<p>陪审团迅速决定驳回埃隆·马斯克对 OpenAI 和微软其他创始人的诉讼，证实了我们在法庭上看到的：马斯克的案件是一个薄弱的案件，部分原因是他等待了太久才提起诉讼。</p>
<p>在上周的结案陈词中，OpenAI 的律师逐条详细说明了法律站在他们客户一边，而原告团队则集中在萨姆·阿尔特曼显然缺乏可信度上，并表示难以相信有人会不同意马斯克的指控。</p>
<p>最终的效果是，在裁决之后，有些人很难相信马斯克输了——包括他自己。在一条他后来删除的帖子中，马斯克称法官伊冯娜·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯为 “可怕的激进派奥克兰法官”，然后宣称 “对于任何详细关注此案的人来说，阿尔特曼和布罗克曼确实通过盗用慈善机构而使自己获利，这是毫无疑问的。”</p>
<p>但阿尔特曼和布罗克曼并不是唯一从 OpenAI 的非营利投资中获益的人。尽管马斯克和他的法律团队试图将审判聚焦在阿尔特曼身上，但诉讼过程同样揭示了马斯克本人的许多事情。</p>
<p>法庭上出现的一个事件显示，马斯克以一种令人不安的熟悉方式从 OpenAI 中获益。格雷格·布罗克曼作证称，在 2017 年，马斯克要求他带一组 OpenAI 研究人员到特斯拉总部，帮助自动驾驶团队几周。“很明显，这是我们无法拒绝的事情，” 布罗克曼说。</p>
<p>布罗克曼描述了带领一组顶尖科学家，包括安德烈·卡尔帕西、伊利亚·苏茨克维尔和斯科特·格雷，去咨询 “士气低落” 的特斯拉员工。他们帮助提出改进车辆自动驾驶技术的想法，苏茨克维尔告诉团队，如果他们能找到 10,000 张复杂角落案例的图像，他们就能修复他们的软件。马斯克甚至要求布罗克曼推荐要解雇的员工，但他拒绝了。</p>
<p>另一位熟悉这一事件的人证实了布罗克曼的说法，并表示特斯拉并没有报销 OpenAI 员工的时间和精力。马斯克的家族办公室 Excession 没有回复评论请求。</p>
<p>马斯克案件的核心是阿尔特曼、布罗克曼和 OpenAI 违反了 “慈善信托”——马斯克捐赠资金用于特定的慈善目的，而他的共同创始人却将其用于其他用途。他还指控他们因 OpenAI 的盈利而 “获得不当得利”。</p>
<p>在 OpenAI 科学家跳伞到特斯拉的案例中，马斯克的慈善捐款被用于雇佣专注于确保 AGI 利益的慈善机构的科学家，而他让这些科学家在他的盈利公司免费工作。</p>
<p>哥伦比亚法学院教授、Beyond Unprecedented 播客的联合主持人多萝西·伦德告诉 TechCrunch，这种安排不合法，称 “马斯克起诉违反慈善信托的行为有点荒唐，因为他似乎一直在以不符合该使命的方式重新分配资产。”</p>
<p>确实，自动驾驶工作涉及人工智能，但马斯克的证人强调，特斯拉的自动驾驶项目与 OpenAI 的研究议程非常不同。这部分是因为卡尔帕西在这一事件后不久就离开了 OpenAI。OpenAI 的律师将这一离职描绘为马斯克违反了他作为实验室董事会共同主席的职责，招募了其关键研究人员到自己的公司。</p>
<p>另一个无疑影响陪审团的事实是，马斯克在 2017 年试图获得潜在 OpenAI 盈利附属公司的单独控制权所花费的时间。马斯克采取了好警察、坏警察的策略，试图说服他的共同创始人让他完全控制 OpenAI 的盈利附属公司——给他们免费特斯拉，并威胁要停止他的捐款。</p>
<p>他的努力让他的律师处于一个棘手的境地，面临说服陪审团相信马斯克设想的内容与最终创建的盈利公司之间存在显著差异的需要。他们建议一个 “小附属” 盈利是可以接受的，尽管 OpenAI 的证人表明，拥有大型商业部门的非营利组织是很常见的。</p>
<p>确实，有一个非常合理的反事实情境，如果马斯克接受了他的共同创始人提出的更均匀分配股权的提议，他今天可能会成为 OpenAI 的最大股东之一——只是不是控股股东。但在审判期间，马斯克的几位同事证实，他拒绝投资任何他可以单独控制的业务。</p>
<p>马斯克的索赔因提起诉讼过晚而失败被视为技术性问题，但诉讼时效背后有实质内容：人们和企业基于他们对所做事情的理解做出重要决策并花费资源。如果像马斯克这样的人等待太久才起诉，那么解开所有这些决策的成本可能会超过公正的赔偿。</p>
<p>陪审团的成员没有谈论他们是如何得出裁决的。然而，他们被要求考虑在 2021 年 8 月 5 日之前，马斯克是否应该知道 OpenAI 在其使命之外花费资源或启动盈利附属公司。对此的答案很明确：马斯克自己正在做这些事情。</p>

特斯拉

1.25 倍做多特斯拉 ETF - GraniteShares

2 倍做多特斯拉 ETF - Leverage Shares

2 倍做多 TSLA ETF - T-Rex

TESL

2 倍做多 TSLA ETF - GraniteShares

<p>埃隆·马斯克对 OpenAI 联合创始人的诉讼被陪审团驳回，揭示了他案件中的弱点，包括提起诉讼的延迟。审判突显了马斯克自身的行为，例如在未支付报酬的情况下使用 OpenAI 研究人员为特斯拉的自动驾驶服务。马斯克指控阿尔特曼和布罗克曼违反慈善信托，但法律专家指出马斯克自己可能存在资产误导的问题。案件的失败归因于时效限制，这引发了对马斯克在 OpenAI 任职期间动机和行为的质疑</p>

<p>The jury’s speedy decision to reject Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the other founders of OpenAI and Microsoft confirmed what we saw in the courtroom: Musk’s case was a weak one, in part because he waited so long to file it.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>陪审团迅速决定驳回埃隆·马斯克对 OpenAI 和微软其他创始人的诉讼，证实了我们在法庭上看到的：马斯克的案件是一个薄弱的案件，部分原因是他等待了太久才提起诉讼。</p>
</div><p>Watching the closing arguments last week, OpenAI’s attorneys detailed point-by-point how the law was on their client’s side, while the plaintiffs team focused on Sam Altman’s apparent lack of credibility and expressed disbelief that anyone would disagree with Musk’s accusations.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在上周的结案陈词中，OpenAI 的律师逐条详细说明了法律站在他们客户一边，而原告团队则集中在萨姆·阿尔特曼显然缺乏可信度上，并表示难以相信有人会不同意马斯克的指控。</p>
</div><p>The final effect was that, after the verdict, some found it hard to believe Musk had lost — including the man himself. In a post he later deleted, Musk called Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers a “terrible activist Oakland judge,” then declared “there is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman &amp; Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>最终的效果是，在裁决之后，有些人很难相信马斯克输了——包括他自己。在一条他后来删除的帖子中，马斯克称法官伊冯娜·冈萨雷斯·罗杰斯为 “可怕的激进派奥克兰法官”，然后宣称 “对于任何详细关注此案的人来说，阿尔特曼和布罗克曼确实通过盗用慈善机构而使自己获利，这是毫无疑问的。”</p>
</div><p>But Altman and Brockman weren’t the only figures who benefitted from OpenAI’s non-profit investments. As much as Musk and his legal team tried to make the trial about Altman, the proceedings revealed just as much about Musk himself.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但阿尔特曼和布罗克曼并不是唯一从 OpenAI 的非营利投资中获益的人。尽管马斯克和他的法律团队试图将审判聚焦在阿尔特曼身上，但诉讼过程同样揭示了马斯克本人的许多事情。</p>
</div><p>One incident that came out in court showed Musk benefiting from OpenAI in an uncomfortably familiar way. Greg Brockman testified that in 2017, Musk asked him to bring a team of OpenAI researchers down to Tesla’s headquarters to help with the autopilot team for a few weeks. “It was pretty clear that was not something we could say no to,” Brockman said.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法庭上出现的一个事件显示，马斯克以一种令人不安的熟悉方式从 OpenAI 中获益。格雷格·布罗克曼作证称，在 2017 年，马斯克要求他带一组 OpenAI 研究人员到特斯拉总部，帮助自动驾驶团队几周。“很明显，这是我们无法拒绝的事情，” 布罗克曼说。</p>
</div><p>Brockman described taking a team of leading scientists, including Andrej Karpathy, Ilya Sutskever, and Scott Grey, to consult with the “demoralized” Tesla workers. They helped come up with ideas to improve the vehicle’s self-driving technology, with Sutskever telling the team that if they could find 10,000 images of a tricky corner case, they would be able to fix their software. Musk even asked Brockman to recommend employees to fire, which he declined to do.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>布罗克曼描述了带领一组顶尖科学家，包括安德烈·卡尔帕西、伊利亚·苏茨克维尔和斯科特·格雷，去咨询 “士气低落” 的特斯拉员工。他们帮助提出改进车辆自动驾驶技术的想法，苏茨克维尔告诉团队，如果他们能找到 10,000 张复杂角落案例的图像，他们就能修复他们的软件。马斯克甚至要求布罗克曼推荐要解雇的员工，但他拒绝了。</p>
</div><p>Another person familiar with the episode confirmed Brockman’s account, and said Tesla did not reimburse OpenAI for the time and effort of its employees. Musk’s family office, Excession, didn’t reply to a request for comment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>另一位熟悉这一事件的人证实了布罗克曼的说法，并表示特斯拉并没有报销 OpenAI 员工的时间和精力。马斯克的家族办公室 Excession 没有回复评论请求。</p>
</div><p>The heart of Musk’s case is that Altman, Brockman and OpenAI committed a “breach of charitable trust” — that Musk donated funds for a specific charitable purpose, and his cofounders instead used them for something else. He also accuses them of “unjust enrichment” due stock and other benefits from OpenAI’s for-profit.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>马斯克案件的核心是阿尔特曼、布罗克曼和 OpenAI 违反了 “慈善信托”——马斯克捐赠资金用于特定的慈善目的，而他的共同创始人却将其用于其他用途。他还指控他们因 OpenAI 的盈利而 “获得不当得利”。</p>
</div><p>In the case of the OpenAI scientists parachuting into Tesla, Musk’s charitable donations, which he deducted from his taxes, were used to hire scientists at a charity focused on securing the benefits of AGI. Then, he had those scientists work for free at his for-profit company.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 OpenAI 科学家跳伞到特斯拉的案例中，马斯克的慈善捐款被用于雇佣专注于确保 AGI 利益的慈善机构的科学家，而他让这些科学家在他的盈利公司免费工作。</p>
</div><p>Dorothy Lund, a Columbia Law School professor and the co-host of the Beyond Unprecedented podcast, told TechCrunch that this arrangement wouldn’t be legal, calling it “a bit rich for Musk to be suing for breach of a charitable trust, when he appears to have been redirecting assets in a way that was inconsistent with that mission.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>哥伦比亚法学院教授、Beyond Unprecedented 播客的联合主持人多萝西·伦德告诉 TechCrunch，这种安排不合法，称 “马斯克起诉违反慈善信托的行为有点荒唐，因为他似乎一直在以不符合该使命的方式重新分配资产。”</p>
</div><p>It’s true that the self-driving work involved artificial intelligence, but witnesses for Musk emphasized that Tesla’s self-driving project was very different from OpenAI’s research agenda. That’s in part because Karpathy left OpenAI for Tesla shortly after this incident. OpenAI’s attorneys portrayed the departure as Musk violating his duty to the lab, where he was co-chair of the board, by recruiting one of its key researchers to his own company.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>确实，自动驾驶工作涉及人工智能，但马斯克的证人强调，特斯拉的自动驾驶项目与 OpenAI 的研究议程非常不同。这部分是因为卡尔帕西在这一事件后不久就离开了 OpenAI。OpenAI 的律师将这一离职描绘为马斯克违反了他作为实验室董事会共同主席的职责，招募了其关键研究人员到自己的公司。</p>
</div><p>The other fact that no doubt influenced the jury was the amount of time Musk spent trying to gain sole control of a potential OpenAI for-profit affiliate in 2017. Musk deployed good cop, bad cop tactics in an attempt to convince his cofounders to let him have total control of OpenAI’s for-profit affiliate — giving them free Teslas, and threatening to withhold his donations.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>另一个无疑影响陪审团的事实是，马斯克在 2017 年试图获得潜在 OpenAI 盈利附属公司的单独控制权所花费的时间。马斯克采取了好警察、坏警察的策略，试图说服他的共同创始人让他完全控制 OpenAI 的盈利附属公司——给他们免费特斯拉，并威胁要停止他的捐款。</p>
</div><p>His efforts put his attorneys in a tricky spot, facing a need to convince the jury there was a significant difference between what Musk envisioned, and the for-profit that was ultimately created. They suggested a “small adjunct” for-profit would be permissible, though OpenAI’s witnesses showed non-profits with large commercial arms are common.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>他的努力让他的律师处于一个棘手的境地，面临说服陪审团相信马斯克设想的内容与最终创建的盈利公司之间存在显著差异的需要。他们建议一个 “小附属” 盈利是可以接受的，尽管 OpenAI 的证人表明，拥有大型商业部门的非营利组织是很常见的。</p>
</div><p>Indeed, there’s a very plausible counter-factual where Musk took one of the offers his cofounders made to split their equity more evenly, and finds himself today as one of OpenAI’s largest shareholders — just not the controlling one. But several times during the trial, Musk’s associates testified that he refuses to invest in any business he could have sole control over.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>确实，有一个非常合理的反事实情境，如果马斯克接受了他的共同创始人提出的更均匀分配股权的提议，他今天可能会成为 OpenAI 的最大股东之一——只是不是控股股东。但在审判期间，马斯克的几位同事证实，他拒绝投资任何他可以单独控制的业务。</p>
</div><p>The failure of Musk’s claims because he filed them too late has been cited as a technicality, but the statute of limitations has substance behind it: People and businesses make important decisions and spend resources based on their understanding that what they are doing is permissible. If someone like Musk waits too long to sue, then the cost of unravelling all those decisions can outweigh a just reimbursement.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>马斯克的索赔因提起诉讼过晚而失败被视为技术性问题，但诉讼时效背后有实质内容：人们和企业基于他们对所做事情的理解做出重要决策并花费资源。如果像马斯克这样的人等待太久才起诉，那么解开所有这些决策的成本可能会超过公正的赔偿。</p>
</div><p>No members of the jury have spoken about how they arrived at their verdict. However, they were asked to consider if, before Aug. 5, 2021, Musk <em>should</em> have known that OpenAI was spending resources outside its mission or launching for-profit affiliate. The answer to that is clear: Musk himself was doing those things.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>陪审团的成员没有谈论他们是如何得出裁决的。然而，他们被要求考虑在 2021 年 8 月 5 日之前，马斯克是否应该知道 OpenAI 在其使命之外花费资源或启动盈利附属公司。对此的答案很明确：马斯克自己正在做这些事情。</p>
</div>

Elon Musk said Sam Altman “stole” a non-profit — but the trial showed he had similar aims

- 陪审团迅速驳回马斯克对 OpenAI 和微软创始人的诉讼，表明他的案件薄弱。  
- 马斯克指控双方违反慈善信托，称其捐赠用于私人利益。  
- 陪审团考虑了马斯克的时间延误及其在诉讼中的不一致性。

埃隆·马斯克表示萨姆·奥特曼 “窃取” 了一个非营利组织——但审判显示马斯克也有类似的意图