Summary

OpenAI published a blog post responding to Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction in a trade secrets lawsuit — an unusual PR move for a high-stakes legal filing. Gruber fact-checks OpenAI's claims and finds them misleading: the email mix-up they emphasize was inconsequential, as the substantive letter was in fact sent to OpenAI's general counsel, who never responded. The iMessage transcripts OpenAI released explain iCloud activity that Apple itself says is not the core issue; Apple's allegations center on unauthorized downloads from a third-party cloud provider (likely Box). Gruber notes that OpenAI's language quietly shifted from 'no interest in' Apple's trade secrets to 'we do not have' them — a meaningful legal distinction. He concludes that a confidential attorney email (Exhibit F, filed by Apple) is a far stronger, more credible response than anything in the public blog post.

Key Insight

OpenAI's public blog post response to Apple's trade secrets lawsuit is a PR stunt that misrepresents the facts and fails to address Apple's core allegations, while the real legal rebuttal was quietly buried in a court exhibit.

Spicy Quotes (click to share)

• 7

  I do not understand why OpenAI is treating this is a PR problem instead of as a legal problem.

• 6

  Thus far this feels like table-pounding from OpenAI to me.

• 5

  The iMessage transcripts that OpenAI provides at the bottom of their post do not contradict Apple's claims at all.

• 7

  It's an unusual move to respond to a high-stakes legal filing with a blog post, but OpenAI is an unusual company.

• 4

  I don't understand why OpenAI is continuing to focus on this inconsequential mistake.

• 6

  Their blog post does, however, move the ball from 'we have no interest' in Apple's trade secrets to 'we don't have them.'

• 5

  This email is a far better response than what OpenAI published on their blog.

Tone

critical, analytical