Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters
ft.com
ft.com
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.
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.
That was a board. Not the Board. The Board represents shareholders. The board that tried to fire him was some B-corp wannabe bullshit.
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...
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.
Why would they settle if they never directed employees to do any of these actions?
The rest of us are allowed to rightfully laugh at them.
If Ben and Jerry's didn't disseminate your memo on how to steal trade secrets from your former employer to its new hires, I'd think you'd have a better point.
Did OpenAI do this? And is there proof of it?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28453229-apple-v-ope...
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.
Except there are. It’s why clean-room design [1] is a thing.
What are you basing this on? Source?!?
I've personally done this in an aerospace context.
And unsurprisingly, that's not what the lawsuit is over!
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.
They also succeeded in the monumental task of making VR look boring.
VR platforms are an escapist's dream: you can be anything you want doing whatever you want. And how did they show off their fantasy world machine? They did office meetings in avatars of their real life selves.
Just spend one night in VRChat and everything Meta did will look like Plato's cave shadows.
Also wasted spending is not quite the same as "not wanting to spend" -- it's more, to GP's point, "spending a lot unsuccessfully." I got the sense a lot of the friction Nokia and Windows Phone faced were due to Google (and to some extent Apple) using the market dominance of their properties (Android, YouTube, Search, Maps) to suppress competition.
I suppose it's fair play for what MSFT did in the OS and browser wars, but they got dinged pretty hard by Antitrust and played nice for a decade+ after that. Google is starting to see the antitrust blowback for it's actions only now, long after the competition has been crushed.
It makes a lot of sense to get into a massive legal battle with one of the most deep-pocketed companies on the planet?
There will be a market for the car, but Ferrari is a mix of a car company, a lifestyle brand, and a jewelery company. The Luce doesn't really fit the image they've cultivated and is not distinctive enough from the rest of the market. It's almost too pedestrian. The inside is nice, but you can't flex on others with a nice interior. It also doesn't have fun features that are proving to be desirable, like the faux shifting that the Hyundai has and that other brands are gonna start adopting. It feels like a car Ferrari made to say they made an EV. Its like they felt they had to, either due to internal or external pressures.
If I am understanding you correctly, it seems the Luce does not factor in to that equation. There are no requirements for anyone to buy a Luce in order to unlock the privilege of buying higher tier models.
So it won't be Ferrari SpA who applies the pressure, it'll be their dealers. Who, as always, are "independent businesses" over which the company has "no control."
Same thing that played out when Maserati first returned to the US market under Ferrari distribution, basically.
“Hey, it’s your friendly Ferrari dealer. About your position on the list for an F80… we’re going to need you to buy a Luce to maintain your position and ensure you are eligible to purchase an F80 when we get an allocation.”
And that’s how you sell out a production run for a Ferrari that looks like a Kia. Force rich people to buy it to get the car they actually want, just like a Rolex AD does with Lady Datejusts if you want a Daytona allocation.
It's also possible to lose touch (e.g., butterfly keyboards).
Nothing says idiotic bubble more than this
I increasingly see AI investment, generally speaking, as a lost cause. It has very little chance to pay off.
Unless someone comes up with a brilliant optimization strategy or new hardware that renders all that inefficient Nvidia crap overnight.
That might be true in tech-savvy industries -- but in non-tech industries where the biggest software purchase might be the office suite or the ERP, inertia means the GSuite shops stick with Gemini, and the Exchange/Office 365 shops stick with Copilot.
This is essentially what Google has done, and it's a shame the US is so weak on enforcing antitrust laws.
This time, it is different with AI. The rate of change is significant.
From no internet to internet the change is pretty profound. But my job is already very automated for the most part. It's true AI might automate it a bit more, but it's not like I'm going from zero automation to full on automation. That's not nothing, and it is worth something, but it's also not internet from no internet level of change either.
The moat is way smaller than with Office or Gsuite because they feed data into the chat interface and it gives them an answer. The moat for Gsuite and Office is higher because you have to move all your data and reorganize it. Oh and everyone has to learn how to use the new software clients.
from a non-US perspective yes, but so are the rest of the major providers
Frontier labs are racing towards SaaS commoditization at incredible speed. And while there might possibly be $Trillions in productivity gained from their use, there's no reason to think those gains get captured by the model makers or inference providers at this point.
Maybe the Claude or ChatGPT desktop apps will dominate as the new MS Excel, but that's hard to do without already having locked the whole market into Windows.
There's virtually no platform play available to them.
Yeah it almost certainly won't be captured by them. That value is going to be captured by the folks/companies that shrink wrap the capabilities into a nice SaaS or other tool, that a business can buy off the shelf and give to their employees.
The model makers are on a fast track to just becoming dumb pipes, not unlike ISPs.
China is obviously in the GPU/RAM race. Heard of Huawei, Moore Threads, Lisuan Tech, CXMT?
You ban access, other countries aren't just going to give up. They'll start innovating and at some point likely outinnovating you
Who is to say Apple employees (at Apple) haven’t been vibe coding or asking gpt for technical topics? Also, funny timing from Apple - there is a lot of PR and optics riding on this lawsuit.
sama plays loose with the truth. so likely the employees are gonna follow their boss in cutting corners.
you see it everywhere in gvt/large organizations - if you come from a poor country - if the president is corrupt - the whole gvt gets corrupted.
That's why Apple used open-source software to build a kernel.
And why they used third party developers to develop the ecosystem of applications.
Isn't that the very definition of a platform?
Apparently, everyone is building the platform all the time, even when it’s just a user facing application
> they did buy Jony Ive and are presumably giving him everything he wants to build a platform for them
If they hired Jony Ive to build a "platform" they will be very disappointed. He has no experience in doing that. They hired him to design a device, probably comment on the UI (if there is any, though I don't think he is qualified to direct either UI personally).
Aside from that, yeah, they royally screwed up here. Either by hiring unsavory people who think this acceptable behavior and/or by not managing/supervising them.
I've said it before on this topic: this goes _way_ past non-competes and the like. If you learn a novel method for doing something you are free (in my book) to recreate it at another company. You are not free to steal code/designs/etc verbatim and you are absolutely not ok to encourage people you are poaching (poaching is fine itself) to steal secrets/ideas on their way out. Also the whole "lying to a manufacturer to say Apple gave OpenAI permission to use the same proprietary technique" is really gross.
Is there any reason to think this is roque employees doing something? We know Altman is ethically challenged. It is equally or even more likely that management welcommed employees to doing this.
Especially the fruity era that brought apple back from the brink was not Rams inspired at all. And it was pretty genius. I still see his work from that time as a retro icon in hipster coffee shops. I owned a blue iBook from that time and it was really comfortable to work on due to its smooth edges (though carrying it by its handle had a bit too much of a handbag look)
One thing I do criticise him for is that he's always been form over function. The puck mouse is one good example from that era, anyone who has used it will understand that round is not a good shape for a mouse.
But originality, yes. He was inspired sure but nobody exists in a vacuum.
Hell they might’ve been bought by OpenAI for billions instead of… HP lol
All they seem to have gotten out of it is some creepy blogpost:
This is hilarious. The company run by sama? The company that started as the largest copyright violation ever? How can you be above reproach when you start with such disregard like that?
Altman doesn’t appear to be a beacon of corporate ethics.
There has to be a reason why almost every single important partnership OpenAI had, abruptly ended, except for maybe Nvidia.
Just recently Satya Nadella publicly implied that OpenAI should not be trusted.
They are slowly becoming the STD of the AI industry, it’s like they think they are too big and awesome to need friends.
Maybe pissing Apple off will teach them a lesson?
Do those exist? I'm usually happy to see a mild candle flicker in the ethics window.
Similar to the music world, the better you are, usually the more obscure you are as well. (e.g., Allan Holdsworth is a name known to most pros but the average Jack or Jill have no idea who he is or why he's considered important.)
In the early days all their products were explicitly designed to only work with each other to create a hardware walled garden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
I'm a little surprised to see the company that locked employees into their buildings during night shifts[1] in your "more ethical" list.
People here are way too invested in hating Sam to be remotely rational on this topic.
Like, this is the same Apple that tried to tell a judge "a touch is a zero-length swipe" when suing the shit out of Android vendors, right? In their eyes, all the competition was supposed to stick with styluses and Windows Mobile 6.x.
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.
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.
The lawyers told us ahead of time we'd be getting the letters. They told us what we needed to preserve and what we could comfortably trash. There was never any follow-up or specific requests for what I had on my machines. That was that.
The idea that getting a legal request is scary is silly. We were employees getting employee guidance from our employer on what to do at every step of the way. We weren't individuals fending for ourselves, wondering about getting something wrong, being taken in for questioning. We were doing what we always do, work hard and listen to the company lawyers if they have something to say.
Interesting to hear your perspective on this as someone who went through it!
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.
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.
Honest question: Are there countries where this is not the case? I'd be interested to read more about how that manage that. If it's some sort of "protecting the little guy"-type thing or a general suppression of legal costs. Or maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.
In every other country, the loser pays the winner's legal fees.
Sue someone who can spend millions of pounds (for the sake of argument) on defence? Better be certain you can win... against someone who can spend millions of pounds, and probably went to the same public school as the judge.
In America, legal fees can be awarded as additional damages. We should do it more than we do. But given those two options? I'm on Team American Rule, 100%
The English Rule has several variations by jurisdiction, you'll find a handy map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney's_fees)
In England (where pounds come from) costs are not always rewarded, but very frequently, they are: and it's actual costs, not some fixed fee. A litigant who spends more on solicitors indemnifies the loser accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law#What_can_...?
Perhaps you live somewhere where this is not the usual basis. Perhaps you just felt like being rude online. We'll never know.
Unless your friend happens to actually be a legally licensed lawyer.
So if you have been wrongly accused, that may cost you nothing.
The insurance doesn’t mind fighting for you because they will get paid by the company making the frivolous suit. You don’t pay much, 10$/month.
Although in this particular case, you wouldn’t even need that, since either you took the documents and that is criminal fraud prosecuted by the state or you didn’t take the documents and then the company would be in hella trouble if they perjured themselves to the public prosecutor claiming you did.
Honestly, the proof is the least surprising part -- Apple's been paranoid about leaks for decades, even when the stakes have been lower.
Though in this case, OpenAI may have leveled up the game a bit too much.
Isn’t that precisely what being late to the party means? You should have showed earlier?
Also Apple could have filed the litigation right before the IPO and after a IPO announcement. OpenAI doesn't get to decide when Apple sues them.
Corps lose law suits all the time. They always have to go whatever "this far" is before it happens, surely?
Companies often file frivolous lawsuits against other companies. It’s much rarer to throw frivolous lawsuits at 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.
This isn't law and order and that's not how civil litigation works.
Might have to make some phone calls to my local representatives now...
If you’re in New York, California or Texas I’ll help you :).
But it doesn't follow at all that Apple is threatening to sue them. A long time ago, in an unrelated case, I got a letter like this because I was in the room when a certain decision was made and happened to have some notes about that meeting. But there was no chance I would be sued. I wasn't the decider, and was basically a third-party involved.
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
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (1988–1994) -- Apple lost its ass on this one, entirely frivolous. Every single major claim failed.
Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp. (2010–2012) -- Apple patents wiped out over frivolity
Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. (2010–2014) -- Mutually destructive patent fight, Apple's loss
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2011–2018) -- Pretty suspect. Lawyers still undecided
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. (2017–2019) -- Apple settled, needed QC modems more than a win
Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (2020–present) -- Apple was ordered to stop anti-steering rules, won little
Look, Apple sued Samsung over the corner radius on piece of hardware. It's currently suing a YouTuber for publishing renders of pre-release iOS.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg for Apple suits, many pretty unconvincing. Here are a few more.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (1982–1983) Apple Computer, Inc. v. Apple Corps Ltd. (1978–2007) Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation (2008–2011) Apple Inc. v. Corellium, LLC (2019–2023) Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Ltd. (2021–present) Apple Inc. v. Rivos Inc. (2022–2025) Apple Inc. v. Andrew Aude (2024–2025)
So don't tell us Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that it regularly does so.
Like let’s be generous and say 7 of those are truly frivolous (doubtful), that’s barely 2 a decade.
> So don't tell us Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that it regularly does so.
Said nothing like that. I was very specific here. Apple does tons of unethical/shady/legally dicey/abusive things for business gain. There’s zero question. I am talking about a very specific tactic that they generally do not resort to. In no way am I saying it is out of the kindness of their hearts, I’m saying that it bolsters the claim that their lawsuit against AI probably has incredibly substantial teeth and will not be going away.
If I am understanding your question, they went so far as to sue their 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.,
Parent is being downvoted likely because their statement implies the “dozens” receiving letters are individually being sued, but that’s not the case.
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.
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.
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
As you could imagine, I’m not sharing any specific information.
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)
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?
Sending the notification letters is probably petty though.
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.
And if there is, tell me what.
John Grubes might be a better authority than me in these matters and he seems to share my opinion. You can listen to it here:
https://dithering.passport.online/member/episode/apple-sues-...
Tang was never mentioned as a candidate in anything I read over the past few years. He wasn't an SVP.
It’s well known within Apple that they hate each other.
This has Ternus driven all over it
If it was a small number, four or five total, maybe, but not 40.
One, because the evidence is damning–and comprehensive–against their interests, and OpenAI has a ticking clock around fundraising and going public that an ongoing lawsuit with Apple endangers.
Two, because based on all the facts in the public domain–and Sam Altman's documented history of lying–the likelihood of Apple succeeding on the merits of this case are high. Someone at OpenAI seems to have sensed this when they went cold on Apple's legal letters.
> If he hasn't used the material at work
The evidence presented shows Liu demonstrating a total lack of character and judgmeent, quite possibly to a criminal level. The fact that OpenAI is confused about why this is bad is their own condemnation.
No it is not. An employee stole info from his former employer. There is no proof OpenAI asked for this or used it in any way. Employees could plausibly do such things thinking they will benefit over their peers at their new job without disclosing this to the new job.
> the likelihood of Apple succeeding on the merits of this case are high
Not if OpenAI hasn't actually solicited any of this or used any of that info. In discovery nothing will be found and the case will end there.
> The evidence presented shows Liu demonstrating a total lack of character and judgmeent, quite possibly to a criminal level
Character and judgment are not the most sought after qualities at a certain level of hard to recruit for work. They also might want to wait for the results of a trial to fire him as he could sue for wrongful termination if a court acquits him of stealing documents (still possible there could be evidentiary issues etc.)
Typically the staff member being investigated would be placed on administrative leave during a lawsuit like this, even if they did nothing wrong. The fact that it didn't happen makes me think the investigation isn't being conducted properly.
If Apple’s accusations prove to be true, it just means that OpenAI is consistent.
Also, they don't have a directly competing business with OpenAI, so slander doesn't make sense.
I think this is genuine.
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.)
I wonder if they’ll be the Lehman Brothers of this bubble
That's exactly what this Yahoo Finance article today calls them at least [1]
[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/lehman-brot...
This could go way beyond any potential hardware project, depending on whats actually true from the allegations and how much of Apple's trade secrets have been used or shared within OpenAI.
There were rumors a while back of OpenAI building some integrations into macOS akin to the Shortcuts app, and who knows what other computer use type projects. They could very well have been using information from within Apple for that.
It's kind of a fruit of a poisonous tree problem. If OpenAI used any of Apple's secrets broadly, Apple could ask the court for an injunction to block the deployment of any software from OpenAI. If discovery proves the IP contamination spread into other areas within OpenAI, it could completely freeze all of their deployments.
If Apple actually has the receipts here they could realistically bring down OpenAI entirely.
I find this so funny. Can you share an example or two of where something like this has ever happened to one of the largest companies in the world? There is no universe where some judge orders that OpenAI can no longer deploy any software, for anyone (including huge swaths of the federal government) because of the alleged actions of a few people, and it’s allowed to stand. Zero chance.
I’ll say one thing for Sama: he might have a lot of haters, but it’s not that hard to prove them wrong with predictions like these.
Waymo (Google) vs. Uber & Anthony Levandowski. Google was granted an injunction that ordered Uber to immediately halt all development on self driving tech.
Apple also bankrupted Pystar for stealing trade secrets.
Levandowski would have served actual jail time if he didn't get a pardon.
Property rights and trade secret laws don't just magically vanish because a company has government contracts or a high valuation.
The point isn’t that an injunction is impossible, but the idea that Apple will get an injunction that shuts down all software deployments at OpenAI, leading to the end of the company, is pure fantasy.
My prediction: this will result in a relatively modest undisclosed settlement and OpenAI won’t abandon, or even modify, their hardware product because of this. And Apple definitely won’t get an “open kimono” to everything OpenAI has planned.
This is two of the largest, most powerful, most well-capitalized companies on the planet in a legal fight. People are taking sides because of their hatred of Sama, and it results in these bizarro takes that OpenAI is finished as a company lol.
Guess we’ll see.
Huh what? Since when is OpenAI's IOU's and paper money worth more than Apple's cold hard cash? They have been backing away from their infrastructure commitments and literally pushing their IPO out.
Their "value" might fly with idiot VC's that are willing to throw money at them based on vibes. They are "big" on paper, nothing close to the financial heft of Apple. If anything this is where Sam Altman’s reality-distortion-field isn't going to fly.
> ... it results in these bizarro takes that OpenAI is finished as a company lol.
Meanwhile there's repeated news of OpenAI barely making ends meet and poised to run out of money mid next year. Unfortunately, OpenAI being 'well-capitalized' just doesn't hold up to what we've been actively seeing.
BP spent a billion on defense attorneys for Deepwater Horizon. There’s a zero percent chance it costs OpenAI anywhere close to that to fight this, but even if it did, a billion over the next few years wouldn’t even be a speed bump for them.
OpenAI being well-capitalized made me laugh out loud, thanks for the humor :)
Apple has a ridiculous amount of cash, AA credit, and makes $100B of net income per year. OpenAI has none of those attributes, what they do have is investors willing to bankroll them, for now.
OpenAI has plenty of cash to fight this. Apple having hundreds of billions doesn’t actually mean anything in a legal fight that might cost OpenAI nine figures in legal fees, maybe? If it goes for years?
A historic judgment against OpenAI (zero chance of that here) might actually drive them out of business, but they’re far beyond the threshold of being well-capitalized enough to fight Apple on this for years.
This is a nothingburger.
Chips don’t pay legal bills.
Apple already caught former employees accessing the Apple internal network with unreturned laptops after termination that’s pretty much game over.
If Apple has receipts, this could spell the end of OpenAI anyway. Even if Apple doesn't go to trial, at minimum, OpenAI will need to discard any work that even remotely touched or was influenced by Apple's IP here. If it was shared broadly within OpenAI across multiple projects, it could be quite substantial. Fruit of a poisonous tree and all that.
In the not-so-distant past, Uber's head of self-driving was indicted and sentenced to jail time for similar conduct. The criminal case didn't start until ~2.5 years after the civil case was filed.
Depending on what is at stake. Example the one with Nuvia and Qualcomm I believe they just settled.
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.
Depends if they hate Apple or OpenAI more.
OpenAI has a lot ot catchup on the EU hate scale.
choosing chinese seems like a shoo in for better operators
Yes. If our people believe Beijing isn't looking to undermine European integration, we deserve what's coming to us. Simplistic analysis results from illiteracy.
Removing ChatGPT due to ToS violations seems like it would be ok.
No. If Apple did that without a basis in their own App Store policies, they'd spawn antitrust cases. OpenAI damages are a droplet compared to the App Store revenues.
> It's insane to cross Apple
... on the question of employee confidentiality. Because the IP landscape is so muddled, they try hard to keep employees happy (most don't leave), and they're very, very good at writing, securing, and enforcing confidentiality agreements.
I think this is a good reminder that no company is going to put their neck out for you. IF you go above and beyond whether, whatever the carrot is on the end of the stick you chase, you are only good as what you give back.
Never stay loyal or go all out for your employers, I think the new gen z are far more wiser. It's simply not worth it and I don't feel guilty for working three different employers via remote. Would they get mad and fire me if they found out? Sure. But then I'd just replace them with the next one.
YOU are the only person you should be loyal to. Don't steal for companies, don't lie for companies, don't work extreme hours for some "startup equity" that won't mount to shit (note those are extremely rare)
Collect your pay check, do the minimum, if possible find more pay checks.
Very likely, and I don't see this brought up often. The discussions are always focused on Apple v. OpenAI, but there are very real, serious criminal charges here potentially. This goes well beyond just a civil lawsuit.
Would not be surprised at all to see criminal charges soon.
People’s inability to reason in the face of their hatred for Sama is wild.
i think he's ability to protect the ex-apple engineers is limited as the trials proceed id think it'd be wise for him to remain insulated and distance for the sake of openai
anyhow lawyers on both sides are going to be making far more money than any of their engineers, this trial will drag on for years and they will be eating good, settlement alone could be insane if courts side with apple which in this case seems pretty clear
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.
(I worked at Apple and am aware of little "theft" incidents that came and went. Obviously those little incidents never made the news cycle.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electron....
A bully at times? I wouldn't argue with that.
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_2923Apple 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
> 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.
The cars that I’ve driven since 18, My contribution to the plastic problem over the years, etc.
“Not virtue signalling is evil”
“Doing performative things that don’t actually improve anything but make nerds feel happy is good”
Repairability comes with tradeoffs, I like the fact that I can wear my AirPods in the shower.
It just doesn’t seem in any way reasonable to assume that “evil” is the simplest explanation here, especially since nobody is repairing the repairable wireless earbuds anyway.
If approximately nobody wants to repair their earbuds, why accept any design tradeoffs in the name of repairability? I can’t see it.
But yeah, in that scenario it would be utterly nonsensical to force Apple to enable something which nobody wants.
Things obviously aren’t as bad as you want to communicate, otherwise you would not have to rely on strawmen like this.
Maybe, just maybe, you are also evil?
This is a perception created by your choice of media.
(HackerNews, FWIW.)
Would never buy anything from Samsung.
My observation is that feeling a strong moral valence for a company is a media construction.
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.
(Weird thing about HN.)
No, seriously.
I worked at Apple on Schoolwork for the last few years of my career and saw firsthand how Apple handles data it gathers. As an example, every device was given a unique identifier that in no way identified the user of the device (I mean it was simply a UUID). Additionally, it was tossed and a new one recreated every 11 months.
Because I am inclined to give Apple the benefit of the doubt (your mileage may vary), I am assuming the binary hash they send is intended to protect users from malicious binaries (once their hash is identified of course). And if Apple in this case also rotates the UUID every 11 months, I don't have to worry about them targeting me and my habits specifically (well, not beyond 11 months windows in any event).
Additionally, when at Apple, we had privacy teams walk through things like error logs that our app and framework wrote—making sure there was no PID (personally identifiable information) in the logs. A naive engineer might, in a URL-fetch timeout, for example, log something like, "Timeout for URL request: 'myblog.blogsite.com'". Privacy would ask, "Is it important we log the full URL? Might we instead just log the domain?"
Text-only, no Javascript
(Seeking Alpha)
curl https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA2880s6 \
|sed '
s/.*\"body\":\"/<meta charset=utf-8>/;
s/\",\"readTime.*//;
s/?utm_source.\{53\}//g;
s/&source=more_on//g;
' \
|tr -d '\134' > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htmOf course they say that. As if their product can't just go anywhere it wants just through any user. Who's to say that they are not routing their info 'grabbing' through some executives at Apple that use ChatGPT?
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.
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.
(and to develop 5G modem too)
“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.
Today you can consider that "just business", and therefore "part of competing", but the were laws with the intention of allowing/disallowing types of tactics. E.g., you can't compete by leveraging your volume (see attached link), so you have to focus on making your service good.
The assumption made by a these people is that if there are so majy companies getting that big, there must be general disrespect of these laws. And correlating with the undisputed fact that antitrust enforcement did change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act?wp...
Robinson-Patman applies to every supplier and every retailer, not just monopolies, which is what makes it so difficult to equitably enforce. So it hasn’t been.
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.)
Which goes beyond a civil lawsuit as well, if true, these employees are going to face real, serious criminal charges and possibly jail time. Up to 10 years in federal prison, and Apple has a history of pressing criminal charges.
If Liu actually did exploit a vulnerability to bypass Apple's network security, they may also see federal charges for CFAA as well.
What a shame when there are amazing people out there that would love to work at Apple and would follow the rules and do a great job.
Note: The only thing Google got out of Apple was a one billion dollar refund on an existing search engine agreement, AI real value in the future is as a new addition, to the existing programming stack or toolkit used by programmers. That value does not add up to spending $1 trillion dollars on capex.
If Apple spends any big money in the next 2 to 4 years, they had better spend it on bringing the design and engineering of memory in-house to the Apple Silicon Group and TSMC.