莫名堂觀察：馬斯克兩個小時就輸了官司

加拿大安大略省筆譯口譯協會（atio）認證翻譯、加拿大認證esl老師、留學申請顧問。

承接駕照、結婚證、房產證、出生證、戶口本、身份證、疫苗證、診斷書、體檢報告、護照、出入境記錄、銀行流水、資產證明、完稅證明、征信證明、聘用信、推薦信、在職證明、營業執照、無犯罪記錄、退休證等翻譯。支持簡體、繁體。速度快、信達雅、收費合理。不滿意原銀退還。

加拿大英文教練（原溫哥華英文教練），致力于地道英文表達

備受矚目的馬斯克訴山姆奧特曼將OpenAI從一家非贏利組織變成贏利公司的官司，陪審團僅用了兩個小時就達成一致，馬斯克敗訴，理由是是馬斯克等了太久才來起訴，讓他的所有訴求都逾期了。我們來看看BBC是如何報道的：

A California jury has tossed out（駁回） Elon Musk's high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI and its boss Sam Altman. In a unanimous verdict（注意這個unanimous，全體一致）, 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（違約；違背使命）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（仔細考慮）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.

不過，討論案情只花了兩個小時，但是閱讀雙方的各種材料卻用了3個禮拜。

Musk had accused Microsoft of aiding and abetting OpenAI in its allegedly improper transition to a more for-profit company. 微軟也被列為被告，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!" 老馬敗訴后的憤怒是當然的，注意這里他的措辭：loot是趁火打劫，搶劫的意思。

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. 他的怒火也燃到主審法官身上，發帖指責法官以陪審團來掩飾其社會活動者（activist）的面目。Fig leaf是無花果的葉子，當初夏娃亞當在蛇的引誘之下吃了蘋果后，對彼此的赤裸害起羞來，于是找來無花果遮羞。不過，這個帖子很快就被刪除了。

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". 馬斯克聲稱要上訴，因為陪審團并沒有對本案的merit(即實質) 作出判決。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. 面對馬斯克的指責，奧特曼對陪審團說，馬斯克本是支持OpenAI成為一家贏利公司的，只是因為他想控制公司的愿望沒有得逞，才轉而反對這么做。

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." 對于上訴的前景，報道引用了一些法律人士的預測，說這類陪審團基于具體事實作出的判決，很難在上訴時被推翻。

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.

在文章的結尾，作者引用了一位大學教授的話，說這樣的案子是哥斯拉大戰金剛，訴訟雙方都是業界大佬，在公眾眼里鬧這么一出，雙方都難以毫發無損，“我們無法與這些人產生共鳴：他們的財富或是他們的權力。”