ChatGPT maker OpenAI wants Apple's lawsuit dismissed, calling it "rotten to the core" and a pretext for how the firm is failing in AI and at keeping its staff.
While Apple went back to court to ask that its lawsuit against OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft be sped up, OpenAI initially turned to the court of public opinion. But it has now responded to Apple's latest filing with one of its own, presented to a US judge with the request that the case be dismissed.
The filing first denies Apple's claims of trade secret theft by arguing that it is not making anything that would benefit from such theft.
"OpenAI has no use, need or desire for Apple's trade secrets," says the filing. "OpenAI is building something entirely new and different from anything at Apple."
The filing then goes on to more specifically say that Apple's case "fails to sufficiently describe the information for which it claims trade secret protection." It even says that Apple has failed to prove that it owns "a protectable trade secret," or to "plausibly allege misappropriation" by OpenAI.
Apple does unquestionably have trade secrets, though. And while OpenAI says Apple has only listed "generalized product development categories," it would be unlikely to reveal any further detail in filings that were always going to be made public.
Apple's real reasons for suing
Having sought to downplay Apple's allegations, OpenAI's new filing then sets out to present itself as the blameless victim of Apple's failures.
"Apple should not be permitted to use a baseless and pretextual lawsuit to make up for its shortcomings in the market for talent and retaining its employees," continued the filing, "and its failures to integrate AI into its products."
Returning to its repeated insistence that messages prove its employees only helped Apple, OpenAI says that the company is trying to spin the facts. Instead of ex-Apple employee Tang Tan keeping confidential documents, the "opposite is true and at least equally plausible."
"Mr. Tan retained this information to help ensure that new employees coming from Apple followed Apple's offboarding procedures and did not retain any Apple confidential information," says the filing.
Cherry-picking arguments
This entire matter is an IP theft suit. They are historically messy, and loud. And, lawyers want to argue their own points.
So, this is of course a completely expected filing. Apple has sued, OpenAI wants the case dismissed or at least wants a future trial to see that it believed it had reasons for dismissal.
It may have those beliefs, but based on what has been published so far, this latest motion still ignores key parts of Apple's accusations. Specifically, it appears to concentrate on the issues surrounding ex-Apple vice president Tang Tan and whether he retained documents.
"Apple tries to spin Mr. Tan's possession of the offboarding document as evidence of an attempt to evade confidentiality obligations," the filing claims. "The opposite is true, and at least equally plausible: Mr. Tan retained this information to help ensure that new employees coming from Apple followed Apple's offboarding procedures and did not retain any Apple confidential information."
The original filing does not "spin" Tan's possession of the offboarding document as anything more than still he has the offboarding document. The OpenAI filing does not address the actual claim about the document, that Tan did not complete off-boarding and dodged attempts to have it done.
And, while Apple does accuse Tan of this, the company names several other ex-employees, including Chang Liu. Apple alleges that Liu retained his Apple-issued laptop, which OpenAI's recent blog posting seems to confirm, and that he downloaded confidential files.
Then OpenAI's initial statements that it is building something "entirely new" that has no resemblance to anything Apple has made could be problematic. Leaked information appears to show that the first OpenAI hardware device will be a smart speaker that is much like Apple's HomePod.
But OpenAI had to try. It decided to use the same criticisms that have been leveled against it over cherry-picking messages to refute accusations.
"Plainly filed without adequate investigation and built on selectively excerpted communications and ordinary conduct stripped of context," concludes OpenAI's new filing, "Apple's complaint is — to borrow its own phrase — 'rotten to its core.'"
Regardless of what OpenAI or Apple wants or feels, the case is unlikely to be dismissed at this juncture. Consequently, it seems unlikely that a judge will agree to a dismissal. Claims that Apple hasn't done enough investigation seem transparently false, as the company clearly has server logs of access and downloaded records.
No court dates have been set beyond an October 1 hearing on Apple's injunction and early discovery request. Barring a settlement, this suit is likely to wear on for years, not unlike Apple vs. Samsung, or Epic vs. Apple.
