OpenAI also has infinite money, and the graph for money/lawyering gets clamped well below what OpenAI can afford. It's going to end most other corporate courtroom tangles: with an undisclosed settlement and a well-publicized partnership.
Compare that with Apple, a company that throws off billions of cash every quarter. This isn’t a legit comparison.
At no point is money as a resource being spent on this legal case any kind of meaningful constraint. Equally true for both open ai and apple.
You? You're toast if you need legal justice with either co on the other side. The law exists so that the strongest might not always get their way. It was a good ideal, maybe we should bring it back.
> It's going to end most other corporate courtroom tangles: with an undisclosed settlement and a well-publicized partnership.
This we don't know. We don't know what Apple wants to accomplish with this suit. They may be more interested in the injunctive relief than the monetary recovery. They may want to weaken OpenAI as part of a strategic pivot toward marketing local, private AI inference. As everyone has noted, the factual allegations are detailed and extensive - Apple likely has OpenAI dead to rights on this.
Except OpenAI needs every cent of that money for compute, and they don't have healthy profits that can replenish what they spend.
Their financial situation is simply not comparable to that of Apple's.
At the same discovery process in trade secret litigation is invasive and time-consuming and likely be a heavy tax on the focus of senior leadership.
This also is a complication to their IPO. The financial impact isn't just about the lawyer's fees.
On the plus side, the whole hardware thing was possibly a stupid distraction anyway, having to flush it might not be the worse thing.
And an infinite money-eating bonfire
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros....
https://www.wheresyoured.at/exclusive-openai-financials/
(This was independently verified by the Financial Times)