By the third day, Elon Musk appeared worn out. This type of fatigue is not caused by jet lag, but rather by a lawyer who obviously knows the file better than you asking the same question in slightly different ways.
Musk squirmed in his chair and attempted to maintain his position inside the federal courthouse in Oakland, where reporters were scribbling and Sam Altman was observing from the gallery. It wasn’t always easy for him.
| Full Name | Elon Reeve Musk |
| Born | June 28, 1971, Pretoria, South Africa |
| Known For | Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, X (formerly Twitter) |
| Trial Role | Plaintiff vs. OpenAI and Sam Altman |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Presiding Judge | Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers |
| Opposing Counsel | William Savitt (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz) |
| Defendant Company | OpenAI, San Francisco |
| Musk’s Rival AI Firm | xAI (creator of Grok) |
| Original OpenAI Donations | $38 million |
| OpenAI Valuation Cited at Trial | Roughly $800 billion |
| Trial Length | Four weeks |
Early and softly, the first crack appeared. William Savitt, the attorney for OpenAI, presented Musk with one paper after another, encouraging him to make compromises that his own lawyers obviously didn’t want him to. He acknowledged that he had pressed to take over a for-profit division. After pausing, he acknowledged that he had thought the nonprofit might benefit from such a structure. His team may have practiced for this. That was not as it appeared.
Then, before the cross-examination truly got underway, Musk lost the battle. His attorneys had attempted to conceal xAI’s safety record. The judge showed no interest. Gonzalez Rogers overruled the argument by telling him, “You do not get to have grandiose proclamations on safety without some measure of cross-examination.” Observing this conversation gives the impression that the judge had heard enough. Musk’s own chatbot, Grok, has been connected to legal actions due to extremely concerning results. Now that ledger is on the table.
Although it moved more slowly, the third stumble may have been the most damaging. Savitt continued to produce old X postings, emails, and deposition transcripts, all of which subtly refuted what Musk had just stated. OpenAI was “the wrong move” as a nonprofit, according to a 2016 email. Days after telling the jury that Tesla wasn’t pursuing AGI, Musk himself stated in an X post that Tesla will be among the companies to produce it. On several occasions, he appeared to be a guy taken aback by his own paper trail.
The smaller cuts came next. When questioned about his use of the term “jackasses” to describe OpenAI’s safety team, Musk clarified that he didn’t mean it as an insult but rather as a reminder to “don’t be a jackass.” It fell short of landing. When asked about safety cards—standardized risk disclosures that are now commonplace in the industry—he acknowledged that he had no idea what they were. They are published for Grok by xAI. In real time, the jurors witnessed him discover this.
It was nearly theatrical in the sixth instant. “I don’t lose my temper,” Musk declared. “I don’t scream at people.” Musk’s voice rose less than an hour later when Savitt questioned him about whether he had read a 2018 email or had only glanced at the title. “I stated I didn’t take a careful look! “I read the headline,” he exclaimed. It was caught by the reporters present. Presumably, so did the jury. When a witness publicly contradicts himself on the same morning, it’s difficult to ignore.
And lastly, the Trump issue. Musk’s attorneys made a concerted effort to keep his political connections out of the proceedings. They were unsuccessful. In a decision that might be more significant in the final weeks than it is now, the judge hinted that she would permit conversations that might further erode Musk’s reputation. For his part, Altman sat through the majority of it with a blank expression. Musk’s lawyers will be prepared for his future turn in the chair. It remains to be seen if they are as prepared as Savitt was on Thursday.
