Predictions on who wins? Does Apple actually have a winnable case or are they just throwing a wrench in things?

>Does Apple actually have a winnable case

Based on the previous thread, Apple seems to have damning evidence of wrongdoing by the (ex)employees before-and-after they left their positions at Apple: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48865019

Seems very similar to Google/Waymo winning its case against Uber (ex-Googler Anthony Levandowski) stealing corporate data.

Apple has the employees' emails history, the server access logs, etc. Really don't see Apple pursuing this unless they had a mountain of evidence against them.

Generally speaking, I think Apple tends to win on anything related to ex-employees. I am not sure if this is normal across Big-Tech. But surely is for Apple.

Depending on what is at stake. Example the one with Nuvia and Qualcomm I believe they just settled.

Oh the irony if Apple can get a larger OpenAI stake than Microsoft.

I don’t think Cupertino will settle for stock. I think they’ll demand cash and an agreement that OpenAI abandon or reboot their hardware project. In the meantime, Apple gets an open kimono into everything OpenAI has planned.

This could actually be the fuckup that kills OpenAI as an independent company. The threat of a cash judgement gums up not only an IPO, but also debt-based fundraising. (We equity guys are idiots, so we’ll probably keep writing cheques until the market turns.)

> reboot their hardware project

This could go way beyond any potential hardware project, depending on whats actually true from the allegations and how much of Apple's trade secrets have been used or shared within OpenAI.

There were rumors a while back of OpenAI building some integrations into macOS akin to the Shortcuts app, and who knows what other computer use type projects. They could very well have been using information from within Apple for that.

It's kind of a fruit of a poisonous tree problem. If OpenAI used any of Apple's secrets broadly, Apple could ask the court for an injunction to block the deployment of any software from OpenAI. If discovery proves the IP contamination spread into other areas within OpenAI, it could completely freeze all of their deployments.

If Apple actually has the receipts here they could realistically bring down OpenAI entirely.

If OpenAI used any of Apple's secrets broadly, Apple could ask the court for an injunction to block the deployment of any software from OpenAI. If discovery proves the IP contamination spread into other areas within OpenAI, it could completely freeze all of their deployments.

I find this so funny. Can you share an example or two of where something like this has ever happened to one of the largest companies in the world? There is no universe where some judge orders that OpenAI can no longer deploy any software, for anyone (including huge swaths of the federal government) because of the alleged actions of a few people, and it’s allowed to stand. Zero chance.

I’ll say one thing for Sama: he might have a lot of haters, but it’s not that hard to prove them wrong with predictions like these.

> Can you share an example or two of where something like this has ever happened to one of the largest companies in the world?

Waymo (Google) vs. Uber & Anthony Levandowski. Google was granted an injunction that ordered Uber to immediately halt all development on self driving tech.

Apple also bankrupted Pystar for stealing trade secrets.

Levandowski would have served actual jail time if he didn't get a pardon.

Property rights and trade secret laws don't just magically vanish because a company has government contracts or a high valuation.

This take seems wildly disconnected from reality.

My prediction: this will result in a relatively modest undisclosed settlement and OpenAI won’t abandon, or even modify, their hardware product because of this. And Apple definitely won’t get an “open kimono” to everything OpenAI has planned.

This is two of the largest, most powerful, most well-capitalized companies on the planet in a legal fight. People are taking sides because of their hatred of Sama, and it results in these bizarro takes that OpenAI is finished as a company lol.

Guess we’ll see.

> most well-capitalized companies

Huh what? Since when is OpenAI's IOU's and paper money worth more than Apple's cold hard cash? They have been backing away from their infrastructure commitments and literally pushing their IPO out.

Their "value" might fly with idiot VC's that are willing to throw money at them based on vibes. They are "big" on paper, nothing close to the financial heft of Apple. If anything this is where Sam Altman’s reality-distortion-field isn't going to fly.

> ... it results in these bizarro takes that OpenAI is finished as a company lol.

Meanwhile there's repeated news of OpenAI barely making ends meet and poised to run out of money mid next year. Unfortunately, OpenAI being 'well-capitalized' just doesn't hold up to what we've been actively seeing.

> This could actually be the fuckup that kills OpenAI as an independent company.

I wonder if they’ll be the Lehman Brothers of this bubble

> I wonder if they’ll be the Lehman Brothers of this bubble

That's exactly what this Yahoo Finance article today calls them at least [1]

[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/lehman-brot...

Apple is not the company that makes this sort of thing just for fun.

Also, they don't have a directly competing business with OpenAI, so slander doesn't make sense.

I think this is genuine.

[deleted]

It would be very strange for Apple’s legal department to send out formal letters filled with claims on a lark.

Not really, just slowing down a potential competitor could still be worth it.

I don't think they would consider OpenAI a potential competitor, unless OpenAI has trade secrets of Apple.

That's never been Apple's playbook with lawsuits at least.

Both parties will just settle.

Apple already caught former employees accessing the Apple internal network with unreturned laptops after termination that’s pretty much game over.

Why would Apple settle? They probably want the same outcomes of the Waymo v Uber trial that forced Uber out of the market. Apple's accusations imply that every part of OpenAI's hardware effort has been tainted with Apple's trade secrets and is therefore illegitimate. They also have more money than God so they can keep the suit going as long as they want.

This is an interesting point here. Due to having infinite money already, that's a possible dynamic we might see. OAI admits "Yup, obviously you got us. Let's write a check." And Apple might just respond "Nah, we are obviously going to win at trial, the legal fees don't bother us a bit, and honestly we don't really need the money, we'd rather destroy you as heavily as possible, for some combination of making an example out of all the criminals involved, plus there's a tiny chance you could threaten us someday considering you hired 'our boy' Jony Ive to build hardware."

There's also just the possibility that the use of stolen IP has contaminated most work within OpenAI to the point that an injunction could realistically stop all deployments by OpenAI and grind the company to a halt during discovery, before a trial even happens if Apple is granted the injunction.

If Apple has receipts, this could spell the end of OpenAI anyway. Even if Apple doesn't go to trial, at minimum, OpenAI will need to discard any work that even remotely touched or was influenced by Apple's IP here. If it was shared broadly within OpenAI across multiple projects, it could be quite substantial. Fruit of a poisonous tree and all that.

Uber was not forced to leave the self driving car market by Waymo's litigation. The litigation ended in February 2018 and Uber left the market in December 2020.

Cause and effect can be delayed.

I think it’s fair to argue that Uber’s self-driving efforts never recovered after that trial.

Pretty sure it was the crash (same story with Cruise for that matter)

They will just settle if a settlement gets them what they want for less than fighting this to legal completion would cost them (on a risk-adjusted basis).

People are forgetting that the kind of conduct alleged is also likely illegal.

In the not-so-distant past, Uber's head of self-driving was indicted and sentenced to jail time for similar conduct. The criminal case didn't start until ~2.5 years after the civil case was filed.