Musk v. Altman: A Charm Offensive Gone Astray

Hard Reset was inside the courtroom for opening statements and then testimony from Elon Musk, who presented himself as a humble savior.

Elon Musk’s lead attorney Steven Molo told a nine-member jury on Tuesday that Musk v. Altman—the literal name of the court case—isn’t about Musk. “It’s about the defendants,” he said: “Sam Altman and Greg Brockman.”

On the one hand, I understand what Molo was angling for during his opening statements at the Ronald V. Dellums U.S. Courthouse in Oakland. He wants the jury to scrutinize the actions of the defendants, not his client. It’s a reasonable ask—except for the fact that his client is Elon Musk, who is never not the center of attention.

Musk’s inability to escape the limelight began bright and early. Shortly before 8 a.m., he entered the courthouse through a private entrance. He was immediately spotted by photographers standing just outside. Altman, meanwhile, snuck upstairs before most of the photographers noticed him.

The courtroom itself features roughly 30 seats for the “public.” On Tuesday, almost all of those seats were media members. (There were also a dozen or so additional media seats that were already reserved.) I was able to snag one of the public spots, which put me a few rows behind Musk and his team of lawyers. For most of the day, his back was turned to the OpenAI side of the courtroom, which included Altman and Brockman.

After Judge Gonzalez Rogers went over basic instructions with the jury, Molo gave opening statements on behalf of Musk. “The defendants in this case stole a charity,” he said, referencing Musk’s claim that the other OpenAI founders abused his generosity and morphed the organization into a greedy, for-profit entity. “We’re going to ask you to hold them accountable,” Molo said. Practically, that means up to $134 billion in combined damages from OpenAI and codefendant Microsoft, a partner of OpenAI’s since 2019. Musk also wants Altman and Brockman off OpenAI’s board.

Molo acknowledged that not everyone on the jury might hold Musk in high regard, though he seems intent on changing naysayers’ minds. He asked Musk to stand up and say hello, which Musk did, giving his best head nod and half-bow. It was awkward, but certainly preferable to other gestures Musk has tried in front of strangers. Molo launched into Musk’s life story, which the attorney called “pretty compelling.” There was talk of growing up in South Africa, immigrating to Canada, going to college in the U.S., and eventually, getting rich. “He’s a legend,” Molo said. “Like him or dislike him… he’s a legend in the tech world.”

Molo went over old blog posts and email correspondence with other OpenAI folks—both welcome reprieves from Musk’s biography. Molo also drove home a useful metaphor for the jury, which will presumably be invoked throughout the trial. To make the point that a for-profit is supposed to support a nonprofit, not the other way around, Molo brought up a museum gift shop within a museum. The gift shop is a smaller, for-profit venture, and it makes money that goes back to the museum, which is the actual attraction.

An exhibit of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang showing off a supercomputer to Elon Musk and others at OpenAI, circa 2016.

But time and time again, Musk’s team couldn’t help themselves: they returned to reflexively defending their guy. “Without Elon Musk, there would be no OpenAI,” Molo said. “Pure and simple.” Later, he added, “None of the others had Elon’s incredible success and incredible acumen.”

OpenAI’s lead attorney, William Savitt, used his opening statements to keep the attention on Musk. This is “a tale of two Elons,” Savitt said. According to the defense, Musk originally pledged far more than the tens of millions that he ultimately gave to OpenAI. He reneged on the pledge, and then in 2018, left in a huff because he wasn’t given the keys to the company, Savitt alleged. It was only after OpenAI became a household name, and Musk’s xAI entered the market, that he became “furious” and decided to sue, Savitt claimed.

Rather than dwell on Altman’s own spotty past, Savitt wisely breezed by it, returning again and again to Musk. One of his more effective barbs was bringing up Shivon Zilis, who has four children with Musk and was on the OpenAI board even after Musk departed. Zilis was a “close personal associate,” Savitt noted, hinting at how “you’ll hear that full story” during the trial.

Following opening statements (which also included remarks from codefendant Microsoft), Musk was the first to take the stand. “Fundamentally, they’re going to try to make this lawsuit seem very complicated, but I think it’s very simple,” he said. “It’s not okay to steal a charity.”

Musk warned that his lawsuit will become “case law” if he’s not successful. “The entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed,” he said. Even factoring in that this is a historic showdown, Musk’s warnings come across as hyperbolic. He’s not a lawyer. Who is he to decide what this trial means for case law and charitable giving? (The latter claim is especially rich, given his reported lack of interest in philanthropy.)

Molo spent the remainder of Musk’s Tuesday testimony lobbing softballs his way. Again: I get why. Musk is not an endearing character, and so Molo tried to speedrun his client’s greatest hits for persuadable jury members. Once upon a time, Musk was a lumberjack! He waited tables! He had trouble starting a business! Then he figured it all out and started a bunch of other businesses! (He droned on about the Boring Company and one-way tunnels in Las Vegas.) Musk’s arc just isn’t relatable. He humbly conceded that he doesn’t own vacation homes, and he separately volunteered that he doesn’t “have any yachts.” Nor do I.

Even when Musk was asked about other subjects, he either rambled or stumbled. “Shivon was uh…my chief of staff. And uh, yeah. Uh, yeah,” he said of his maybe-partner Zilis. He seemed to imply that AGI is likely to come as soon as next year. The “day is approaching fast” where AI is better at any task than humans, he said. He warned Google’s Larry Page about the perils of AI, he said. Obama, too. Page didn’t listen to him; he called him names. “The reason OpenAI exists is because Larry Page called me a speciesist,” Musk said. He took credit for recruiting Ilya Sutskever to OpenAI. He recast himself not just as an OpenAI cofounder, but also as the top networker, the guy who secured funds and compute.

I’m sure plenty of those claims have merit, and I’m not being sarcastic about that. A few of them, especially the conversations with Page, are already part of the public record. And it’s true that for Musk to win this case, he’ll likely have to show that he was an indispensable part of OpenAI’s early days.

I’d also imagine the jury has a hard limit on its Musk Exposure Levels before they get queasy. Best-case scenario for Molo and his team: Musk grinds through the rest of his testimony on Wednesday, and after that, the case is about Altman and Brockman the rest of the way. Worst-case scenario: even when Musk is off the stand, he remains an unavoidable, noxious presence. In that scenario, I don’t like the plaintiffs’ odds, regardless of the merits of their argument.