Elon Musk's Court Testimony on OpenAI Fractures Under Cross-Examination
William Savitt highlights contradictions between Musk's direct testimony and prior depositions, suggesting a motive to prevent OpenAI from becoming a competitor to Tesla.
Elon Musk's courtroom testimony regarding OpenAI has deteriorated significantly during cross-examination by lawyer William Savitt. While Musk initially portrayed himself as a victim blindsided by a betrayal, Savitt successfully highlighted contradictions between his direct testimony and prior deposition statements. The proceedings have shifted from a narrative of heroic intervention to one of significant inconsistency, leaving the impression that Musk acted to prevent OpenAI from becoming a competitor to Tesla.
Key disputes have emerged concerning Musk's alleged failure to read the full term sheet for OpenAI's for-profit structure. During the hearing, Musk admitted to reading only the first section of the document regarding the for-profit arm, stating he did not read the fine print. This admission contradicts his earlier deposition where he claimed uncertainty about reading the document at all, a discrepancy that Savitt used to undermine Musk's credibility.
The lawyer also elicited admissions that Musk believed OpenAI was stealing a charity and that he lost trust in Sam Altman. This contradicts Musk's narrative of being surprised by a sudden betrayal. Furthermore, Musk admitted to hiring Andrej Karpathy for Tesla in 2017 without attempting to retain him at OpenAI, despite his fiduciary duties as a board member.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers observed that Musk was at times difficult to manage, noting the challenge of getting through the testimony. The judge remarked that part of the management process was simply to get through the proceedings, a sentiment echoed by the visible frustration in the courtroom. Musk refused to answer yes-or-no questions, occasionally claimed to have forgotten morning testimony, and scolded his own lawyer, William Savitt.
Historical context reveals that Musk previously declared OpenAI was on a path of certain failure in 2018 and proposed merging it with Tesla, a plan that never materialised. He resigned from the board that year after failing to secure four board seats and 51 percent of shares, which he deemed necessary for full control. The current testimony suggests his decision to cut funding to OpenAI was driven by a desire to maintain control rather than a lack of oversight.
The legal proceedings continue to unfold as the inconsistencies mount. Musk's account of giving $38 million in funding to create an $800 billion company now faces scrutiny over his understanding of the corporate structure he helped shape. The court record suggests a complex history of strategic decisions that may have prioritised Tesla's competitive position over OpenAI's independence.
