Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI • Hacker News Board

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#621

Post by Nevermark » Wed, May 20, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #553

Nevermark wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this thinking at all. I share all the disillusionment and cynicism about Musk, shared here by others. But he has also done amazing things. When someone declares they are going to create a Martian colony, something literally "out of this world", and against all odds makes unbelievable progress for years, including re-usable rockets that return and land vertically, more efficient powerful engines, an…

Ok so let's talk about more terrestrial promises. How are robotaxis coming along, versus the promises? How are Optimus robots coming along, versus the promises? How is the 2nd edition Roadster coming along, versus the promises? You need to stop thinking of Musk in terms of a person who has "done amazing things" and letting that lead you to a belief that he has some kind of special ability in this space. He's the mone…

Lots of late deliveries. This seems to be important to you.

On the one hand, we have major advance, after major advance. But on the other hand, we have crossed out dates on a calendar! Cool things that were mentioned but haven't happen yet! Sad calendar! It's a real toss up!

Puzzle question: is aspirational calendar-target overoptimism good or bad if you get things done late, but sooner than you would have, or at least, more things than you would have, than if you had set more "realistic" targets. Like decades. And then been late for that.

I suggest instead complaining, you your time and Elon's tardiness to beat him to the punch! Lemonade punch.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are late at things, but without the contrast of famous wins, nobody complains. It is so unfair!

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#622

Post by threethirtytwo » Wed, May 20, 2026, 3:40 PM UTC

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #617

threethirtytwo wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah so is every other country on the face of the earth. Lawless is Somalia. The US is normal.

Got it, you don't value the rule of law. We are not the same, you and I.

I value it. But I value it practically and NOT delusionally in the sense that I understand that even though there is law, there will always be people who break the law.

Then when I take this non-delusional perspective and apply it to the US I understand that the US and every country on the face of the earth has a degree of corruption.

Then I do another realistic comparison about the DEGREE of corruption... and we find that the US is relatively NOT lawless when compared with MANY countries.

Also Elon is not a psychopath. But you and many on this thread are delusional.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#623

Post by tskj » Wed, May 20, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

energy123 wrote: post #80

tskj wrote: post #68

Annoying that it had to be Musk to take this fight, but isn't it very unfortunate that OpenAI is allowed to do this non-profit whoopsie we're now a for-profit thing?

Laws were broken?

I believe laws were broken, even though no one contested it with the statute of limitation.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#624

Post by Veserv » Wed, May 20, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #620

Veserv wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it did not. Nobody launched their commercial satellites on Space Shuttles. Soyuz, Atlas, Proton, Delta, Long March, Ariane; those are commercial launch vehicles. Even considering crewed missions we can look to ISS crew missions which were half Soyuz missions and then entirely Soyuz missions between 2009-2020. And again, you do not seem to understand how percentages work. If I have a thing that costs 1,000 $ and I…

You're engaging in some wild freak out mental gymnastics here. Seriously, just read your paragraph about me not understanding percents, and tell me you don't get hard-core Chewbacca Defense [1] vibes. It seriously reads not only like satire, but pretty good satire! You just need to add a QED to the end. lol And don't trust flatterbots to argue for you. They hallucinate regularly and just make you look more absurd. Th…

Yes, you clearly do not understand how percentages work given that you continue to argue that the difference between 30x and 100x is just "2%".

You are correct that there were Space Shuttle missions to the vicinity of the ISS until 2011. I was talking about ISS crew rotation missions where the last Space Shuttle mission was STS-129 in 2009. The Space Shuttle was still used for ISS assembly flights until 2011. I was using crew rotation missions to highlight that not just commercial satellite launches, but also one of the other important class of missions, crew rotation, also regularly used alternatives to the Space Shuttle disproving your point that the Space Shuttle had some sort of magical monopoly on launches and thus the only alternative to compare against.

You were the one arguing that alternatives cost over 100x more than SpaceX. Even deceptively comparing against the Space Shuttle you were still off by a factor of 3x and comparing against actual competitors your claim is off by a factor of 16x-30x. Your claim is egregiously wrong. Continuing to argue it means you are either completely ignorant or utterly biased or both. I am done here.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#625

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia » Wed, May 20, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

threethirtytwo wrote: post #622

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it, you don't value the rule of law. We are not the same, you and I.

I value it. But I value it practically and NOT delusionally in the sense that I understand that even though there is law, there will always be people who break the law. Then when I take this non-delusional perspective and apply it to the US I understand that the US and every country on the face of the earth has a degree of corruption. Then I do another realistic comparison about the DEGREE of corruption... and we fin…

> there will always be people who break the law.

I find this phrasing choice interesting.

Of course there will always be people who break the law. There are always people who are going to attempt to do things they're not supposed to do for a variety of reasons.

Rule of law is about consistent application of the law. Laws that aren't consistently applied are just words on paper.

It seems to me that what you actually intended to say is "there will always be people who break the law and get away with it due to their wealth and status."

And yes, there will probably always be some degree of that too. But in a society that claims to follow the rule of law, the goal should always be to minimize the inconsistent application of the law. Part of that is challenging these events when we see them. Like the extreme corruption of the Trump administration versus every president that came before, including his own first term.

Treating an increase of corruption as inevitable is not, in my opinion, valuing the rule of law. It's at best a half-hearted "whatcha gonna do?" shrug-off.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#626

Post by jsLavaGoat » Wed, May 20, 2026, 5:23 PM UTC

mrhottakes wrote: post #212

jsLavaGoat wrote: post #180

He lost his trial. That is just the first phase of a lawsuit.

No, it's effectively over.

>effectively

right, that's my point. not entirely or literally.

Unless you drop it, there is never a case that is over at the trial phase. Anyone reporting on legal matters should know this language matters.

Also: it's not even "effectively" over:

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/18/musk-altman-openai-trial-ver...

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#627

Post by jsLavaGoat » Wed, May 20, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

jsLavaGoat wrote: post #180

He lost his trial. That is just the first phase of a lawsuit.

Don't know why this was downvoted, Musk is appealing. I'm not expecting people to be civil procedure experts, but it's pretty much high school Government that there are appeals after trials. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/18/musk-altman-openai-trial-ver...

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#628

Post by somenameforme » Wed, May 20, 2026, 5:42 PM UTC

Veserv wrote: post #624

somenameforme wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're engaging in some wild freak out mental gymnastics here. Seriously, just read your paragraph about me not understanding percents, and tell me you don't get hard-core Chewbacca Defense [1] vibes. It seriously reads not only like satire, but pretty good satire! You just need to add a QED to the end. lol And don't trust flatterbots to argue for you. They hallucinate regularly and just make you look more absurd. Th…

Yes, you clearly do not understand how percentages work given that you continue to argue that the difference between 30x and 100x is just "2%". You are correct that there were Space Shuttle missions to the vicinity of the ISS until 2011. I was talking about ISS crew rotation missions where the last Space Shuttle mission was STS-129 in 2009. The Space Shuttle was still used for ISS assembly flights until 2011. I was u…

I said that the difference between a 99% saving and a 97% was 2%. You're the one engaging in freak out mental gymnastics to try to turn that into 'ACTUAAAALLLY... that's like a 300% difference and the proof is that Elon kicked my dog.'

And no, I obviously know you're just grabbing nonsense from your flatterbot of choice. The tell tale is being easily confused on basic points, making rather nonsensical statements, being oddly precise about irrelevant esoteric details, and then finding yourself in a situation where you're left trying to recombobulate it all back into something sensical, which you're not quite succeeding at. Your post above is borderline incoherent, even moreso than the 97% to 99% = 300% nonsense.

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#629

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia » Wed, May 20, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

Nevermark wrote: post #621

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so let's talk about more terrestrial promises. How are robotaxis coming along, versus the promises? How are Optimus robots coming along, versus the promises? How is the 2nd edition Roadster coming along, versus the promises? You need to stop thinking of Musk in terms of a person who has "done amazing things" and letting that lead you to a belief that he has some kind of special ability in this space. He's the mone…

Lots of late deliveries. This seems to be important to you. On the one hand, we have major advance, after major advance. But on the other hand, we have crossed out dates on a calendar! Cool things that were mentioned but haven't happen yet! Sad calendar! It's a real toss up! Puzzle question: is aspirational calendar-target overoptimism good or bad if you get things done late, but sooner than you would have, or at lea…

It's not really about "late" at this point. It's failure to deliver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

Re: Elon Musk has lost his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI

#630

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:48 AM UTC

dnnddidiej wrote: post #307

gamblor956 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Once the jury made its finding of fact as to when the event giving rise to the claim occurred (and to when the SOL clock would start ticking), the appeal would have to determine that the jury could not have reasonably made such a finding. It's very, very rare for an appeals court to overturn a finding of fact.

Out interest how does it work with new evidence then? I guess in civil less likely than criminal (new DNA technology etc.)

New evidence is usually irrelevant, except in the very narrow circumstance where the statute of limitations is based on a "knew or should have known" moment instead of a "when the incident occurred" moment. (In this context, meaning the first time the plaintiff actually knew, or reasonably should have known, about the incident for which they are suing. Some torts allow for this, most don't.)

The was actually what was at issue here. The inciting incident was way past the statute of limitations on an occurrence basis (years late), but Elon was attempting to claim that there was "new evidence" to reset the start of the clock. He failed, because there was substantial evidence that he knew about the stuff he was suing over when it originally happened.

Honestly surprised he wasn't held in contempt for perjury.