[reenorap]

Apple must have hard evidence on this. I can’t believe they would take it this far without already knowing they are going to win. If they have to fire a huge chunk of their hardware employees it’s going to throw their IPO plans into chaos.

[martinky24]

They literally do have hard evidence. They have records of an employee (Chang Liu) who left for OpenAI copying dozens and dozens of files off of their server after he left.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Not to mention text messages to existing Apple employees saying he could still access Apple servers after being term'ed and bragging about it "lol"!

[aprilthird2021]

That's not enough though. He could have been acting rogue or for some other reason. That alone won't win in court

[Danox]

Among 40 ex Apple employees come on at least five or six of them probably crossed the line in their enthusiasm to get the big bucks.

If it was a small number, four or five total, maybe, but not 40.

[JumpCrisscross]

Also, Apple confronted OpenAI about LOL Liu. OpenAI’s response wasn’t to fire him, conduct an investigation and confidentially settle with Apple. It was to go cold.

[aprilthird2021]

Why would they fire him and settle with Apple? If they haven't done anything wrong, why settle? If he hasn't used the material at work but has some problem with his former employer, why fire him?

[JumpCrisscross]

> If they haven't done anything wrong, why settle?

One, because the evidence is damning–and comprehensive–against their interests, and OpenAI has a ticking clock around fundraising and going public that an ongoing lawsuit with Apple endangers.

Two, because based on all the facts in the public domain–and Sam Altman's documented history of lying–the likelihood of Apple succeeding on the merits of this case are high. Someone at OpenAI seems to have sensed this when they went cold on Apple's legal letters.

> If he hasn't used the material at work

The evidence presented shows Liu demonstrating a total lack of character and judgmeent, quite possibly to a criminal level. The fact that OpenAI is confused about why this is bad is their own condemnation.

[aprilthird2021]

"come on" isn't any kind of proof

[iAMkenough]

"acting rogue" but faced no action from OpenAI after this came to light

[aprilthird2021]

Because it's part of an investigation. Again this isn't proof of anything. He may have not ever used this information at work yet and so this is an issue between him and his former employer

[iAMkenough]

Can you share more details about the investigation?

Typically the staff member being investigated would be placed on administrative leave during a lawsuit like this, even if they did nothing wrong. The fact that it didn't happen makes me think the investigation isn't being conducted properly.

[aprilthird2021]

They are currently in a suit with Apple over this. If they fire him and Apple loses the suit and a jury decides he didn't even steal documents (a possible outcome) then he can sue for wrongful termination.

[jstummbillig]

What do you mean "this far"? How far is this?

Corps lose law suits all the time. They always have to go whatever "this far" is before it happens, surely?

[cj]

Filing lawsuits against ex-employees is going pretty far. Not good PR for Apple if their claims are wrong.

Companies often file frivolous lawsuits against other companies. It’s much rarer to throw frivolous lawsuits at individuals.

[doctaj]

Just to be clear, these are letters to individuals about the existing lawsuit with OpenAI, not new lawsuits against individuals.

[JumpCrisscross]

> these are letters to individuals about the existing lawsuit with OpenAI, not new lawsuits against individuals

My guess is these employees weren’t chosen randomly. If they refuse to coöperate with Apple, they’ll get personally sued as well.

And the reality of the matter is, given Altman’s public persona and reputation, there is a good chance an AG somewhere starts looking at whether these folks broke any laws.

[Danox]

They will find out what Altman really cares about, my guess at this point, he only cares about the impending IPO throwing baggage overboard (new hires), probably won’t be a problem in the end.

[compiler-guy]

Definitely not randomly chosen--Apple would have chosen people it believes may have evidence that relates to the case. It's a legal request to preserve that data.

But it doesn't follow at all that Apple is threatening to sue them. A long time ago, in an unrelated case, I got a letter like this because I was in the room when a certain decision was made and happened to have some notes about that meeting. But there was no chance I would be sued. I wasn't the decider, and was basically a third-party involved.

[staticman2]

> If they refuse to coöperate with Apple, they’ll get personally sued as well.

This isn't law and order and that's not how civil litigation works.

[shimman]

They can easily be found to have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, like this is a slam dunk. Highly possible too seeing the massive public hatred against companies like OpenAI. DAs like easy political wins too and what better win than sticking it to OpenAI and its lackeys?

Might have to make some phone calls to my local representatives now...

[Forgeties79]

The accusations are incredibly clear/defined (and serious!) and have a very simple burden of proof. These things either happened or they didn’t, and they have material evidence or they don’t. It’s incredibly unlikely that they filed such big, concrete accusations without concrete proof to back them up.

And while I am far from an Apple fan boy, yes a lot of big corporations file frivolous lawsuits but Apple typically does not engage in that behavior against other companies. Also bear in mind that open AI is a huge name so there is a public/political element that goes along with this for Apple. There are going to be a lot of people who do not want Apple to win this regardless of how true their claims are and will figut like hell to protect openAI

[White_Wolf]

"Apple typically does not engage in that behaviour against other companies" - Meet Rossman. He'll tell you all about that and individuals too.

[asadotzler]

Apple doesn't engage in that behavior against other companies? Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain?

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (1988–1994) -- Apple lost its ass on this one, entirely frivolous. Every single major claim failed.

Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp. (2010–2012) -- Apple patents wiped out over frivolity

Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. (2010–2014) -- Mutually destructive patent fight, Apple's loss

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2011–2018) -- Pretty suspect. Lawyers still undecided

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. (2017–2019) -- Apple settled, needed QC modems more than a win

Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (2020–present) -- Apple was ordered to stop anti-steering rules, won little

Look, Apple sued Samsung over the corner radius on piece of hardware. It's currently suing a YouTuber for publishing renders of pre-release iOS.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg for Apple suits, many pretty unconvincing. Here are a few more.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (1982–1983) Apple Computer, Inc. v. Apple Corps Ltd. (1978–2007) Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation (2008–2011) Apple Inc. v. Corellium, LLC (2019–2023) Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Ltd. (2021–present) Apple Inc. v. Rivos Inc. (2022–2025) Apple Inc. v. Andrew Aude (2024–2025)

So don't tell us Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that it regularly does so.

[Forgeties79]

10 lawsuits in the last 30 years, at least some of which have to be somewhat valid, is lot of lawsuits for one of the single largest companies ever?

Like let’s be generous and say 7 of those are truly frivolous (doubtful), that’s barely 2 a decade.

> So don't tell us Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that it regularly does so.

Said nothing like that. I was very specific here. Apple does tons of unethical/shady/legally dicey/abusive things for business gain. There’s zero question. I am talking about a very specific tactic that they generally do not resort to. In no way am I saying it is out of the kindness of their hearts, I’m saying that it bolsters the claim that their lawsuit against AI probably has incredibly substantial teeth and will not be going away.

[amazingamazing]

without knowing the full extent of law suits initiated by apple this cherry picked set means nothing. a little over a dozen lawsuits you mentioned in a 40 year period. I mean so what, lol.

[marginalx]

They also have a new CEO at the helm.

[Tempest1981]

Effective Sept 1

[user43928]

I do not know a lot about Apple's litigation against other companies, but Apple did file numerous largely unsuccessful challenges to the EU's DMA.

[browningstreet]

You see how that’s an entirely different kind of legal action, right? It’s a resistance to regulation, which is entirely different than this accusation of malfeasance.

[s3p]

>How far is this?

If I am understanding your question, they went so far as to sue their employees.

[jstummbillig]

Is this uncommon when it comes to corporations? Sue the people who (allegedly) did the thing?

[jasonlotito]

You are getting downvoted because, I guess, people didn't read who the defendents who are getting sued, and that it literally starts with sueing two employees:

CHANG LIU, TANG YEW TAN, OPENAI FOUNDATION f/k/a OPENAI, INC., OPENAI GROUP PBC, and IO PRODUCTS, LLC f/k/a IO PRODUCTS, INC.,

[jader201]

There are two individuals being sued, but many more received letters.

Parent is being downvoted likely because their statement implies the “dozens” receiving letters are individually being sued, but that’s not the case.

[deaton]

Apple lawyers have a reputation for doing their homework

[testfrequency]

You’re underestimating how much Apple Legal goes after anyone and everyone they feel a slight wrong sniff about.

I know some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed for one reason or another, and…it’s not a legal team I’d ever want to cross paths with.

It’s also not the first time Apple has cried wolf at employees leaving the company to do bigger and better things, while trying to take responsibility for their successes.

[jubilanti]

Oh, in that case, I just happen to have some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed, and every one of my stories rebuts every one of your stories.

[cwmoore]

I can only wonder what percentage of human conceptual abilities are expended on rebuttal.

[Forgeties79]

Then share some of those insane stories with sources I guess. Because this seems to directly contradict my understanding of Apple (post-Jobs in particular).

I do not love Apple, as I said another comment I am so far from an apple fanboy, but frivolous lawsuits against other companies is not really typical for them. Also, these accusations are far from frivolous and they either have proof or they don’t. It would be very strange for them to file this thinking they would win with some sort of gray area argument

[testfrequency]

I worked at Apple for a few decades. My comment was not meant to be cryptic as much as it was to say: their legal team is very very hands on.

As you could imagine, I’m not sharing any specific information.

[teeray]

Makes you wonder if they’ll settle for bargain-basement token prices for Apple Intelligence.

[dofm]

I think it is clear that if Apple were going to deal with OpenAI on that level, they already would have. What they wanted for their AI products is a measure of control over their destiny that OpenAI clearly did not want to give them that badly. It's also pretty clear that Apple is willing to work with arch-rivals to supply components of their products, both software and hardware, but values consistency alongside trustworthiness.

[moduspol]

This stuff happened years ago, right? Something tells me that discussion has already happened, and they went with Google.

Besides: Apple is a "real" company that will definitely still be around in five years. They've already fumbled Siri multiple times. IMO Google was certainly the right choice for actually executing well on Apple's own terms for the foreseeable future.

[seviu]

This is John Ternus having a beef with Tang Tan. It’s widely known they both competed for the role of CEO. Tim Cook would never have started this.

It shows a level of pettiness and arrogance which I never expected to see from Apple.

I can’t put myself in the mind of John, but he clearly hated Tang.

From outside and with a parent’s perspective this looks like my kids throwing a tantrum.

John must be thinking he is the new Steve Jobs (Steve would definitely do this)

[jonlucc]

It's interesting that you say they must have hated each other, but assume only Ternus is acting on that. What makes you think Tan's hatred of Ternus or animosity toward Apple for picking Ternus over him didn't lead Tan to do the alleged behavior?

[seviu]

I am not the one who says that

https://x.com/markgurman/status/2075949833920065879?s=20

[gota]

Maybe a naive take, but if there's one team in a large corporation that does not bend to "the CEO(-to-be) wants it", that is the Legal team. Particularly when the ask is a lawsuit of this scope and relevance, and potential costs (of all kinds). The head of Legal can just hint to the board how expensive (in all senses) the vendetta would be and the CEO is likely "not to be" anymore, or "to be temporary".

[jasonlotito]

Tim Cook is the current CEO. Tim Cook is doing this. Any assertion otherwise is 100% wrong.

John Ternus doesn't become CEO until September 1st. If you think that this is still John Ternus' play, Tim Cook is still the one in charge and signed off to start this, meaning "Tim Cook would never have started this" is still 100% wrong.

[axus]

The alleged crime sounded childish. Appeal to rule of law, enforced by the court system is necessary for a fair business enviornment.

Sending the notification letters is probably petty though.

[compiler-guy]

These letters are simple "If you have evidence related to this lawsuit, you must preserve it" letters. And entirely routine in this kind of action. There are more of them than in most cases, because this is such a big case. But the gist is entirely routine.

[appplication]

This comment is really strange and reads like disinformation

[xp84]

Weird take. With as much evidence as they have (unless they're just wildly fabricating everything in their lawsuit complaint, which... really? All Apple's lawyers are just making up claims in court documents? Sounds very career-ending, why would the lawyers do that?) they would be complete idiots not to sue.

[seviu]

There is absolutely no evidence at all. Apple is going to loose this. The beef is real, and though Tim is acting CEO till the 1st of September I am ready to bet anything that the order to sue comes from Ternus. Specially considering that there is no evidence of wrongdoing or stealing.

And if there is, tell me what.

John Grubes might be a better authority than me in these matters and he seems to share my opinion. You can listen to it here:

https://dithering.passport.online/member/episode/apple-sues-...

[rjrjrjrj]

Widely known where?

Tang was never mentioned as a candidate in anything I read over the past few years. He wasn't an SVP.

[seviu]

Tang and Ternus where the candidates in 2021 as head of hardware engineering as Dan Riccio left. Tang lost and went to OpenAI.

It’s well known within Apple that they hate each other.

[rjrjrjrj]

They were candidates for SVP in 2021, with Ternus being selected. Tang left in 2024. Ternus was named CEO in 2026. Seems a stretch to say they competed for the role of CEO.

[seviu]

Oh it isn’t

This has Ternus driven all over it

[rjrjrjrj]

Tang was passed over for SVP. He was never in competition with Ternus or anybody else for CEO.

[MattDamonSpace]

Agreed Steve would do this

But the iPhone is the most valuable consumer hardware product on the planet, and the accusations here is “conspiracy to steal” essentially.

Is it really that petty? Apple should be okay with theft of valuable secrets?

[wat10000]

Apple comes down hard on employees who merely leak to the press. Taking internal documents to a competitor is not going to be fun.