>The proposal would also involve other US AI companies giving a similar stake to the government, the FT reported, although it is not clear yet whether companies such as Anthropic, Google and Meta would agree to the plan.
I can't see Google or Meta shareholders agreeing to this? That said, Google, Meta, and SpaceX are all still founder-controlled using supervoting shares.
To be clear, that is not "Google's memo". It's a memo by a guy who happened to work at Google. There is a diversity of opinions at a company that employs 180,000 people.
HN is of course not a monolith, but from my recollection most of the frustration and criticism w/r/t Mozilla is about its product strategy and executive team, not its corporate structure. Some other examples of nonprofits with for-profit subsidiaries include National Geographic, the AARP, and most research universities.
On Altman, the trial showed that Altman does not have any equity in the for-profit. He does have some indirect exposure through his investments in YC, since YC has a small position in OpenAI.
I'm curious why you think that creating a for-profit subsidiary is objectionable, since it is extremely common for large nonprofits. A good example for this forum would be Mozilla, but many more were mentioned during the trial.
Also curious what conflicts of interest you have in mind.
Elon's purchase offer was in 2025, after the success of ChatGPT showed that OpenAI's IP (much if not most of it developed after 2019) could be commercially valuable. I think it is also debatable whether Elon's purchase offer was in good faith.
It was not clear in 2019 that OpenAI's IP would ultimately be worth billions. That was well before the current AI boom.
I think it would be helpful for you to clarify which part of the chain you found objectionable:
- in 2015, OpenAI was founded as a Delaware nonprofit
- in 2017, OpenAI discovered the scaling laws and realized they needed far more compute (and thus money) than they had initially anticipated
- that discovery precipitated a series of negotiations between the founders on how to restructure OpenAI to raise more money for compute, ultimately resulting in Musk’s departure when the other founders would not give him control
- in 2018, OpenAI attempted to dramatically increase its fundraising despite Elon ending his contributions, but raised only $50M of its $100M goal
- in 2019, OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary in order to attract funding from commercial entities
- the nonprofit hired an independent assessor to value its IP, and then transferred that IP to the for-profit for fair value (around $60 million in 2019)
- the OpenAI nonprofit received a right to 100x capped return on its IP investment, or $6B, once the for-profit began making a profit. The nonprofit also received the right to the residual profit after all future investors reached their caps
- in 2019, OpenAI’s capped-profit received $1B in investment from Microsoft. OpenAI later received $2B from Microsoft in 2021 and $10B in 2023 as compute scaling continued
- Microsoft received a cap of 20x on its $1B investment, and 6x on its $2B and $10B investments, for a total of $92B target redemption
- in 2025, OpenAI’s for-profit entity recapitalized from a capped-profit entity with residuals flowing to the nonprofit to a traditional public benefit corporation with traditional equity
- in exchange for the residual (and 100x profit cap on the original $60M transfer) the nonprofit received a 26% equity stake in the for-profit. That stake is currently valued at around $200B
All of the above is from the record in Musk v. Altman, thanks to which we now have all the details. The upshot for the nonprofit is that it transferred IP worth around $60M in 2019 for rights to $6B in future profit, and then ended up with $200B in equity after the recapitalization. I see a lot of people in this thread assuming that the nonprofit no longer exists, which is not true.
The intellectual property (code, data) was transferred from the nonprofit to the for-profit for about $60M, which is what an independent firm hired to assess the value said the IP was worth in late 2018 / early 2019. The nonprofit itself was never converted to a for-profit, and indeed remains a nonprofit to this day.
The $60M in IP has grown to about a $200B stake in the OpenAI for-profit.
This is not correct. jongjong is correct that a nonprofit does not have owners in the sense that a for-profit has owners. Nonprofits are dedicated to their mission, and are run by a board of directors.
You cannot have a % ownership in a nonprofit because its resources must be used exclusively to carry out its mission. You could have a % control in its decision making process.
Correct, Musk based his claims on the 2023 Microsoft deal.
The 2025 recapitalization was discussed at trial, but it was ancillary since all that changed was the existing for-profit changed from a capped-profit with weird cash flow mechanics to a traditional public benefit corp with ordinary equity.
Surprised this got pushed off the front page so quickly! It’s exciting to see what the Cursor team has been able to do with significantly fewer resources than the frontier labs.
I do wish they weren’t joining xAI. Something tells me there will be a contingent of researchers that departs Cursor if that merger is consummated.
Evidence at trial showed that Musk attempted to pursue AGI at Tesla starting in 2017 before he left the board of OpenAI. He was unsuccessful in that endeavor and later restarted his efforts in xAI after the success of ChatGPT.
You are correct that which statute of limitations applies is a question of law. If facts are undisputed, that is the end of the issue. In this case, the facts were disputed, and the jury found for the defendants.
The jury instructions are public and the final jury form will be published, likely later this week.
I can tell you that the instructions told the jury to decide whether Musk could have brought his case before 2021.
The statute of limitations is not a trivial issue. Defendants have rights just as much as plaintiffs do, and our justice system does not allow plaintiffs to unreasonably delay in bringing their claims.
This case sets no precedent one way or the other on that question. The IP was transferred to the for-profit for fair value in 2019, and Musk never argued otherwise in this case.
The attorneys general of California and Delaware could challenge that 2019 IP transfer if they so wished on behalf of the public.