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 26 of 29. COUNT XIV: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (Against the OpenAI For-Profit Entities) 329. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 328 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 330. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities knew Musk had a valid contract with Altman and OpenAI, Inc. and that the agreement required OpenAI, Inc.’s technology to be predominantly open source for the benefit of humankind, not for commercial gain. Aside from the name “OpenAI”—an appellation ironically shared by almost all the OpenAI For-Profit Entities—these Defendants all had knowledge of the charitable purpose for which Musk co-founded the non-profit, as, on information and belief, Altman and Brockman have at all relevant times been their officers, agents, employees, and/or owners whose knowledge and intent is imputed to them. 331. On information and belief, the OpenAI For-Profit Entities intended to disrupt Altman and OpenAI, Inc.’s performance of their contract with Musk and/or knew that such disruption of their performance was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of their conduct. 332. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities induced OpenAI, Inc. to breach its agreement with Musk and engaged in independently wrongful conduct by siphoning the non-profit’s most valuable assets into their for-profit apparatus. On information and belief, the OpenAI For-Profit Entities currently employ much of the non-profit’s former staff, including Altman and Brockman, house its research and intellectual property, and have facilitated rampant self-dealing. 333. On information and belief, Altman, a major stakeholder in OpenAI’s for-profit apparatus, could have donated his money to the non-profit like Musk but instead, Altman put the majority of his investment in the moneymaking scheme made possible by the OpenAI For-Profit Entities. 334. Defendants intentionally concealed their wrongful conduct, which prevented Musk from discovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence. 335. As a direct and proximate result of the OpenAI For-Profit Entities’ conduct, acts, and omissions alleged hereinabove, Musk is entitled to recover the damages he sustained and will sustain, including any income, gains, compensation, profits, and advantages obtained, received, or to be received by Defendants, or any of them, arising from the wrongful acquisition of Musk’s contributions to OpenAI, Inc., including prejudgment interest. Musk is entitled to an order requiring Defendants, jointly and severally, to render an accounting to ascertain the amount of such proceeds. 336. 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. 337. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, acts, and omissions have proximately caused and will continue to cause Musk substantial injury and damage, much of which cannot be reasonably or adequately measured or compensated in money damages. The harm this wrongful conduct will cause to Musk is both imminent and irreparable, and the amount of damage sustained by Musk will be difficult to ascertain if such wrongful conduct is allowed to continue without restraint. Musk is entitled to an injunction during the pendency of this action, and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in such further tortious conduct. 338. Defendants’ wrongful conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and/or malice under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, entitling Musk to an award of punitive damages appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. 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 26 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 26 of 29. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT XIV: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (Against the OpenAI For-Profit Entities) 329. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 328 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 330. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities knew Musk had a valid contract with Altman and OpenAI, Inc. and that the agreement required OpenAI, Inc.’s technology to be predominantly open source for the benefit of humankind, not for commercial gain. Aside from the name “OpenAI”—an appellation ironically shared by almost all the OpenAI For-Profit Entities—these Defendants all had knowledge of the charitable purpose for which Musk co-founded the non-profit, as, on information and belief, Altman and Brockman have at all relevant times been their officers, agents, employees, and/or owners whose knowledge and intent is imputed to them. 331. On information and belief, the OpenAI For-Profit Entities intended to disrupt Altman and OpenAI, Inc.’s performance of their contract with Musk and/or knew that such disruption of their performance was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of their conduct. 332. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities induced OpenAI, Inc. to breach its agreement with Musk and engaged in independently wrongful conduct by siphoning the non-profit’s most valuable assets into their for-profit apparatus. On information and belief, the OpenAI For-Profit Entities currently employ much of the non-profit’s former staff, including Altman and Brockman, house its research and intellectual property, and have facilitated rampant self-dealing. 333. On information and belief, Altman, a major stakeholder in OpenAI’s for-profit apparatus, could have donated his money to the non-profit like Musk but instead, Altman put the majority of his investment in the moneymaking scheme made possible by the OpenAI For-Profit Entities. 334. Defendants intentionally concealed their wrongful conduct, which prevented Musk from discovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence. 335. As a direct and proximate result of the OpenAI For-Profit Entities’ conduct, acts, and omissions alleged hereinabove, Musk is entitled to recover the damages he sustained and will sustain, including any income, gains, compensation, profits, and advantages obtained, received, or to be received by Defendants, or any of them, arising from the wrongful acquisition of Musk’s contributions to OpenAI, Inc., including prejudgment interest. Musk is entitled to an order requiring Defendants, jointly and severally, to render an accounting to ascertain the amount of such proceeds. 336. 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. 337. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, acts, and omissions have proximately caused and will continue to cause Musk substantial injury and damage, much of which cannot be reasonably or adequately measured or compensated in money damages. The harm this wrongful conduct will cause to Musk is both imminent and irreparable, and the amount of damage sustained by Musk will be difficult to ascertain if such wrongful conduct is allowed to continue without restraint. Musk is entitled to an injunction during the pendency of this action, and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in such further tortious conduct. 338. Defendants’ wrongful conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and/or malice under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, entitling Musk to an award of punitive damages appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. 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

OpenAI Subsidiaries Accused of Undermining Partnership Agreement with Musk

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