Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#251

Post by dgellow » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:01 PM UTC

mathisfun123 wrote: post #186

nxobject wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI model providers have zero "moat", clients change them as they see fit. 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.

I think you don't understand moat - that's not a moat.

It can be if it’s really sticky. But I don’t think ai models themselves will ever be sticky, the harnesses might be. But there is very little money to make in the harness itself, and they are also very easy to copy, so yeah, no moat

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#252

Post by thewebguyd » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:02 PM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #175

smith7018 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an interesting point here. Due to having infinite money already, that's a possible dynamic we might see. OAI admits "Yup, obviously you got us. Let's write a check." And Apple might just respond "Nah, we are obviously going to win at trial, the legal fees don't bother us a bit, and honestly we don't really need the money, we'd rather destroy you as heavily as possible, for some combination of making an exampl…

There's also just the possibility that the use of stolen IP has contaminated most work within OpenAI to the point that an injunction could realistically stop all deployments by OpenAI and grind the company to a halt during discovery, before a trial even happens if Apple is granted the injunction.

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.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#253

Post by Zigurd » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #239

tedggh wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Or maybe it was a loose ethical environment in general” 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 aweso…

"Altman doesn’t appear to be a beacon of corporate ethics." Do those exist? I'm usually happy to see a mild candle flicker in the ethics window.

When Intel was on top of the world I was fortunate enough to work at one of the partner companies on a project that was a pet project of Andy Grove. I would nominate him and his whole C suite as a beacon of ethics and fair dealing.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#254

Post by thewebguyd » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:06 PM UTC

zuzululu wrote: post #193

Looks like a bunch of OpenAI employees involved in the theft are going to see prison time and nobody is going to hire them other than shady startup founders who will probably ask "is this guy going to steal from me " 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…

> Looks like a bunch of OpenAI employees involved in the theft are going to see prison time

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.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#255

Post by thewebguyd » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:11 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #147

pembrook wrote: post #15

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 ge…

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.)

> You can steal trade secrets

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.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#256

Post by foolswisdom » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #130

trollbridge wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While the misuse of the term monopoly is annoying, that's quite the misleading comment. You're allowed to disagree with what policy is a good idea, but laws like the linked do exist, and they were seen as pro-competitive in their time.

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...

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#257

Post by Y-bar » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #239

tedggh wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ Or maybe it was a loose ethical environment in general” 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 aweso…

"Altman doesn’t appear to be a beacon of corporate ethics." Do those exist? I'm usually happy to see a mild candle flicker in the ethics window.

I would say Patagonia would be considered such a flicker.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#258

Post by ironman1478 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:14 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #221

estearum wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there like a hundred of them? And yeah, sure, it'll obviously be a collector's item. Provides no evidence to this discussion.

A hundred? That's a big run for Ferrari isn't it?

Not anymore. Their numbers are higher nowadays.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#259

Post by vessenes » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #100

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…

[Citation Needed]. Demand letters are one thing. Proof is another. And California laws are, to my understanding, pretty employee friendly as a matter of policy. We'll see where this ends, but I wouldn't assume right now this is anything but typical corporate engagement.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#260

Post by ironman1478 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 7:19 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #207

ironman1478 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Luce seems to disprove that, at least in his case.

The car that has sold out in almost every market outside the US?

Ferrari tends to sell well, partially due to allocation requirements so you have to factor that in.

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.