Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters
ft.com203 points by merksittich 4 hours ago
203 points by merksittich 4 hours ago
Everybody wants a platform but nobody wants to spend what it takes to make a platform. That includes things like Windows Phone, Fire Phone, all the glasses, Humane, etc.
As much as everybody hates on OpenAI for chaotic management, they did buy Jony Ive and are presumably giving him everything he wants to build a platform for them. Even though it probably only buys them a 20% chance of success, they haven't doomed the project by underestimating what it takes budget-wise.
And they blew it. Maybe they blew it by not realizing that even long time Apple employees could get arrogant about security. Or maybe it was a loose ethical environment in general. Whatever is it the root or the problem, they set billions of dollars on fire maybe tens of billions, by being unnecessarily cute about Apple proprietary information when they could've been above reproach. They had the resources to hire all the right people with the right knowledge and probably already had them on board.
Forgive me, but what does Jony Ive know about building platforms?
being an exec at apple for decades you probably pick up on a few things, even if they're beyond your department
A decade ago Uber seemed poised to be the big tech powerhouse. Maybe not a platform per se (certainly not an ecosystem as other companies had it) but a major provider of software for all kinds of verticals beyond their core business. Remember how that turned out?
Most of Uber's "platform" seemed like pet projects that engineers used to justify promotions, and then were quietly abandoned.
Many of them left and turned into startups around that tech, like Temporal.
> Everybody wants a platform but nobody wants to spend what it takes to make a platform.
Ahistoric jibber jabber. Microsoft gave it their very best shot with Windows Phone. Facebook renamed the entire company to make VR happen. These companies have shoved everything they got into making these platforms, and their fate would not have been different if they had been given another billion.
Platforms are hard to make, and wanting it bad enough is not enough to make one.
Stealing from the one company that has managed to court success makes a lot of sense. They are the only company with any successful experience.
Fair enough, but I'd point out that, unlike Second Life, Meta didn't buy pants. If you want a chronicle of wasted spending regarding Microsoft and mobile devices, Google "Tomi Ahonen."
I don't know. Some of it did seem like short attention spans and not enough perseverence. But what do I know being far from an insider.
Yes, but how do we know specific manufacturing processes weren’t in employee contracts like, “If you leave Apple you can’t utilize the invisible weld process invented here for the iMac.”
I mean regardless of whether it’s a trade secret, you’re going to know how to do specific things that can’t be protected against copying.
There are no practical laws against understanding the laws of physics, chemistry, and metallurgy when it comes to anodizing.
> There are no practical laws against understanding the laws of physics, chemistry, and metallurgy
Except there are. It’s why clean-room design [1] is a thing.
Your comment assumes they have stolen some propietary info or trade secrets but it hasn't been determined yet that they have, no?
> it hasn't been determined yet that they have
Legally, no. Reasonably, for purposes of discussion, I think it has. The “LOL” dumbfuck who airlifted files into OpenAI isn’t particularly ambiguous [1].
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-11/openai-en...
It is ambiguous still at this stage though. There's no proof he used this info at his job or that he was directed to take it by anyone (he may have thought it helpful to his career in a way OpenAI never asked for or even invited).
> There's no proof he used this info at his job
LOL Liu hasn’t—to my knowledge—been fired. When OpenAI was notified of his conduct, they didn’t confidentially settle. Instead, OpenAI’s legal went cold on Apple.
It’s not legally certain. But you really have to stretch the facts to make this seem ambiguous.
> And they blew it
This could be a blessing in disguise for OpenAI. This mess was conducted under Altman’s watch—it could be an opportunity to Kalanick him.
The Board could elevate Altman to Chairman emeritus or something, choose a new CEO and settle with Apple. That will probably involve shutting down the hardware project and clawing back comp from its employees who helped make this mess.
FT frames this as some aggressive escalation tactic, but document retention letters are extremely standard practice. At this point they're basically a formality, as any former Apple employee at OpenAI really ought to know by now that they could get dragged into this. Hold letters can be aggressive if you send them before you've even filed a complaint, but if anything, Apple is late to the party with these.
They’re not late to the IPO party, which was postponed by OpenAI, It may turn out that that was a mistake. OpenAI probably should’ve gone ahead, particularly in light of the pending court case.
> They’re not late to the IPO party, which was postponed by OpenAI, It may turn out that that was a mistake
Isn’t that precisely what being late to the party means? You should have showed earlier?
Something similar happened to me when I left Microsoft for Apple (I moved from the Visual Studio team to the Xcode team). MS spent six months trying to prove I'd taken "industry secrets" with me. I hadn't. The entire thing felt like a personal attack and was extremely stressful.
It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.
This seems like an important post. It looks like these letters are occasionally used to as a tactic, and i can see how such a tactic can really scare employees in a country where legal bills can climb really fast.
> It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.
I believe some articles mentioned about employees bragging to their former colleagues about accessing documents. Also I believe they lied to Apple about being employed elsewhere so they can continue using their access and hardware, etc.
If these are correct, the whole OpenAI playbook is very dirty, and I won't pity them a bit.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would also guess they need to "flip" these folks against OpenAI and get them to cooperate in the lawsuit against the actual folks with big pockets. I think they're essentially alleging a conspiracy by OpenAI and they need as many examples as possible to make the case that this was a pattern and standard practice, not just one or two idiots acting on their own.
So if I'm a former Apple employee and I get one of these scary letters, I'm asking my attorney if I could get out of a lawsuit by sharing any information I have about any potential OpenAI shady practices.
You shouldn't ever willingly give up information to a plaintiff if it could implicate you. If the information exists, it's going to come out in discovery. Admitting to theft of trade secrets is probably not going to help you, it's not like the cops offering you immunity for turning state's witness.
You talk to a lawyer and do what they say, not what Apple demands of you. No one but a judge can demand anything of you.
That's overly dramatic.
At this point, the assumption would be that they are a non-party witness.
So, beyond not destroying any potential evidence, you might as well tell them to shove it.
Apple must have hard evidence on this. I can’t believe they would take it this far without already knowing they are going to win. If they have to fire a huge chunk of their hardware employees it’s going to throw their IPO plans into chaos.
They literally do have hard evidence. They have records of an employee (Chang Liu) who left for OpenAI copying dozens and dozens of files off of their server after he left.
That's not enough though. He could have been acting rogue or for some other reason. That alone won't win in court
Among 40 ex Apple employees come on at least five or six of them probably crossed the line in their enthusiasm to get the big bucks.
If it was a small number, four or five total, maybe, but not 40.
Also, Apple confronted OpenAI about LOL Liu. OpenAI’s response wasn’t to fire him, conduct an investigation and confidentially settle with Apple. It was to go cold.
What do you mean "this far"? How far is this?
Corps lose law suits all the time. They always have to go whatever "this far" is before it happens, surely?
>How far is this?
If I am understanding your question, they went so far as to sue their employees.
You are getting downvoted because, I guess, people didn't read who the defendents who are getting sued, and that it literally starts with sueing two employees:
CHANG LIU, TANG YEW TAN, OPENAI FOUNDATION f/k/a OPENAI, INC., OPENAI GROUP PBC, and IO PRODUCTS, LLC f/k/a IO PRODUCTS, INC.,
There are two individuals being sued, but many more received letters.
Parent is being downvoted likely because their statement implies the “dozens” receiving letters are individually being sued, but that’s not the case.
Filing lawsuits against ex-employees is going pretty far. Not good PR for Apple if their claims are wrong.
Companies often file frivolous lawsuits against other companies. It’s much rarer to throw frivolous lawsuits at individuals.
Just to be clear, these are letters to individuals about the existing lawsuit with OpenAI, not new lawsuits against individuals.
> these are letters to individuals about the existing lawsuit with OpenAI, not new lawsuits against individuals
My guess is these employees weren’t chosen randomly. If they refuse to coöperate with Apple, they’ll get personally sued as well.
And the reality of the matter is, given Altman’s public persona and reputation, there is a good chance an AG somewhere starts looking at whether these folks broke any laws.
They will find out what Altman really cares about, my guess at this point, he only cares about the impending IPO throwing baggage overboard (new hires), probably won’t be a problem in the end.
The accusations are incredibly clear/defined (and serious!) and have a very simple burden of proof. These things either happened or they didn’t, and they have material evidence or they don’t. It’s incredibly unlikely that they filed such big, concrete accusations without concrete proof to back them up.
And while I am far from an Apple fan boy, yes a lot of big corporations file frivolous lawsuits but Apple typically does not engage in that behavior against other companies. Also bear in mind that open AI is a huge name so there is a public/political element that goes along with this for Apple. There are going to be a lot of people who do not want Apple to win this regardless of how true their claims are and will figut like hell to protect openAI
I do not know a lot about Apple's litigation against other companies, but Apple did file numerous largely unsuccessful challenges to the EU's DMA.
You see how that’s an entirely different kind of legal action, right? It’s a resistance to regulation, which is entirely different than this accusation of malfeasance.
"Apple typically does not engage in that behaviour against other companies" - Meet Rossman. He'll tell you all about that and individuals too.
Makes you wonder if they’ll settle for bargain-basement token prices for Apple Intelligence.
I think it is clear that if Apple were going to deal with OpenAI on that level, they already would have. What they wanted for their AI products is a measure of control over their destiny that OpenAI clearly did not want to give them that badly. It's also pretty clear that Apple is willing to work with arch-rivals to supply components of their products, both software and hardware, but values consistency alongside trustworthiness.
This stuff happened years ago, right? Something tells me that discussion has already happened, and they went with Google.
Besides: Apple is a "real" company that will definitely still be around in five years. They've already fumbled Siri multiple times. IMO Google was certainly the right choice for actually executing well on Apple's own terms for the foreseeable future.
You’re underestimating how much Apple Legal goes after anyone and everyone they feel a slight wrong sniff about.
I know some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed for one reason or another, and…it’s not a legal team I’d ever want to cross paths with.
It’s also not the first time Apple has cried wolf at employees leaving the company to do bigger and better things, while trying to take responsibility for their successes.
Then share some of those insane stories with sources I guess. Because this seems to directly contradict my understanding of Apple (post-Jobs in particular).
I do not love Apple, as I said another comment I am so far from an apple fanboy, but frivolous lawsuits against other companies is not really typical for them. Also, these accusations are far from frivolous and they either have proof or they don’t. It would be very strange for them to file this thinking they would win with some sort of gray area argument
I worked at Apple for a few decades. My comment was not meant to be cryptic as much as it was to say: their legal team is very very hands on.
As you could imagine, I’m not sharing any specific information.
Oh, in that case, I just happen to have some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed, and every one of my stories rebuts every one of your stories.
I can only wonder what percentage of human conceptual abilities are expended on rebuttal.
This is John Ternus having a beef with Tang Tan. It’s widely known they both competed for the role of CEO. Tim Cook would never have started this.
It shows a level of pettiness and arrogance which I never expected to see from Apple.
I can’t put myself in the mind of John, but he clearly hated Tang.
From outside and with a parent’s perspective this looks like my kids throwing a tantrum.
John must be thinking he is the new Steve Jobs (Steve would definitely do this)
It's interesting that you say they must have hated each other, but assume only Ternus is acting on that. What makes you think Tan's hatred of Ternus or animosity toward Apple for picking Ternus over him didn't lead Tan to do the alleged behavior?
Maybe a naive take, but if there's one team in a large corporation that does not bend to "the CEO(-to-be) wants it", that is the Legal team. Particularly when the ask is a lawsuit of this scope and relevance, and potential costs (of all kinds). The head of Legal can just hint to the board how expensive (in all senses) the vendetta would be and the CEO is likely "not to be" anymore, or "to be temporary".
The alleged crime sounded childish. Appeal to rule of law, enforced by the court system is necessary for a fair business enviornment.
Sending the notification letters is probably petty though.
Tim Cook is the current CEO. Tim Cook is doing this. Any assertion otherwise is 100% wrong.
John Ternus doesn't become CEO until September 1st. If you think that this is still John Ternus' play, Tim Cook is still the one in charge and signed off to start this, meaning "Tim Cook would never have started this" is still 100% wrong.
Agreed Steve would do this
But the iPhone is the most valuable consumer hardware product on the planet, and the accusations here is “conspiracy to steal” essentially.
Is it really that petty? Apple should be okay with theft of valuable secrets?
Apple comes down hard on employees who merely leak to the press. Taking internal documents to a competitor is not going to be fun.
OpenAI only exists due to the theft of content created by others.
If Apple’s accusations prove to be true, it just means that OpenAI is consistent.
I think that it's quite clear in the digital era that you can't steal bits that are free to copy.
So the ex-employee has to pay up or something, whats this got to do with OpenAI the company, seems like desperate attempt to slow down the company that will likely take Apple market share for dropping the ball on AI, they should look inwards rather than lashing out litigiously.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it’s fair to argue that Uber’s self-driving efforts never recovered after that trial.
Among 40 greedy humans would several of them get too happy/carried away and copy sensitive information and take it somewhere else probably…
It's insane to cross Apple. In the worst case Apple could take the ChatGPT app down like they did to Fortnite. They are probably waiting for discovery to find out how high this goes.
Well, the EU won't allow it.
IIRC Apple have been allowed to remove Fornite from the Apple Store, they just fall foul of the EU Digital Markets Act / DMA (?) when also blocking the Epic Games Store as a route to add/sideload it.
Removing ChatGPT due to ToS violations seems like it would be ok.
Maybe.
Depends if they hate Apple or OpenAI more.
Apple has a decade of beef with EU.
OpenAI has a lot ot catchup on the EU hate scale.
Eu person: neither. We'd rather have the Chinese.
Yeah, I feel like given two bad choices the EU’s tendency would be to go with a third, worse option.
I wonder what Jony Ive is thinking about his partnership at the moment.
How can I say this…? Some companies come across like a neon sign flashing "EVIL!".
It's been nothing but warning signs from this company for at least a year now. I'm so happy to have nothing to do with them (having deleted my account a year or so ago).
Their marketing dept is going to have to really dig to get them out of this hole they've made for themselves.
The idea that I would trust any device they might roll out that is as personal as a personal AI assistant… It's no better than Meta and their creepy glasses.
Yeah, no thanks.
EDIT: I don't mind the downvotes—it means I touched a nerve—whether I am on the right or wrong side of the issue is not as interesting.
Apple, for its flaws, has not lost my trust with regard to my personal data—Meta and others are likely to never gain that back. OpenAI continues to do things to signal that they will not have that trust with me as well.
… so… you’re talking about OpenAI or Apple?
Ha ha. Worked at Apple for over two decades—would not have stayed at a company I thought was evil for that long.
A bully at times? I wouldn't argue with that.
> Ha ha. Worked at Apple for over two decades—would not have stayed at a company I thought was evil for that long.
Maybe, just maybe, you are also evil?
A quick search:
APP STORE, COMPETITION, AND MARKET CONTROL
- U.S. Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit Accuses Apple of monopolizing
smartphone markets and anticompetitive behavior.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets
- EU Commission DMA breach The European Commission found Apple in breach of
the Digital Markets Act regarding steering rules.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-finds-apple-and-meta-breach-digital-markets-act
- Epic Games injunction sanctions Court rules Apple defied App Store order
regarding external payment links.
https://apnews.com/article/69b16572d2b2c990f6b69d4bbad9b57b
- EU €1.8B App Store fine Fined for abusive music-streaming rules and
preventing cheaper alternative information.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161
- Apple Will Finally Pay for Throttling iPhones (WIRED) Apple settled the
throttling lawsuit for up to $500 million (without admitting guilt).
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-batterygate-settlement-payments-finally-coming/
- The End of Parts Pairing? Almost (iFixit) On how software component linking
forces warnings and loses functionality.
https://www.ifixit.com/News/100266/the-end-of-parts-pairing-almost
- Self-Repair Programme Critique (Right to Repair Europe) Critiques
serialization, remote authorization, and part restrictions.
https://repair.eu/news/apples-self-repair-programme-is-not-the-right-to-repair-we-need/
- France is Fighting to Save Your iPhone from an Early Death (WIRED) Regarding
France's probe into planned obsolescence and parts pairing.
https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-apple-france/
- Apple to pay $95 million to settle Siri privacy lawsuit (Reuters) Lawsuit
alleging accidental Siri recordings and sharing with third parties.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-pay-95-million-settle-siri-privacy-lawsuit-2025-01-02/
- Apple's CSAM On-Device Scanning Critiques (EFF) The Electronic Frontier
Foundation's critique of Apple's plan to scan photos on-device (later
dropped).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life
- Apple Reveals Supply Chain, Details Conditions (Reuters) Early reporting on
audit findings of child labor and work violations.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/apple-reveals-supply-chain-details-conditions-idUSTRE80C1KV/
- Rights Group Says Apple Suppliers in China Broke Labor Laws (Reuters)
Reports of excessive overtime and labor violations in Chinese factories.
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/rights-group-says-apple-suppliers-in-china-breaking-labour-laws-idUSBRE85R0EF/
- State aid: Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to Apple worth up to €13
billion (European Commission) The EC ruling that Ireland gave illegal tax
benefits to Apple, later upheld.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_16_2923I’ll defend batterygate. If you know anything about batteries (especially the tendencies of those in that era), the actions taken by Apple were reasonable, though they should have considered the light in which throttling would be taken. The claim against them was valid but I don’t think the actions were ever malicious.
None of this seems like it could reasonably be described as evil.
How about these?
Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties (yahoo.com)
52 points by notRobot on Jan 1, 2021 | un‑favorite | 5 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25607386
Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments (jessesquires.com)
468 points by ig0r0 on March 31, 2021 | un‑favorite | 291 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216
Apple removes nearly 100 VPNs used by Russians to bypass censorship (elpais.com)
31 points by speckx on Oct 1, 2024 | un‑favorite | 3 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728
Apple's Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA (open-web-advocacy.org)
514 points by yashghelani on July 14, 2025 | un‑favorite | 383 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44557348
Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps (boingboing.net)
146 points by baobun 9 months ago 69 comments
Let’s try:
> Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties (yahoo.com)
Apple routinely terminates relationships with suppliers when they identify abusive practices, sometimes they’re slow about it.
> Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments (jessesquires.com)
> Apple removes nearly 100 VPNs used by Russians to bypass censorship (elpais.com)
Apple obeys local laws
> Apple's Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA (open-web-advocacy.org)
Apple chooses to maintain control over a specific implementation detail of their platform that a handful of nerds object to.
> Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps (boingboing.net)
The claim made in this headline is just straight up false.
I don’t know, I don’t think their less-than-ideal behaviour is anywhere bad enough to reasonably be described as “evil”. Otherwise, we’re probably all evil.
Thank you for your work. You spent far more time debunking misinformation than fsflover spent spreading it.
A list of very normal capitalistic practices. Borderline, sometimes ruthless, sometimes opportunistic. Evil is enabling genocide in Myanmar, which Meta provenly did. Evil is voluntarily steal millions of artworks for your own benefit, which OpenAI has provenly done. Etc…
Isn't polluting the environment evil? http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-airpods-repair-recycling-imposs...
That would describe mankind as a whole…
The cars that I’ve driven since 18, My contribution to the plastic problem over the years, etc.
The difference is Apple intentionally choose unrepairable design, despite much smaller companies offer repairable earplugs (See: PineBuds Pro).
What about the kids they intentionally get driven to suicide by keeping the blue bubbles for no other reason than child indoctrination due to bullying from other kids.
Sounds like a societal and parenting problem that Apple has nothing to do with.
My first reaction was that it was ridiculous, or at least hysterically framed. But the claim is that the whole point of the bubble colour thing, from Apple's perspective, is to take advantage of status games among (largely) kids. If that's true, then it's probably fair to hold Apple partially responsible for the predictable negative consequences. I'd be surprised if something so silly was actually decisive in the worst cases, but I guess if this is playing out among millions of kids, it may be having outsized effects occasionally.
These are quite heavy accusations. Do you have a source for your claim that this was the intention?
From what we know this far it’s quite easy to be on Apples side in this particular question, right?
Yes it was more of a jest than a critique, the comment didn't explicitly say which one it was. In this case, it seems quite clear that Apple has a case.
Especially since Apple has no history of doing this—suggests this is on another level of theft.
(I worked at Apple and am aware of little "theft" incidents that came and went. Obviously those little incidents never made the news cycle.)
How could you have worked at Apple during the entire Samsung lawsuit and say Apple has no history of suing competitors over IP theft?
You're right—I didn't mean to suggest they've never sued competitors. Some companies are just known to be litigious—I've never put Apple in that bucket. (And maybe I have blinders on. It's certainly fair to blame me for being biased.)
Because Apple didn't sue Samsung over IP theft. They sued them over copyright infringement.
It was actually patent infringement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electron....
> Some companies come across like a neon sign flashing "EVIL!".
This is a perception created by your choice of media.
In Samsung’s case, they are evil buy something from them, and you are dead to them after the sale mind you, that probably would be the case with many Korean and Chinese companies too.
Would never buy anything from Samsung.
> don't mind the downvotes—it means I touched a nerve
Nope. You wrote an ambiguous blurb that then breaks guidelines by commenting “about the voting on comments” [1].
Try taking out the edit and change “this company” in the second paragraph to OpenAI.
Wait until it comes out that OpenAI stole trade data through their deal with Atlassian. Seems inevitable. The company is fundamentally criminal in nature.
I’m a huge fan of Apple but this kind of thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Regardless of whether OpenAI poached some of their talent or is the one in the wrong, Apple has such a massively dominant hardware business (some might say monopoly level in some areas) that for them to be publicly acknowledging how scared they are of OpenAI…it’s just…pathetic.
They’re a $5T company and can’t muster up the motivation to get in the game and compete in the next computing frontier.
Apple fanboys will invent some narrative about them swooping in with the best product as a laggard and claim it’s always their strategy, but I see zero evidence they have the capacity to do that anymore.
The Siri situation is just absolutely pathetic and no amount of bad press about OpenAI is going to change the fact that Apple neglecting Siri for a decade now has been a big F-U to their customers.
You may want to read the related articles first. I'm personally quite anti-Apple on several fronts, but the evidence so far seems damning if it holds up in court.
You can’t poach talent, because companies don’t own their employees.
You can steal trade secrets, which is what this case is about.
(If you’re going to suggest a full rewrite of IP and anti-trust law, you should at least have an understanding of the current situation.)
This isn't just them being scared of a competitor because they're able to outperform Apple, according to Apple they have proof of an active plan not just to poach talent, but to get that talent to syphon out information as they leave, as well as former employees keeping Apple hardware and using it to access confidential information. If what Apple claims is true, this is straightforwardly illegal. Could Apple be lying? Maybe, but that's a very risky move.
It totally could be illegal, and I don’t care. Those laws exist to entrench dominant incumbents, and make our economy less dynamic.
The history of Silicon Valley and most of its innovation come from this kind of thing, and we eliminated non-competes in California for exactly this reason.
Apple having a serious competitor in hardware would be a good thing for consumers all over the world.
Apple’s overzealous secrecy culture starts to become insidious once you become such a dominant force in the marketplace.
At what point do we allow their innovations to bleed into the rest of humanity and lower their margins so humanity doesn’t pay out a 60% tax to them anymore. I think they’ve made enough profits for investors at this point. Id be happy if my Apple stock went nowhere if it meant 20 other companies could grow and innovate new products off the back of it.
So we should "make our economy more dynamic" by encouraging IP theft which will simultaneously discourage genuine research & development?
In what case is apple a monopoly?
Some people think that being the exclusive supplier of iOS based devices is a “monopoly”.
Also, I’ve observed a rhetorical trend among the “anti-bigness” crowd towards defining “monopoly” down:
“You may think a monopoly is an overwhelmingly dominant position as a supplier of a good or service, but that’s just naive popular economics! Acshually, according to the latest economic theories (by economists who share our politics), a monopoly is any firm that is big enough to have market power—like pricing power—to do things that can harm a competitor unfairly.”
Us dummies will keep calling that competition.
McDonald's is the exclusive supplier of Big Macs and McNuggets. They're a monopoly.
One sells Big Macs... the other Mac minis... there must be a connection.
Clearly Apple and McDonalds has had a deep level of market collusion on Macs, the FTC should really get involved here and break up this Mac cartel.
And they’re the exclusive fast food partner of Monopoly… so they have a Monopoly monopoly?
Blue bubble discrimination so bad that android users are the vast majority of incels. Even if that’s not technically a monopoly breaking up Apple would materially increase USA birthrates. Unironically!
OpenAI ain’t too open
Why do I get the sense that OpenAI is gonna run to the administration to broker a deal to prevent “losing competitiveness” in the AI space in the advent of Chinese alternatives like Kimi AI. All they’ll exchange is some stake in OpenAI to TruthSocial or some investment vehicle for 45/47.
A non profit turned into a VC business, that would be natural to get subsidies from the public and immunity in the interest of national security.