While the jury’s decision was a non-binding recommendation sent to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, she immediately accepted it as her own and made it final.
Musk’s lead trial lawyer, Steven Molloy, told the judge, “We intend to appeal.”
One of his other lawyers, Mark Toberoff, gave a one-word comment to reporters leaving the courtroom: “Appeal.” He later said that the decision reminded him of American Revolutionary War moments such as the Siege of Charleston and the Battle of Bunker Hill. “These were major losses for the Americans, but who won the war?” Toberoff said. “And it’s not over.”
OpenAI’s lawyers hugged in the courtroom after the verdict was read. William Savitt, the company’s chief litigator, told reporters that the “overwhelming” amount of evidence presented in the case allowed the jury to act quickly. “There is evidence that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit was a factual conspiracy by a competitor,” he said.
Throughout the trial, Gonzalez Rogers questioned Musk’s motivation for fighting OpenAI. But he concluded Monday that the three weeks of global public exposure had been worthwhile.
“I felt this is an important issue…there should be a hearing to bring clarity for us,” he told lawyers on both sides. “There is a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury’s findings, which is why I was prepared to accept and dismiss the jury’s findings on the spot.”
The nine-member panel delivered the unanimous verdict in an Oakland, California, courtroom on Monday after deliberating for less than two hours. They found that the statute of limitations had expired long before Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024. Musk had hoped to convince the jury that Altman and Brockman, with the help of Microsoft’s cash, turned OpenAI into a giant beyond imagination when the three of them and others founded it as a nonprofit nearly 11 years ago.
Because the jury found that the case was not timely filed, it did not consider Musk’s three claims, including breach of charitable trust, unjust enrichment, and, against Microsoft, aiding and abetting. Losing what amounts to a technicality could give Musk the chance to continue trying his case in public by arguing that a jury should never have ruled against his core argument that a charity was stolen from.
OpenAI lawyer Savitt refuted that contention on Monday. “This is not a technical decision, this is a concrete decision,” he said. “It says you brought your claims too late, and you did so because you were sitting on them to use as a weapon against a competitor that can’t compete in the marketplace, and so we’re pleased with the outcome.”
Microsoft spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement that “the facts and timeline in this case have long been clear” and that the tech giant “remains committed to our work with OpenAI to advance and scale AI.”
Musk, Altman and Brockman were not present when the jury delivered its verdict. Musk has said little about it in recent weeks, under court order not to tweet during the trial.
Despite the disappointing outcome for Musk, the trial appears to have tarnished the public image of OpenAI and its top executives. New details emerged about Brockman’s wealth and Altman’s alleged history of dishonesty. Both were kept away from their daily jobs for tens, if not hundreds, of hours to testify, prepare to testify, sit on the witness stand, and show their faces in court.
<a href