莫名堂观察：马斯克两个小时就输了官司

加拿大安大略省笔译口译协会（atio）认证翻译、加拿大认证esl老师、留学申请顾问。

承接驾照、结婚证、房产证、出生证、户口本、身份证、疫苗证、诊断书、体检报告、护照、出入境记录、银行流水、资产证明、完税证明、征信证明、聘用信、推荐信、在职证明、营业执照、无犯罪记录、退休证等翻译。支持简体、繁体。速度快、信达雅、收费合理。不满意原银退还。

加拿大英文教练（原温哥华英文教练），致力于地道英文表达

备受瞩目的马斯克诉山姆奥特曼将OpenAI从一家非赢利组织变成赢利公司的官司，陪审团仅用了两个小时就达成一致，马斯克败诉，理由是是马斯克等了太久才来起诉，让他的所有诉求都逾期了。我们来看看BBC是如何报道的：

A California jury has tossed out（驳回） Elon Musk's high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI and its boss Sam Altman. In a unanimous verdict（注意这个unanimous，全体一致）, the jury agreed that Musk had waited too long to file his lawsuit, leaving all of his claims essentially expired. Musk had accused Altman of breaching a non-profit contract by shifting the ChatGPT-maker to a for-profit company after Musk donated $38m (£28.5m) early in OpenAI's history. Musk claimed Altman had deceived him by accepting his money and then reneging on（违约；违背使命）OpenAI's original non-profit mission to develop artificial intelligence (AI) technology for the benefit of humanity.

Jurors spent just about two hours on Monday deliberating（仔细考虑）on the case, but they had spent three weeks viewing internal correspondence and hearing testimony from Musk, Altman and other tech industry executives, such as Microsoft's chief executive Satya Nadella.

不过，讨论案情只花了两个小时，但是阅读双方的各种材料却用了3个礼拜。

Musk had accused Microsoft of aiding and abetting OpenAI in its allegedly improper transition to a more for-profit company. 微软也被列为被告，原因是其唆使（abet）了OpenAI。

Musk's other claims against Microsoft were dismissed as a matter of law given the jury's findings on the two claims against OpenAI. A spokesperson for Microsoft said of the verdict: "The facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear." The company added that it remained committed to its work with OpenAI.

The jury's decision adds to a string of recent losses and settlements for Musk in court. Within a few hours of the verdict, Musk criticised the decision against him in the OpenAI case, writing on X that it created "a free license to loot charities if you can keep the looting quiet for a few years!" 老马败诉后的愤怒是当然的，注意这里他的措辞：loot是趁火打劫，抢劫的意思。

He also accused the judge overseeing the case of being a "terrible activist" who used the jury "as a fig leaf." That post has since been deleted. 他的怒火也燃到主审法官身上，发帖指责法官以陪审团来掩饰其社会活动者（activist）的面目。Fig leaf是无花果的叶子，当初夏娃亚当在蛇的引诱之下吃了苹果后，对彼此的赤裸害起羞来，于是找来无花果遮羞。不过，这个帖子很快就被删除了。

In another post to X, Musk vowed to file an appeal, claiming that the jury did not decide "on the merits of the case" and that the decision was based on a "calendar technicality". 马斯克声称要上诉，因为陪审团并没有对本案的merit(即实质) 作出判决。As the jury found that the statute of limitations, a set timeframe for when legal accusations need to be made in order to be considered, had lapsed for Musk's claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment, the jury was not required to consider the merits of his claims.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said that the jurors had made a "very fact-based decision" about the case. "This case seemed kind of weird and crazy, but this is why we trust juries, because they bring the common sense of the community to resolve factual disputes," Tobias said.

On the trial's first day, Musk took the stand wearing a dark suit and tie and was asked by one of his lawyers what the legal action was about. "It's actually very simple," he said. "It's not OK to steal a charity... If it's okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving will be destroyed." Altman told the jury during his own testimony that Musk not only backed the idea of OpenAI becoming a for-profit business, he had vied for control of it for the long-run. "A particularly hair-raising moment was when my co-founders asked, 'If you have control, what happens when you die?'" Altman recalled in court. "He said something like, 'maybe it should pass to my children.'" The pair started OpenAI in 2015, but Musk left in 2018 after his co-founders denied him control. 面对马斯克的指责，奥特曼对陪审团说，马斯克本是支持OpenAI成为一家赢利公司的，只是因为他想控制公司的愿望没有得逞，才转而反对这么做。

The lawsuit was in some ways a culmination of the animosity between Musk and Altman built up since then. As Altman became one of the most famous and wealthy names in the tech industry after the explosive success of ChatGPT, Musk began to criticise Altman and OpenAI.

In 2024, the company felt compelled by Musk's online claims to publish a lengthy blog post, offering the public a timeline of events seeking to refute Musk's claims. On Monday, Sam Singer, a spokesman for OpenAI, said from outside the Oakland courthouse that the verdict was a "tremendous victory".

"This was nothing but an effort by Mr Musk to slow down a competitor," he said, adding that it was a victory "for the justice system as well".

Lawyer William Savitt, who represented OpenAI during the trial, said Musk's lawsuit "bears no relationship with reality" and that the jury decided that Musk was lying during his testimony about the company's origins. "We're pleased that the jury reached the right result, and reached it quickly," he said. Savitt also said that OpenAI would continue to focus on its mission to develop "safe AI for the benefit of all humanity".

Outside court, Marc Toberoff, a lawyer for Musk, said: "This war is not over, and I'd sum it up in one word: appeal." Such a move would mean that a complete resolution of the case could end up "being dragged out for a while", according to Tobias of the University of Richmond.

But Musk may be unlikely to win there, too. "The bottom line is that an appeals court would be very unlikely to overturn such a fact-specific decision from a jury, and a judge who agreed with it," Tobias said. Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer who has argued before the US Supreme Court and is a partner at Wright, Close, Barger & Guzman LLP, wrote online of Musk's plans to challenge the outcome: "Appeals of jury verdicts are very hard to win." 对于上诉的前景，报道引用了一些法律人士的预测，说这类陪审团基于具体事实作出的判决，很难在上诉时被推翻。

Sarah Federman, a professor focused on conflict resolution at the University of San Diego and author of "Corporate Reckoning," likened the courtroom battle between Musk and Altman to Godzilla taking on King Kong. Neither billionaire has emerged unscathed in the public eye.

"We cannot relate to these people -- their wealth or their power," Federman said.

在文章的结尾，作者引用了一位大学教授的话，说这样的案子是哥斯拉大战金刚，诉讼双方都是业界大佬，在公众眼里闹这么一出，双方都难以毫发无损，“我们无法与这些人产生共鸣：他们的财富或是他们的权力。”