OpenAI
OpenAI Fires Back at Apple Over Trade Secret Claims: What We Know
The ChatGPT maker published a rare public blog post pushing back on Apple's lawsuit, alleging the iPhone maker built its case on false information.
What is Apple suing OpenAI over?
Apple filed a lawsuit alleging that two former employees, Chang Liu and Tang Tan, took trade secrets with them when they joined OpenAI. The Cupertino company sought a preliminary injunction, a court order that would have immediately blocked those employees and OpenAI from accessing or using any Apple confidential information while the case proceeds. For Apple, the injunction would have served as an emergency stopgap, preventing alleged misuse before trial. Apple claimed it contacted OpenAI in February about the matter, but OpenAI says that contact went to the wrong person because Apple's lawyers mixed up two names. Apple also claimed it spoke with OpenAI's General Counsel, a conversation OpenAI says never occurred and Apple has since conceded did not happen. These factual disputes go to the heart of whether Apple had grounds for emergency relief: if the company's own account of its outreach is inaccurate, the basis for claiming urgency weakens.
Has OpenAI done this before?
OpenAI has a history of publishing public blog posts in response to high-profile legal disputes. During Elon Musk's lawsuit against the company, OpenAI published two separate blog posts recounting its relationship with Musk and addressing his nonprofit claims. Apple, by contrast, historically avoids publicly addressing ongoing court cases through blog posts. The tactic is designed to garner public support and apply pressure on the opposing party. By presenting its version of events directly to the public, OpenAI aims to ensure Apple's filing does not stand as the only narrative. Apple has not yet responded to OpenAI's latest blog post, and the company's track record suggests it may choose to respond through legal filings rather than public statements. The mechanism works by creating a public record that shapes how journalists, analysts, and the court of public opinion perceive the dispute. OpenAI's blog posts typically include specific claims, evidence like text messages, and direct rebuttals to the opposing party's allegations. This approach forces the other side to either respond publicly or allow OpenAI's version to dominate the narrative.
What did OpenAI say in its blog post?
OpenAI published a blog post titled "Apple is getting this wrong," arguing that Apple has built its reputation on obsession over small details, yet "this careless, aggressive and oddly personal lawsuit sadly doesn't live up to that reputation." The company claims the preliminary injunction is based on false information and is unnecessary because OpenAI has no interest in Apple's trade secrets. OpenAI also expressed a wish that Apple had raised these issues before filing the lawsuit, stating it offered to work with Apple to resolve the matter. Instead, OpenAI alleges Apple is trying to change its narrative by making vague accusations about other former employees. The blog post frames the dispute not as a legitimate trade secret claim but as a procedural failure: wrong names, a conversation that never happened, and an injunction built on those errors.
Why did OpenAI go public instead of handling this privately?
OpenAI's blog post, titled "Apple is getting this wrong," frames Apple's approach as careless and at odds with the company's reputation for attention to detail. The post describes the lawsuit as "careless, aggressive and oddly personal," a characterization that goes beyond legal defense into public relations strategy. OpenAI argues the injunction is based on false information and that it offered to work with Apple to resolve the matter before litigation. Apple chose to file suit instead. This decision to go public mirrors OpenAI's response to Elon Musk's lawsuit, where it published two blog posts to counter the claims made against it. The public approach serves multiple purposes: it puts pressure on Apple to justify its claims, it creates a narrative that OpenAI is transparent and cooperative, and it signals to other companies that OpenAI will fight aggressively against trade secret allegations.
What happens next in the lawsuit?
The dispute may hinge on whether the injunction rests on accurate information: OpenAI contends it does not, citing Apple's misdirected contact and a claim about speaking to OpenAI's General Counsel that Apple has since conceded never happened. OpenAI has stated the injunction is based on false information and that it does not want Apple's trade secrets. If the court finds these factual disputes significant, Apple's request for emergency relief could be denied, forcing the case to proceed without the immediate stopgap Apple sought. Apple's options include filing a corrected motion with stronger evidence, pursuing the case through standard litigation without an injunction, or negotiating a resolution. OpenAI has offered to work with Apple to resolve the matter, but Apple chose to file suit. How Apple responds will signal whether it views the trade secret claims as strong enough to press forward or whether the procedural missteps have weakened its position.
What does the lawsuit reveal about how companies manage departing employees?
OpenAI's blog post argues that the real problem exposed by the case is Apple's failure to properly manage system access when people leave the company. In the case of Chang Liu, OpenAI shares text messages showing Apple employees asking Liu for help locating files after he had already departed — suggesting that access controls were not adequately revoked. For Tang Tan, OpenAI claims no evidence exists that he attempted to access confidential information after leaving, and states that Tan has always been clear with his team that they must not use confidential information from other companies. OpenAI further alleges that Apple has made vague accusations about other former employees, suggesting a pattern of blaming departing staff rather than addressing internal security gaps. The case raises questions about what responsibility a company bears when it fails to cut off access to employees who leave, and whether litigation is the appropriate response when that oversight is discovered.
Source material: pcgamer.com — this piece is based on that published source material.
Images
