonable delay, to protect defendants from prejudice due to loss of evidence to the passage of time, and to recognize that people who are injured tend to complain immediately and not sit on their claims.

This case demonstrates why. Musk only complained after OpenAI was commercially successful with ChatGPT and after he started a competing effort. He repeatedly said “I do not know” and “I do not recall” on the stand, and argued that the passage of time made it hard for him to remember facts that would have been helpful for OpenAI.

[Arodex]

I know why statutes of limitation exist. I was wondering why it applied here. Apparently it wasn't completely straightforward, as nine jurors were needed to reach a decision on that point, instead of a single judge or even clerk.

[granzymes]

Whether the claim accrued before the statute of limitations expired is a question of fact, and is therefore reserved for the fact-finder which in this case was the jury.

[toast0]

IMHO, whether (and which) statue of limitations applies is a question of law, whether said time limit has passed is a question of fact. I'd like to read the jury instructions and verdict, but I didn't see a link to them anywhere.

I guess there could be a question of fact in a case where the statues of limitation differ for different injuries, and the factual question is which injury was it.

[granzymes]

You are correct that which statute of limitations applies is a question of law. If facts are undisputed, that is the end of the issue. In this case, the facts were disputed, and the jury found for the defendants.

The jury instructions are public and the final jury form will be published, likely later this week.

I can tell you that the instructions told the jury to decide whether Musk could have brought his case before 2021.

[ryandrake]

It seems to me like justice should be about right vs wrong and illegal vs legal, and not “did you fill out form 27B/6 on time?” Dismissing a case on these kinds of trivial procedural grounds seems like the court just doesn’t want to do its job.

[tpmoney]

Have you ever gotten into a fender bender and not had insurance involved? After resolving that situation, do you think it would be "justice" for the person you got into the fender bender with to come after you 20 years after the fact demanding compensation for 20 years of medical bills that they swear is related to injuries sustained in that horrific crash that you negligently caused? How would you even begin to construct a defense for yourself? Even assuming you still had the car, what is the likelihood it's in the same condition it was after that collision? How likely is it that you have a perfect 20 years of maintenance and repair records for that car? How likely is it that you have any evidence about what medications or substances you were or were not taking 20 years ago? How likely is it you could find any witnesses to the wreck from 20 years ago?

At a certain point, "justice" is deciding that it is impossible to fairly and reasonably adjudicate the dispute in question, and that it is better to have let a guilty person go free than to punish an innocent person. Statutes of limitation are one part of that package of procedures we have in place to make the process as fair and equitable as possible.

[granzymes]

The statute of limitations is not a trivial issue. Defendants have rights just as much as plaintiffs do, and our justice system does not allow plaintiffs to unreasonably delay in bringing their claims.

[dbt00]

If it was wrong in 2019, why did he wait 7 years to do something about it?

The passage of time makes it harder to have a fair trial, as shown by the number of times Elon said I don't know or I don't recall about conversations that would have been recent in 2019 but are now long (or strategically) forgotten.

[mrhottakes]

Bringing claims promptly so they can be adjudicated is vital for justice. What would you think if you were sued for something that happened decades ago when the time to correct it was soon after the instigating event?

[brookst]

So you’d be OK if, say, a rental car sued you for putative damage to a car you rented 15 years ago?

Limiting time that an action can be brought is critical to having a fair trial.

[wildzzz]

Because civil cases are based on the preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, plaintiffs have a much lower bar to clear for winning. However, because of the ease that they may win, there needs to be protections for defendants to ensure that it's fair. If you show up with yellowed documents claiming the defendant did something yet the defendant has, reasonably, lost the records that could disprove the claim, why should the plaintiff have the advantage? If the only thing you need to win an ancient lawsuit is to just hold onto records longer than the other guy, that's not an effective system.

[geodel]

It doesn't seem trivial at all. Allowing to flout procedure specially in case of very rich , powerful people with vast resources at their disposal would feel rewarding further for their cluelessness as if they are not already heavily rewarded by rigged system.

[danso]

How do you imagine justice functioning in a system that lacks a statute of limitations?

[albedoa]

I for one am happy that we have and enforce statutes of limitations. Calling it a kind of "trivial procedural grounds" is wild.

> the court just doesn’t want to do its job.

What do you think its job is.

[mrhottakes]

In the US, court clerks do not decide cases. This was a jury trial, so the jury was required to do its job.

[kstrauser]

Because there has to be some point. It's unjust to allow someone to sue 30 years later, as everyone would have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head waiting for the right moment to strike. And in general, if you didn't realize you were robbed for 3 years, perhaps it's the case that you weren't actually robbed.

[skeptic_ai]

So if I exchange your Rolex with a fake one and then you try to sell after 3 years and you notice it’s fake, it’s fine for you?

[granzymes]

The statute of limitations takes into account when the plaintiff discovered or with reasonable diligence should have discovered their injury.

In this case, the jury found that Musk knew or should have known of his alleged injury prior to 2021.

[rprend]

Statute of limitations kicks in at the moment of your awareness of the watch being fake. But, you and the plaintiff might dispute over the fact of when you learned the watch was fake. That’s exactly what this jury decision was about. Musk claimed he wasn’t aware of OpenAI’s for profit push until 2022. Altman claimed he was aware of it as far back as 2017 or 2019. The Jury looked at texts and emails and interviewed witnesses and decided that Musk was aware of it in 2019, which is more than 3 years before he filed the suit in 2024.

[eftychis]

There is the notion of equitable estoppel, that would *perhaps*, depending on the facts, apply which stops a defendant, who for instance concealed or committed certain acts of fraud, from raising the statute of limitations defense.

Edit: to augment the sibling comment.

[chipsrafferty]

There are multiple reasons why statutes of limitations exist, one of them being that the further away in time, the harder it is to prove evidence. Witnesses may have died, or their memory may be more faulty.

[hnfong]

Also criminal liability is generally handled differently. Some jurisdictions have no limit, and where the limits exist for criminal liability, limitations on serious crimes can be much longer than the civil ones.

[joshkel]

https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/05/16/musk-v-altman-week-3... has a good explanation of the legalities:

"If the jury determines that at any time before those dates, Musk either knew — or had or should have known — that he had a claim that he could bring, then his suit was brought too late. The consequence of being too late is swift and absolute. If the lawsuit was filed late for a particular claim, that claim is out of the case; if it was too late for all of Musk’s claims, the lawsuit is over."

That's where the question of fact (i.e., the requirement for a jury decision) came in: "What was the statute of limitations?" is a question of law, but "When should Musk have known that OpenAI was moving too much toward for-profit?" is a question of fact (and, here, determines whether the statute of limitations applies).

[hn_acc1]

This is not a robbery, though. Not in the "break in and steal stuff from your house multiple times" situation. Legally, each of those are separate events, and one doesn't really affect the other unless it's all the same person, and the repetition is used to get a stronger case, etc.

[jmyeet]

There are several legal principles in play here. Note that these are civil trial issues and when you're talking about "robbing", you're likely talking about a criminal issue. These are:

1. Estoppel. If a party relies on your conduct then you can lose the right to sue over it;

2. Laches. This is a defense against prejudicial conduct, typically by waiting too long to take action;

3. Waiver. Your conduct can waive your right to sue. Imagine you live with someone and they don't pay half of the rent so you cover it. At some point your continued conduct means you lose the right to sue; and

4. The statute of limitations. Some claims simply have to be brought within a certain period. How this applies can be really complex. For example, we saw this in Trump's fraud convictions in New York. His time in office, away from the jurisdiction, essentially suspended the statute of limitations.

Some crimes like murder have no statute of limitations. Others have unreasonably short statutes of limitations. For example, probably nobody can be charged in relation to sex trafficking in the Epstein saga because the statute of limitations is often 5 years with such crimes. This is unreasonable (IMHO) because often the victims are children and unable to make a criminal complaint.

It's also worth adding that not all legal systems have such wide-ranging statutes of limitation as the US does. Founding principles of those other legal systems is that the government shouldn't be arbitrarily restricted for prosecuting criminal conduct. The US system ostensibly favors "timely" prosecution.

[maratc]

> the victims are children and unable to make a criminal complaint.

I thought that children at any age can complain to the police. The filing side on the criminal case is "State" -- or "People", or "Rex/Regina" (and not the person complaining, regardless of the age.)

[john_builds]

thanks for the snippet

[FrustratedMonky]

There sure was a lot of days of testimony on Sam Altman lying, for this to come down to " statute of limitations".

Shouldn't the defense have raised the statute of limitations much earlier?

[lmm]

You raise all your defenses in the trial, you only get one. If they'd wanted to put all their eggs on the statute of limitations point then they could, but you can understand why defense lawyers generally don't do that.

[SilverElfin]

Agree. If this is a precondition, why force people to share their diaries and stuff? Is it all to claim they hid material things that would have led to an earlier filing?

[AlexCoventry]

From other comments, it came down to when Musk could reasonably be judged as aware of the injury.

[bflesch]

If it's thrown out on a technicality then Musk got fleeced by his lawyers - good for them.