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.
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.
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.
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.
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