Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 29. COUNT IX: BREACH OF QUASI-CONTRACT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (In the alternative to Counts VI, VII, and VIII) (Against All Defendants) 273. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 272 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 274. In the absence of an enforceable agreement, Defendants have still been unjustly enriched at Musk’s expense as a result of their improper exploitation for personal profit of OpenAI, Inc.’s resources, intellectual property, and assets. 275. Musk contributed considerable money and resources to launch and sustain OpenAI, Inc., which was done on the condition that the endeavor would be and remain a non-profit devoted to openly sharing its technology with the public and avoid concentrating its power in the hands of the few. 276. Defendants knowingly and repeatedly accepted Musk’s contributions in order to develop AGI, with no intention of honoring those conditions once AGI was in reach. Case in point: GPT-4, GPT-4T, and GPT-4o are all closed source and shrouded in secrecy, while Defendants actively work to transform the non-profit into a thoroughly commercial business. 277. Defendants intentionally concealed their wrongful conduct, which prevented Musk from discovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence. 278. It would be unjust and inequitable to allow Defendants to retain the substantial benefits that were obtained as a direct and proximate result of their wrongful conduct including, without limitation, their solicitation of capital and other valuable resources from Musk under the false pretense and repeated promises that such would be used for charitable purposes, and while misrepresenting to Musk and the public that OpenAI, Inc. was developing AI/AGI for the public’s benefit and not for private gain. 279. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, acts, and omissions alleged hereinabove, Musk has been damaged, and Defendants have been and will continue to be unjustly enriched, in an amount that shall be assessed at trial, but which vastly exceeds $75,000, and for which restitution and/or non-restitutionary disgorgement is appropriate. Such should include the imposition of a constructive trust; a declaration by this Court that Defendants are jointly and severally the constructive trustee(s) for the benefit of Musk; and an order that Defendants convey to Musk all of the profits, assets, property, and ill-gotten gains received or to be received by Defendants, which are traceable to Musk’s wrongfully acquired financial and other contributions to OpenAI, Inc. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 21 of 29. Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 21 of 29. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT IX: BREACH OF QUASI-CONTRACT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (In the alternative to Counts VI, VII, and VIII) (Against All Defendants) 273. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 272 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 274. In the absence of an enforceable agreement, Defendants have still been unjustly enriched at Musk’s expense as a result of their improper exploitation for personal profit of OpenAI, Inc.’s resources, intellectual property, and assets. 275. Musk contributed considerable money and resources to launch and sustain OpenAI, Inc., which was done on the condition that the endeavor would be and remain a non-profit devoted to openly sharing its technology with the public and avoid concentrating its power in the hands of the few. 276. Defendants knowingly and repeatedly accepted Musk’s contributions in order to develop AGI, with no intention of honoring those conditions once AGI was in reach. Case in point: GPT-4, GPT-4T, and GPT-4o are all closed source and shrouded in secrecy, while Defendants actively work to transform the non-profit into a thoroughly commercial business. 277. Defendants intentionally concealed their wrongful conduct, which prevented Musk from discovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence. 278. It would be unjust and inequitable to allow Defendants to retain the substantial benefits that were obtained as a direct and proximate result of their wrongful conduct including, without limitation, their solicitation of capital and other valuable resources from Musk under the false pretense and repeated promises that such would be used for charitable purposes, and while misrepresenting to Musk and the public that OpenAI, Inc. was developing AI/AGI for the public’s benefit and not for private gain. 279. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, acts, and omissions alleged hereinabove, Musk has been damaged, and Defendants have been and will continue to be unjustly enriched, in an amount that shall be assessed at trial, but which vastly exceeds $75,000, and for which restitution and/or non-restitutionary disgorgement is appropriate. Such should include the imposition of a constructive trust; a declaration by this Court that Defendants are jointly and severally the constructive trustee(s) for the benefit of Musk; and an order that Defendants convey to Musk all of the profits, assets, property, and ill-gotten gains received or to be received by Defendants, which are traceable to Musk’s wrongfully acquired financial and other contributions to OpenAI, Inc. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Musk Says OpenAI Execs Got Rich at His Expense

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

The Noonification: Can You Improve Your Mental Health with Psychedelics? (11/28/2022)

The Noonification: How Big Tech Influences Privacy Laws (11/24/2022)

The Noonification: Pick Your Billionaire (11/12/2022)

The Noonification: Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species? (10/20/2022)

The Noonification: Blockchain Games Suck (12/16/2022)

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

The Noonification: Can You Improve Your Mental Health with Psychedelics? (11/28/2022)

The Noonification: How Big Tech Influences Privacy Laws (11/24/2022)

The Noonification: Pick Your Billionaire (11/12/2022)

The Noonification: Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species? (10/20/2022)

The Noonification: Blockchain Games Suck (12/16/2022)

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps