Elon Musk and Ultraman Lawsuit First Day in Court: Organizing Both Sides’ Statements and Lawyer Arguments, So You Can Understand the Power Struggle Behind OpenAI

A landmark “Century Trial” in Silicon Valley has officially gone into session. Elon Musk personally appeared to testify and accuse OpenAI of abandoning its original nonprofit mission, pivoting instead toward maximizing profits, and seeking compensation of up to $138 billion.

Silicon Valley Century Trial Officially Kicks Off, Musk Heads to Court to Defend the Founding Intent

This highly anticipated tech industry century-long lawsuit has officially entered the jury trial phase at the federal court in Oakland, California. Tesla CEO Elon Musk personally testified on Tuesday, laying out for a nine-member jury his original motivation for founding OpenAI.

• Related news: Musk and Altman’s lawsuit opens today! The truth behind OpenAI’s power struggle will be revealed—before the hearing, both sides trade barbs again

During the trial, Musk emphasized that the core significance of this lawsuit lies in “saving humanity,” not personal interests. He recalled a conversation in 2015 with Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, saying he was deeply worried about Google’s pursuit of artificial intelligence (AI) safety, fearing a catastrophic outcome like the movie Terminator. To counter this potential threat, Musk claimed he had conceived the early model of OpenAI, even naming the company himself.

Image source: Business Insider Tesla CEO Elon Musk personally testified in court on Tuesday

According to court documents and Musk’s testimony, before 2016 he provided OpenAI—at the time still a nonprofit organization—with initial seed funding of approximately $38 million to $44 million. Musk said he was focused on recruiting top talent, including Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever, and leveraged his personal influence to secure NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s first AI supercomputer, as well as directly contacting Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to obtain cloud computing resources.

In his testimony, Musk reiterated that he was persuaded by Sam Altman and Greg Brockman to believe OpenAI would remain nonprofit forever and would publicly share its research code with the public.

Musk was blunt that today’s OpenAI has deviated from its original altruistic mission, transforming into a closed-source entity pursuing maximum profit—an outright betrayal of its initial intent.

From Nonprofit Ideals to a Capital Empire: The Core Dispute in a Lawsuit Worth Billions

In opening statements, Musk’s legal team described OpenAI’s transformation as a carefully orchestrated act of “predatory charity.” The lawyers accused Altman and Brockman of dangling promises to build an organization that would be more transparent and safer than a for-profit company, using that as bait to manipulate Musk into pouring in large amounts of money and resources.

The lawsuit centers on the process by which OpenAI transitioned from a nonprofit organization to a capital giant valued as high as $852 billion. Musk is asking the court to replace the existing leadership team, including CEO Altman and President Brockman. In addition, according to reports from major foreign media outlets, Musk has also put forward damage claims ranging from $138 billion to $180 billion, and promised that if he wins, the entire amount would be donated back to OpenAI’s nonprofit charitable division.

With the success of ChatGPT, OpenAI’s commercial value has rapidly swelled. The company is now planning a major initial public offering (IPO) that could push its valuation beyond $1 trillion. Musk’s side argues that OpenAI’s deep partnership with Microsoft has effectively made the company a closed subsidiary unit within Microsoft.

In court, Musk explained that while he had supported establishing a for-profit branch to handle the massive computational costs, the condition was that the profit-making part must be subordinate to the nonprofit organization—and that the vast majority of value could not be extracted away from the charitable purpose.

He said that at the time, discussions included whether Tesla would provide funding or whether a for-profit entity would be established. The core principle was that “the tail cannot wag the dog,” meaning business interests should not dominate the company’s direction of development.

Defense lawyers mounted a strong counterattack, exposing Musk’s attempt to control the power map

In response to Musk’s harsh accusations, William Savitt, OpenAI’s legal counsel, launched a forceful rebuttal during the opening of the trial.

The defense team argued that Musk brought the lawsuit primarily because he failed to successfully gain control of OpenAI. Savitt directly accused Musk of using his $1 billion donation pledge as leverage to bully other members of the founding team and force them to submit to Musk’s demands for control.

Image source: Reuters OpenAI’s legal counsel William Savitt

Evidence disclosed by OpenAI shows that in 2018, Musk proposed merging OpenAI into his electric vehicle company Tesla, treating Tesla as OpenAI’s “cash cow,” and demanding absolute majority ownership and control of the organization. After Altman, Brockman, and Sutskever rejected this proposal, Musk angrily left the board and went on to build the competitor xAI.

The defense lawyers further rebutted that Musk’s insistence on the so-called “nonprofit mission” is hypocritical. They presented documents showing that Musk had already recognized that in order to compete with giants like Google, OpenAI would need to shift into a for-profit entity to obtain billions of dollars in funding.

Savitt said sarcastically that Musk has never truly cared about AI safety or nonprofit structure; what he really cares about is ensuring that Musk holds the highest power. OpenAI emphasized that Musk’s current efforts are essentially aimed at suppressing competitors and trying to use legal means to obtain the technological dividends that Musk had voluntarily given up back then.

The trial is expected to last about three weeks. During that time, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Altman, Brockman, and multiple early core engineers at OpenAI may testify, restoring the truth behind this Silicon Valley power struggle.

The Ecosystem Takes Legal Aftershocks: Worldcoin Plunges, and the AI Industry Faces an Uncertain Future

As trial details are gradually revealed, the cryptocurrency project Worldcoin (now renamed World Network), closely tied to Altman, has suffered serious market shocks. Musk has repeatedly mocked Altman as “Scam Altman” on social media, triggering widespread doubt among the crypto community about Worldcoin’s token model, biometric data collection practices, and transactions involving black-market accounts.

Affected by this legal dispute, the token price $WLD has fallen by more than 98% from its historical high, and even on the day the trial opened, it dropped nearly 3%. On-chain detective ZachXBT has also accused the project’s tokenomics, further intensifying investors’ panic. The fallout from this lawsuit has spread to the intersection of blockchain and AI, and the market is closely watching whether Altman’s personal reputation will collapse as a result.

• Related news: On the level of FTX! On-chain detective criticizes Worldcoin as a predatory token; iris verification leads to the creation of a black market

Outside the courtroom, the drama continued. At the Oakland courthouse, large numbers of protesters gathered. Some held anti-AI slogans, criticizing Musk and Altman—both billionaires—for developing technologies that threaten human jobs and safety.

Image source: Fox Business Protesters holding anti-AI signs criticize Musk and Altman for developing technologies that threaten jobs and safety

Legal observers noted that because both sides have enormous social influence in the AI industry, selecting a completely unbiased jury will be a major challenge. Current prediction markets estimate the odds of Musk winning at around 40%, and most experts expect the case may ultimately end in a settlement, or that OpenAI could be compelled to return more rights to the foundation. Regardless of the ruling, this lawsuit has already profoundly revealed how, in pursuing technological peaks, the AI industry keeps getting pulled between idealism, power ambitions, and capital expansion—ultimately determining who will control core human technologies for decades to come.