4 ms·
Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"? Does anyone think that this suit will succeed? Another article: ht
by bloopernova 3y ago
Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"?
Does anyone think that this suit will succeed?
Another article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/01/elon-musk-sues-open-ai-profit-power-microsoft-sam-altman https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/01/elon-musk...
- nightowl_games 3y agoMaybe the discovery process will benefit Musk and/or harm OpenAI sufficiently to consider it a "win" for Musk. Or perhaps it's just Musk wanting to make a statement. Maybe Musk doesn't expect to actually win the suit.
- pquki4 3y agoI wonder if the lawsuit will simply be dismissed.
- AlbertCory 3y agoThe standard first move by a defendant is a Motion to Dismiss. So of course they'll try that. Don't read too much into it.
- jimbokun 3y agoBut in this case, it wasn’t a company, but a nonprofit.
- staticautomatic 3y agoNonprofit is a tax status, not a corporate structure.
- codexb 3y agoIt is in this case. After Musk invested in them, they’ve incorporated separate for-profit companies to essentially profit from the IP of the non profit.
- staticautomatic 3y agoNo it’s not. It’s just a corporation with one kind of tax status owning another corporation with a different tax status.
- codexb 3y agoCongratulations, you’ve just described a corporate structure. It honestly doesn’t matter what the tax statuses of either of the corporations are. If Musk had invested in OpenAI with the goal of making tons of money off their IP (as opposed to wanting to open source it) and then the board decided to just hand over all the IP to another corporation essentially for free, Musk would be just as validated in suing.
- staticautomatic 3y agoYou continue to miss the point. The term “non-profit” in no way describes this structure.
- wnc3141 3y agoIt's a structure in the sense of a non profit may not have shareholders or equity. In a practical sense, there needs not be an operational difference, and is subject to scrutiny from the IRS to determine whether an organization is eligible non profit status
- justinclift 3y ago> Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"? Probably depends on how much money the person behind the suit is willing to spend. Elon could likely push stuff a lot further along than most.
- ZiiS 3y agoWhen the world’s richest man sues you, being a saint wouldn't be a reliable defence.
- mullingitover 3y agoWait, Bernard Arnault is suing them too?
- josefresco 3y agoJokes are downvoted on HN but the statement is accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires
- JKCalhoun 3y agoKind of getting tired of litigious billionaires.
- dclowd9901 3y agoIn the publicly traded world, it would be considered securities fraud, an umbrella under which you can pretty much sue a company for anything if you’re a shareholder. I’m not sure if there’s an equivalent in the private world, but if he gave them money it’s possible he simply has standing for that reason (as a shareholder does).
- russdill 3y agolol, I invested in Google when they had the "Do no evil" thing. Now they removed it and are doing evil. I'm going to sue them!
- catskul2 3y agoPerhaps you should.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"? Yes, especially nonprofits.
- 65 3y agoSuch as?