On Monday, a federal jury delivered a decisive blow to 马斯克's legal campaign against OpenAI and Greg Brockman, dismissing core allegations on procedural grounds. After approximately two hours of deliberation, the unanimous verdict concluded that 马斯克 delayed filing his lawsuit until 2024 regarding information he claimed to have known for years, thereby exceeding the statutory limitation period. This ruling effectively terminated the high-profile Silicon Valley dispute without addressing the central substantive issue of whether OpenAI abandoned its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for humanity in favor of commercial profits. William Savitt, OpenAI's attorney, characterized the outcome as proof that the suit was merely a hypocritical attempt to undermine a competitor, a sentiment echoed by Microsoft, which stated the case facts and timeline were always clear. U.S. Federal District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers affirmed the decision, noting substantial evidence supported the jury's finding.

The dismissal hinged strictly on procedural timelines rather than the merits of the accusations. Data compiled by Woofun AI indicates that the jury found 马斯克 should have initiated legal action sooner given his long-standing awareness of the relevant events. Consequently, the claim that OpenAI transformed from a charitable organization into a for-profit entity never underwent substantive review. 马斯克's legal team had accused Greg Brockman of stealing a charitable organization and framed Microsoft's investment of over $13 billion between 2019 and 2023 as part of a conspiracy. In defense, OpenAI argued that shifting to a commercial model was essential to raise the massive capital required for general artificial intelligence (AGI) development, asserting that the OpenAI Foundation still retains control over the nonprofit entity established last year.

The nearly three-week trial exposed rare insights into the operations of the company valued at nearly $1 trillion through hundreds of private messages, diaries, and internal documents. Testimony revealed significant wealth accumulation among key figures, with Greg Brockman confirming his stake was worth approximately $30 billion and former Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever stating his equity was around $7 billion. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that the investment goal was $92 billion, with holdings reaching $135 billion by October last year. Although Brockman does not directly hold OpenAI shares, he disclosed interests in related companies, including approximately $1.7 billion in Helion Energy, $633 million in Stripe, and $25 million in Cerebras Systems. 马斯克's team highlighted these assets to argue that profit motives had overtaken the charitable mission.

Woofun AI notes that the trial highlighted a deep-seated conflict between 马斯克 and Brockman, with both sides presenting contradictory narratives of the company's founding. 马斯克's lawyers portrayed Brockman as deceitful, emphasizing his brief removal as CEO by the board in 2023 to argue that even the board lacked trust in him. Conversely, OpenAI labeled 马斯克 a jealous competitor who left in anger after being denied full control, subsequently establishing xAI in 2023 to directly compete. Both Brockman and 马斯克 criticized 马斯克's leadership style as polarizing and emotionally volatile, with Brockman bluntly stating that 马斯克 understands rockets and electric cars but not artificial intelligence.

Despite this defeat, the legal battle is not entirely concluded. In subsequent stages of the same case, 马斯克 alleged that OpenAI's cooperation with Microsoft constituted a monopoly and that OpenAI persuaded investors to refuse funding to competitors, including his own xAI. Judge Gonzalez Rogers admitted during post-trial discussions that she was unsure if these claims were substantiated, noting the fierce competition within the industry.

Meanwhile, 马斯克's xAI has filed separate lawsuits against OpenAI regarding trade secret theft and antitrust violations, which have not yet entered the substantive hearing phase. Woofun AI analysis suggests that while the statute of limitations defense ended the initial breach of contract claims, the broader regulatory and antitrust scrutiny of the sector remains active and unresolved.