Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters
275 points
6 hours ago
| 17 comments
| ft.com
| HN
scrlk
5 hours ago
[-]
reply
Zigurd
3 hours ago
[-]
Everybody wants a platform but nobody wants to spend what it takes to make a platform. That includes things like Windows Phone, Fire Phone, all the glasses, Humane, etc.

As much as everybody hates on OpenAI for chaotic management, they did buy Jony Ive and are presumably giving him everything he wants to build a platform for them. Even though it probably only buys them a 20% chance of success, they haven't doomed the project by underestimating what it takes budget-wise.

And they blew it. Maybe they blew it by not realizing that even long time Apple employees could get arrogant about security. Or maybe it was a loose ethical environment in general. Whatever is it the root or the problem, they set billions of dollars on fire maybe tens of billions, by being unnecessarily cute about Apple proprietary information when they could've been above reproach. They had the resources to hire all the right people with the right knowledge and probably already had them on board.

reply
tedggh
8 minutes ago
[-]
“ Or maybe it was a loose ethical environment in general”

Altman doesn’t appear to be a beacon of corporate ethics.

There has to be a reason why almost every single important partnership OpenAI had, abruptly ended, except for maybe Nvidia.

Just recently Satya Nadella publicly implied that OpenAI should not be trusted.

They are slowly becoming the STD of the AI industry, it’s like they think they are too big and awesome to need friends.

Maybe pissing Apple off will teach them a lesson?

reply
duxup
27 minutes ago
[-]
As far as I can tell Ive's expertise isn't "build a platform".

All they seem to have gotten out of it is some creepy blogpost:

https://openai.com/sam-and-jony/

reply
proee
41 minutes ago
[-]
At this point in his career, Jony Ive is best suited for doing deep dive studies on the corner-radius of new products. And even then, you might as well just default it to that of an ipad, because that seems to be his preference for all things, including $650k Ferraris.
reply
jazzpush2
21 minutes ago
[-]
He has no taste anymore. He was right once, made too much money, and lost touch with everything. Now he's a tasteless boomer.
reply
ricardobayes
2 hours ago
[-]
AI model providers have zero "moat", clients change them as they see fit. This week ChatGPT, next week Claude. The real value is and going to be in hardware - as long as China doesn't enter the GPU/RAM race.

I increasingly see AI investment, generally speaking, as a lost cause. It has very little chance to pay off.

reply
glaslong
1 hour ago
[-]
Yup. Model capabilities seem to keep converging quickly, not leaders breaking away for long.

Frontier labs are racing towards SaaS commoditization at incredible speed. And while there might possibly be $Trillions in productivity gained from their use, there's no reason to think those gains get captured by the model makers or inference providers at this point.

Maybe the Claude or ChatGPT desktop apps will dominate as the new MS Excel, but that's hard to do without already having locked the whole market into Windows.

There's virtually no platform play available to them.

reply
nxobject
1 hour ago
[-]
> AI model providers have zero "moat", clients change them as they see fit.

That might be true in tech-savvy industries -- but in non-tech industries where the biggest software purchase might be the office suite or the ERP, inertia means the GSuite shops stick with Gemini, and the Exchange/Office 365 shops stick with Copilot.

reply
lwkl
30 minutes ago
[-]
At least from some smaller marketing companies I know that isn't necessarily true. They often have Gemini or Copilot and Claude nowadays and before Claude it was ChatGPT.

The moat is way smaller than with Office or Gsuite because they feed data into the chat interface and it gives them an answer. The moat for Gsuite and Office is higher because you have to move all your data and reorganize it. Oh and everyone has to learn how to use the new software clients.

reply
bg24
1 hour ago
[-]
There is a time window when it will flip. When Internet came along, we had a number of businesses that did not survive over the next years.

This time, it is different with AI. The rate of change is significant.

reply
fvwqcecvq
28 minutes ago
[-]
Just out of curiosity, what is the change and how are you measuring its rate?

From no internet to internet the change is pretty profound. But my job is already very automated for the most part. It's true AI might automate it a bit more, but it's not like I'm going from zero automation to full on automation. That's not nothing, and it is worth something, but it's also not internet from no internet level of change either.

reply
mathisfun123
1 hour ago
[-]
I think you don't understand moat - that's not a moat.
reply
sweetjuly
49 minutes ago
[-]
The trick is antitrust style bundling. The massive pile of documents and processes tied to GSuite is a moat which makes it hard to switch to something like o365. Since a company might effectively be locked into GSuite (the primary product), if Google forces companies to buy Gemini (the secondary product) by bundling it with GSuite, they've given themselves a moat in the LLM space using their document/email moat from GSuite.

This is essentially what Google has done, and it's a shame the US is so weak on enforcing antitrust laws.

reply
thomasahle
32 minutes ago
[-]
> as long as China doesn't enter the GPU/RAM race

China is obviously in the GPU/RAM race. Heard of Huawei, Moore Threads, Lisuan Tech, CXMT?

reply
petterroea
1 hour ago
[-]
I'm just happy we get to reap the rewards "for free" (i.e open models are slowly becoming usable, and the winner of the arms race will definitely stand on the shoulders of their competitors that didn't make it)
reply
joelthelion
1 hour ago
[-]
> The real value is and going to be in hardware

Unless someone comes up with a brilliant optimization strategy or new hardware that renders all that inefficient Nvidia crap overnight.

reply
BowBun
1 hour ago
[-]
I'm privy to dozens of people working on this problem every day and I imagine there's many more people working on this problem out of sight. I'm bullish on this idea, but it's going to be a slow burn.
reply
devin
2 hours ago
[-]
Forgive me, but what does Jony Ive know about building platforms?
reply
grouchomarx
2 hours ago
[-]
being an exec at apple for decades you probably pick up on a few things, even if they're beyond your department
reply
throw0101d
15 minutes ago
[-]
> being an exec at apple for decades you probably pick up on a few things, even if they're beyond your department

It's also possible to lose touch (e.g., butterfly keyboards).

reply
ironman1478
2 hours ago
[-]
The Luce seems to disprove that, at least in his case.
reply
whyenot
44 minutes ago
[-]
The car that has sold out in almost every market outside the US?
reply
estearum
38 minutes ago
[-]
Aren't there like a hundred of them? And yeah, sure, it'll obviously be a collector's item. Provides no evidence to this discussion.
reply
dylan604
19 minutes ago
[-]
A hundred? That's a big run for Ferrari isn't it?
reply
xp84
1 hour ago
[-]
It's the Apple Watch Edition of cars.
reply
dramm
1 hour ago
[-]
It’s the Apple Watch Edsel of cars.
reply
blitzar
2 hours ago
[-]
I believe "Luce" is correctly pronounced "Apple Car"
reply
shimman
1 hour ago
[-]
Not really, hubris is a real thing and not just a plot point.
reply
dylan604
20 minutes ago
[-]
> they could've been above reproach.

This is hilarious. The company run by sama? The company that started as the largest copy right violation ever? How can you be above reproach when you start such disregard like that?

reply
joshstrange
1 hour ago
[-]
Small nit.

> they did buy Jony Ive and are presumably giving him everything he wants to build a platform for them

If they hired Jony Ive to build a "platform" they will be very disappointed. He has no experience in doing that. They hired him to design a device, probably comment on the UI (if there is any, though I don't think he is qualified to direct either UI personally).

Aside from that, yeah, they royally screwed up here. Either by hiring unsavory people who think this acceptable behavior and/or by not managing/supervising them.

I've said it before on this topic: this goes _way_ past non-competes and the like. If you learn a novel method for doing something you are free (in my book) to recreate it at another company. You are not free to steal code/designs/etc verbatim and you are absolutely not ok to encourage people you are poaching (poaching is fine itself) to steal secrets/ideas on their way out. Also the whole "lying to a manufacturer to say Apple gave OpenAI permission to use the same proprietary technique" is really gross.

reply
watwut
46 minutes ago
[-]
> Either by hiring unsavory people who think this acceptable behavior and/or by not managing/supervising them.

Is there any reason to think this is roque employees doing something? We know Altman is ethically challenged. It is equally or even more likely that management welcommed employees to doing this.

reply
amelius
1 hour ago
[-]
> Everybody wants a platform but nobody wants to spend what it takes to make a platform.

That's why Apple used open-source software to build a kernel.

And why they used third party developers to develop the ecosystem of applications.

reply
rjrjrjrj
56 minutes ago
[-]
> And why they used third party developers to develop the ecosystem of applications.

Isn't that the very definition of a platform?

reply
MattDamonSpace
40 minutes ago
[-]
I maintain that if Humane wasn’t arrogant as hell and had just put a screen on their device, theyd have been PERFECTLY placed to become the open-platform AI Phone

Hell they might’ve been bought by OpenAI for billions instead of… HP lol

reply
dofm
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't think Jony Ive has this skillset either. They might make a very nice device (I'd expect it to be polarising).
reply
dzonga
1 hour ago
[-]
the rot starts from the top.

sama plays loose with the truth. so likely the employees are gonna follow their boss in cutting corners.

you see it everywhere in gvt/large organizations - if you come from a poor country - if the president is corrupt - the whole gvt gets corrupted.

reply
JumpCrisscross
3 hours ago
[-]
> And they blew it

This could be a blessing in disguise for OpenAI. This mess was conducted under Altman’s watch—it could be an opportunity to Kalanick him.

The Board could elevate Altman to Chairman emeritus or something, choose a new CEO and settle with Apple. That will probably involve shutting down the hardware project and clawing back comp from its employees who helped make this mess.

reply
freejazz
22 minutes ago
[-]
Unnecessarily cute? It's a documented campaign of industrial-scale theft...
reply
delusional
2 hours ago
[-]
> Everybody wants a platform but nobody wants to spend what it takes to make a platform.

Ahistoric jibber jabber. Microsoft gave it their very best shot with Windows Phone. Facebook renamed the entire company to make VR happen. These companies have shoved everything they got into making these platforms, and their fate would not have been different if they had been given another billion.

Platforms are hard to make, and wanting it bad enough is not enough to make one.

Stealing from the one company that has managed to court success makes a lot of sense. They are the only company with any successful experience.

reply
saghm
8 minutes ago
[-]
> Stealing from the one company that has managed to court success makes a lot of sense.

It makes a lot of sense to get into a massive legal battle with one of the most deep-pocketed companies on the planet?

reply
Zigurd
2 hours ago
[-]
Fair enough, but I'd point out that, unlike Second Life, Meta didn't buy pants. If you want a chronicle of wasted spending regarding Microsoft and mobile devices, Google "Tomi Ahonen."
reply
StableAlkyne
1 hour ago
[-]
> Meta didn't buy pants

They also succeeded in the monumental task of making VR look boring.

VR platforms are an escapist's dream: you can be anything you want doing whatever you want. And how did they show off their fantasy world machine? They did office meetings in avatars of their real life selves.

Just spend one night in VRChat and everything Meta did will look like Plato's cave shadows.

reply
fauigerzigerk
2 hours ago
[-]
I don't know. Some of it did seem like short attention spans and not enough perseverence. But what do I know being far from an insider.
reply
Apocryphon
3 hours ago
[-]
A decade ago Uber seemed poised to be the big tech powerhouse. Maybe not a platform per se (certainly not an ecosystem as other companies had it) but a major provider of software for all kinds of verticals beyond their core business. What happened to that?
reply
mprovost
2 hours ago
[-]
Most of Uber's "platform" seemed like pet projects that engineers used to justify promotions, and then were quietly abandoned.
reply
nicce
1 hour ago
[-]
Uber managed to make the business by lobbying so hard. In some countries they broke the regulation of tax drivers and made the environment like wild jungle. Now, people don't feel "safe" anymore for random Taxis and prefer Uber in many places.
reply
therealdrag0
2 hours ago
[-]
Many of them left and turned into startups around that tech, like Temporal.
reply
duped
1 hour ago
[-]
What does that have to do with employees stealing documents?
reply
bellowsgulch
3 hours ago
[-]
Yes, but how do we know specific manufacturing processes weren’t in employee contracts like, “If you leave Apple you can’t utilize the invisible weld process invented here for the iMac.”

I mean regardless of whether it’s a trade secret, you’re going to know how to do specific things that can’t be protected against copying.

There are no practical laws against understanding the laws of physics, chemistry, and metallurgy when it comes to anodizing.

reply
JumpCrisscross
2 hours ago
[-]
> There are no practical laws against understanding the laws of physics, chemistry, and metallurgy

Except there are. It’s why clean-room design [1] is a thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design

reply
aprilthird2021
3 hours ago
[-]
Your comment assumes they have stolen some propietary info or trade secrets but it hasn't been determined yet that they have, no?
reply
JumpCrisscross
2 hours ago
[-]
> it hasn't been determined yet that they have

Legally, no. Reasonably, for purposes of discussion, I think it has. The “LOL” dumbfuck who airlifted files into OpenAI isn’t particularly ambiguous [1].

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-11/openai-en...

reply
aprilthird2021
2 hours ago
[-]
It is ambiguous still at this stage though. There's no proof he used this info at his job or that he was directed to take it by anyone (he may have thought it helpful to his career in a way OpenAI never asked for or even invited).
reply
JumpCrisscross
2 hours ago
[-]
> There's no proof he used this info at his job

LOL Liu hasn’t—to my knowledge—been fired. When OpenAI was notified of his conduct, they didn’t confidentially settle. Instead, OpenAI’s legal went cold on Apple.

It’s not legally certain. But you really have to stretch the facts to make this seem ambiguous.

reply
shimman
54 minutes ago
[-]
The court of public opinion is a thing, and the onus isn't on us to not trust a rich tech bro to not be an unethical person. That's on them to fix their image + avoiding jail time.

The rest of us are allowed to rightfully laugh at them.

reply
isodev
1 hour ago
[-]
Why are we taking Apple’s side here? They made accusations, nothing had been proven yet.

Who is to say Apple employees (at Apple) haven’t been vibe coding or asking gpt for technical topics? Also, funny timing from Apple - there is a lot of PR and optics riding on this lawsuit.

reply
deepwoods
5 hours ago
[-]
FT frames this as some aggressive escalation tactic, but document retention letters are extremely standard practice. At this point they're basically a formality, as any former Apple employee at OpenAI really ought to know by now that they could get dragged into this. Hold letters can be aggressive if you send them before you've even filed a complaint, but if anything, Apple is late to the party with these.
reply
LatencyKills
3 hours ago
[-]
Something similar happened to me when I left Microsoft for Apple (I moved from the Visual Studio team to the Xcode team). MS spent six months trying to prove I'd taken "industry secrets" with me. I hadn't. The entire thing felt like a personal attack and was extremely stressful.

It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

reply
ajju
2 hours ago
[-]
This seems like an important post. It looks like these letters are occasionally used to as a tactic, and i can see how such a tactic can really scare employees in a country where legal bills can climb really fast.
reply
joshstrange
59 minutes ago
[-]
> in a country where legal bills can climb really fast

Honest question: Are there countries where this is not the case? I'd be interested to read more about how that manage that. If it's some sort of "protecting the little guy"-type thing or a general suppression of legal costs. Or maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.

reply
adrian_b
8 minutes ago
[-]
In many countries, the loser pays all the legal bills.

So if you have been wrongly accused, that may cost you nothing.

reply
cactacea
38 minutes ago
[-]
It is more that labor protections in most of the industrialized world actually mean something, such that this sort of behavior is generally not even to be considered an option by an employer.
reply
shimman
52 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, the US is actually unique in this position. It even has it's own name the "American Rule."

In every other country, the loser pays the winner's legal fees.

reply
im3w1l
35 minutes ago
[-]
Doesn't that mean that if you have a slam dunk case you can get a super expensive lawyer just to run up costs as much as possible? Hell, could you ask your friend to be your legal representative and have him charge you a gorillion dollar in legal fees? Then when you win you split the loot?
reply
tfourb
6 minutes ago
[-]
Civilized countries regulate the rates that lawyers can charge for standard work. Also lawyers get only reimbursed for reasonable costs by the loser. Still expensive, but not absurdly so.
reply
nxobject
1 hour ago
[-]
> It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

Honestly, the proof is the least surprising part -- Apple's been paranoid about leaks for decades, even when the stakes have been lower.

reply
marklar423
2 hours ago
[-]
Did Apple help defend you against those claims during the six months?
reply
LatencyKills
1 hour ago
[-]
They did. That said, I don’t know how much “defending” they had to do given that I was never even told what, exactly, I was supposed to have stolen. But, like I said, it was both surprising and anxiety inducing.
reply
bayindirh
2 hours ago
[-]
> It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

I believe some articles mentioned about employees bragging to their former colleagues about accessing documents. Also I believe they lied to Apple about being employed elsewhere so they can continue using their access and hardware, etc.

If these are correct, the whole OpenAI playbook is very dirty, and I won't pity them a bit.

reply
compiler-guy
1 hour ago
[-]
Apple also has server logs that track these former employees downloading confidential docs. It doesn't prove that they shared them over to OpenAI, but Apple has pretty solid proof that the former employees saved them without authorization.
reply
Danox
2 hours ago
[-]
They’re not late to the IPO party, which was postponed by OpenAI, It may turn out that that was a mistake. OpenAI probably should’ve gone ahead, particularly in light of the pending court case.
reply
staticman2
1 hour ago
[-]
Would they have had to disclose a known Apple lawsuit threat in the IPO disclosures? If so that might explain the delay...

Also Apple could have filed the litigation right before the IPO and after a IPO announcement. OpenAI doesn't get to decide when Apple sues them.

reply
JumpCrisscross
2 hours ago
[-]
> They’re not late to the IPO party, which was postponed by OpenAI, It may turn out that that was a mistake

Isn’t that precisely what being late to the party means? You should have showed earlier?

reply
jamiek88
1 hour ago
[-]
Typo for ‘now late to the party’ prob.
reply
elicash
3 hours ago
[-]
I'm not a lawyer, but I would also guess they need to "flip" these folks against OpenAI and get them to cooperate in the lawsuit against the actual folks with big pockets. I think they're essentially alleging a conspiracy by OpenAI and they need as many examples as possible to make the case that this was a pattern and standard practice, not just one or two idiots acting on their own.

So if I'm a former Apple employee and I get one of these scary letters, I'm asking my attorney if I could get out of a lawsuit by sharing any information I have about any potential OpenAI shady practices.

reply
wildzzz
2 hours ago
[-]
You shouldn't ever willingly give up information to a plaintiff if it could implicate you. If the information exists, it's going to come out in discovery. Admitting to theft of trade secrets is probably not going to help you, it's not like the cops offering you immunity for turning state's witness.

You talk to a lawyer and do what they say, not what Apple demands of you. No one but a judge can demand anything of you.

reply
fisf
3 hours ago
[-]
That's overly dramatic.

At this point, the assumption would be that they are a non-party witness.

So, beyond not destroying any potential evidence, you might as well tell them to shove it.

reply
elicash
59 minutes ago
[-]
It is not overly dramatic to suggest getting a letter like this is INCREDIBLY scary.
reply
reenorap
5 hours ago
[-]
Apple must have hard evidence on this. I can’t believe they would take it this far without already knowing they are going to win. If they have to fire a huge chunk of their hardware employees it’s going to throw their IPO plans into chaos.
reply
martinky24
3 hours ago
[-]
They literally do have hard evidence. They have records of an employee (Chang Liu) who left for OpenAI copying dozens and dozens of files off of their server after he left.
reply
aprilthird2021
3 hours ago
[-]
That's not enough though. He could have been acting rogue or for some other reason. That alone won't win in court
reply
Danox
2 hours ago
[-]
Among 40 ex Apple employees come on at least five or six of them probably crossed the line in their enthusiasm to get the big bucks.

If it was a small number, four or five total, maybe, but not 40.

reply
JumpCrisscross
2 hours ago
[-]
Also, Apple confronted OpenAI about LOL Liu. OpenAI’s response wasn’t to fire him, conduct an investigation and confidentially settle with Apple. It was to go cold.
reply
iAMkenough
2 hours ago
[-]
"acting rogue" but faced no action from OpenAI after this came to light
reply
jstummbillig
4 hours ago
[-]
What do you mean "this far"? How far is this?

Corps lose law suits all the time. They always have to go whatever "this far" is before it happens, surely?

reply
cj
4 hours ago
[-]
Filing lawsuits against ex-employees is going pretty far. Not good PR for Apple if their claims are wrong.

Companies often file frivolous lawsuits against other companies. It’s much rarer to throw frivolous lawsuits at individuals.

reply
doctaj
4 hours ago
[-]
Just to be clear, these are letters to individuals about the existing lawsuit with OpenAI, not new lawsuits against individuals.
reply
JumpCrisscross
3 hours ago
[-]
> these are letters to individuals about the existing lawsuit with OpenAI, not new lawsuits against individuals

My guess is these employees weren’t chosen randomly. If they refuse to coöperate with Apple, they’ll get personally sued as well.

And the reality of the matter is, given Altman’s public persona and reputation, there is a good chance an AG somewhere starts looking at whether these folks broke any laws.

reply
staticman2
1 hour ago
[-]
> If they refuse to coöperate with Apple, they’ll get personally sued as well.

This isn't law and order and that's not how civil litigation works.

reply
shimman
41 minutes ago
[-]
They can easily be found to have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, like this is a slam dunk. Highly possible too seeing the massive public hatred against companies like OpenAI. DAs like easy political wins too and what better win than sticking it to OpenAI and its lackeys?

Might have to make some phone calls to my local representatives now...

reply
compiler-guy
1 hour ago
[-]
Definitely not randomly chosen--Apple would have chosen people it believes may have evidence that relates to the case. It's a legal request to preserve that data.

But it doesn't follow at all that Apple is threatening to sue them. A long time ago, in an unrelated case, I got a letter like this because I was in the room when a certain decision was made and happened to have some notes about that meeting. But there was no chance I would be sued. I wasn't the decider, and was basically a third-party involved.

reply
Danox
2 hours ago
[-]
They will find out what Altman really cares about, my guess at this point, he only cares about the impending IPO throwing baggage overboard (new hires), probably won’t be a problem in the end.
reply
s3p
3 hours ago
[-]
>How far is this?

If I am understanding your question, they went so far as to sue their employees.

reply
jstummbillig
1 hour ago
[-]
Is this uncommon when it comes to corporations? Sue the people who (allegedly) did the thing?
reply
jasonlotito
3 hours ago
[-]
You are getting downvoted because, I guess, people didn't read who the defendents who are getting sued, and that it literally starts with sueing two employees:

CHANG LIU, TANG YEW TAN, OPENAI FOUNDATION f/k/a OPENAI, INC., OPENAI GROUP PBC, and IO PRODUCTS, LLC f/k/a IO PRODUCTS, INC.,

reply
jader201
3 hours ago
[-]
There are two individuals being sued, but many more received letters.

Parent is being downvoted likely because their statement implies the “dozens” receiving letters are individually being sued, but that’s not the case.

reply
deaton
3 hours ago
[-]
Apple lawyers have a reputation for doing their homework
reply
Forgeties79
3 hours ago
[-]
The accusations are incredibly clear/defined (and serious!) and have a very simple burden of proof. These things either happened or they didn’t, and they have material evidence or they don’t. It’s incredibly unlikely that they filed such big, concrete accusations without concrete proof to back them up.

And while I am far from an Apple fan boy, yes a lot of big corporations file frivolous lawsuits but Apple typically does not engage in that behavior against other companies. Also bear in mind that open AI is a huge name so there is a public/political element that goes along with this for Apple. There are going to be a lot of people who do not want Apple to win this regardless of how true their claims are and will figut like hell to protect openAI

reply
White_Wolf
3 hours ago
[-]
"Apple typically does not engage in that behaviour against other companies" - Meet Rossman. He'll tell you all about that and individuals too.
reply
marginalx
3 hours ago
[-]
They also have a new CEO at the helm.
reply
Tempest1981
3 hours ago
[-]
Effective Sept 1
reply
user43928
3 hours ago
[-]
I do not know a lot about Apple's litigation against other companies, but Apple did file numerous largely unsuccessful challenges to the EU's DMA.
reply
browningstreet
2 hours ago
[-]
You see how that’s an entirely different kind of legal action, right? It’s a resistance to regulation, which is entirely different than this accusation of malfeasance.
reply
teeray
4 hours ago
[-]
Makes you wonder if they’ll settle for bargain-basement token prices for Apple Intelligence.
reply
dofm
4 hours ago
[-]
I think it is clear that if Apple were going to deal with OpenAI on that level, they already would have. What they wanted for their AI products is a measure of control over their destiny that OpenAI clearly did not want to give them that badly. It's also pretty clear that Apple is willing to work with arch-rivals to supply components of their products, both software and hardware, but values consistency alongside trustworthiness.
reply
moduspol
4 hours ago
[-]
This stuff happened years ago, right? Something tells me that discussion has already happened, and they went with Google.

Besides: Apple is a "real" company that will definitely still be around in five years. They've already fumbled Siri multiple times. IMO Google was certainly the right choice for actually executing well on Apple's own terms for the foreseeable future.

reply
testfrequency
4 hours ago
[-]
You’re underestimating how much Apple Legal goes after anyone and everyone they feel a slight wrong sniff about.

I know some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed for one reason or another, and…it’s not a legal team I’d ever want to cross paths with.

It’s also not the first time Apple has cried wolf at employees leaving the company to do bigger and better things, while trying to take responsibility for their successes.

reply
jubilanti
3 hours ago
[-]
Oh, in that case, I just happen to have some insane stories that will never be publicly disclosed, and every one of my stories rebuts every one of your stories.
reply
cwmoore
3 hours ago
[-]
I can only wonder what percentage of human conceptual abilities are expended on rebuttal.
reply
Forgeties79
3 hours ago
[-]
Then share some of those insane stories with sources I guess. Because this seems to directly contradict my understanding of Apple (post-Jobs in particular).

I do not love Apple, as I said another comment I am so far from an apple fanboy, but frivolous lawsuits against other companies is not really typical for them. Also, these accusations are far from frivolous and they either have proof or they don’t. It would be very strange for them to file this thinking they would win with some sort of gray area argument

reply
testfrequency
3 hours ago
[-]
I worked at Apple for a few decades. My comment was not meant to be cryptic as much as it was to say: their legal team is very very hands on.

As you could imagine, I’m not sharing any specific information.

reply
seviu
4 hours ago
[-]
This is John Ternus having a beef with Tang Tan. It’s widely known they both competed for the role of CEO. Tim Cook would never have started this.

It shows a level of pettiness and arrogance which I never expected to see from Apple.

I can’t put myself in the mind of John, but he clearly hated Tang.

From outside and with a parent’s perspective this looks like my kids throwing a tantrum.

John must be thinking he is the new Steve Jobs (Steve would definitely do this)

reply
jonlucc
4 hours ago
[-]
It's interesting that you say they must have hated each other, but assume only Ternus is acting on that. What makes you think Tan's hatred of Ternus or animosity toward Apple for picking Ternus over him didn't lead Tan to do the alleged behavior?
reply
gota
4 hours ago
[-]
Maybe a naive take, but if there's one team in a large corporation that does not bend to "the CEO(-to-be) wants it", that is the Legal team. Particularly when the ask is a lawsuit of this scope and relevance, and potential costs (of all kinds). The head of Legal can just hint to the board how expensive (in all senses) the vendetta would be and the CEO is likely "not to be" anymore, or "to be temporary".
reply
rjrjrjrj
50 minutes ago
[-]
Widely known where?

Tang was never mentioned as a candidate in anything I read over the past few years. He wasn't an SVP.

reply
axus
3 hours ago
[-]
The alleged crime sounded childish. Appeal to rule of law, enforced by the court system is necessary for a fair business enviornment.

Sending the notification letters is probably petty though.

reply
compiler-guy
1 hour ago
[-]
These letters are simple "If you have evidence related to this lawsuit, you must preserve it" letters. And entirely routine in this kind of action. There are more of them than in most cases, because this is such a big case. But the gist is entirely routine.
reply
xp84
1 hour ago
[-]
Weird take. With as much evidence as they have (unless they're just wildly fabricating everything in their lawsuit complaint, which... really? All Apple's lawyers are just making up claims in court documents? Sounds very career-ending, why would the lawyers do that?) they would be complete idiots not to sue.
reply
jasonlotito
3 hours ago
[-]
Tim Cook is the current CEO. Tim Cook is doing this. Any assertion otherwise is 100% wrong.

John Ternus doesn't become CEO until September 1st. If you think that this is still John Ternus' play, Tim Cook is still the one in charge and signed off to start this, meaning "Tim Cook would never have started this" is still 100% wrong.

reply
appplication
3 hours ago
[-]
This comment is really strange and reads like disinformation
reply
MattDamonSpace
4 hours ago
[-]
Agreed Steve would do this

But the iPhone is the most valuable consumer hardware product on the planet, and the accusations here is “conspiracy to steal” essentially.

Is it really that petty? Apple should be okay with theft of valuable secrets?

reply
wat10000
4 hours ago
[-]
Apple comes down hard on employees who merely leak to the press. Taking internal documents to a competitor is not going to be fun.
reply
symfoniq
4 hours ago
[-]
OpenAI only exists due to the theft of content created by others.

If Apple’s accusations prove to be true, it just means that OpenAI is consistent.

reply
Saline9515
2 hours ago
[-]
I think that it's quite clear in the digital era that you can't steal bits that are free to copy.
reply
b40d-48b2-979e
18 minutes ago
[-]
I think it's quite clear that only applies to corporations. Workers will still go to prison.
reply
bix6
5 hours ago
[-]
Predictions on who wins? Does Apple actually have a winnable case or are they just throwing a wrench in things?
reply
jasode
4 hours ago
[-]
>Does Apple actually have a winnable case

Based on the previous thread, Apple seems to have damning evidence of wrongdoing by the (ex)employees before-and-after they left their positions at Apple: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48865019

Seems very similar to Google/Waymo winning its case against Uber (ex-Googler Anthony Levandowski) stealing corporate data.

Apple has the employees' emails history, the server access logs, etc. Really don't see Apple pursuing this unless they had a mountain of evidence against them.

reply
ksec
4 hours ago
[-]
Generally speaking, I think Apple tends to win on anything related to ex-employees. I am not sure if this is normal across Big-Tech. But surely is for Apple.

Depending on what is at stake. Example the one with Nuvia and Qualcomm I believe they just settled.

reply
rancar2
4 hours ago
[-]
Oh the irony if Apple can get a larger OpenAI stake than Microsoft.
reply
JumpCrisscross
3 hours ago
[-]
I don’t think Cupertino will settle for stock. I think they’ll demand cash and an agreement that OpenAI abandon or reboot their hardware project. In the meantime, Apple gets an open kimono into everything OpenAI has planned.

This could actually be the fuckup that kills OpenAI as an independent company. The threat of a cash judgement gums up not only an IPO, but also debt-based fundraising. (We equity guys are idiots, so we’ll probably keep writing cheques until the market turns.)

reply
an0malous
1 hour ago
[-]
> This could actually be the fuckup that kills OpenAI as an independent company.

I wonder if they’ll be the Lehman Brothers of this bubble

reply
MichaelZuo
4 hours ago
[-]
It would be very strange for Apple’s legal department to send out formal letters filled with claims on a lark.
reply
nba456_
4 hours ago
[-]
Not really, just slowing down a potential competitor could still be worth it.
reply
steve1977
3 hours ago
[-]
I don't think they would consider OpenAI a potential competitor, unless OpenAI has trade secrets of Apple.
reply
gsibble
4 hours ago
[-]
That's never been Apple's playbook with lawsuits at least.
reply
moralestapia
5 hours ago
[-]
Apple is not the company that makes this sort of thing just for fun.

Also, they don't have a directly competing business with OpenAI, so slander doesn't make sense.

I think this is genuine.

reply
nojito
4 hours ago
[-]
Both parties will just settle.

Apple already caught former employees accessing the Apple internal network with unreturned laptops after termination that’s pretty much game over.

reply
smith7018
4 hours ago
[-]
Why would Apple settle? They probably want the same outcomes of the Waymo v Uber trial that forced Uber out of the market. Apple's accusations imply that every part of OpenAI's hardware effort has been tainted with Apple's trade secrets and is therefore illegitimate. They also have more money than God so they can keep the suit going as long as they want.
reply
xp84
1 hour ago
[-]
This is an interesting point here. Due to having infinite money already, that's a possible dynamic we might see. OAI admits "Yup, obviously you got us. Let's write a check." And Apple might just respond "Nah, we are obviously going to win at trial, the legal fees don't bother us a bit, and honestly we don't really need the money, we'd rather destroy you as heavily as possible, for some combination of making an example out of all the criminals involved, plus there's a tiny chance you could threaten us someday considering you hired 'our boy' Jony Ive to build hardware."
reply
staticman2
4 hours ago
[-]
Uber was not forced to leave the self driving car market by Waymo's litigation. The litigation ended in February 2018 and Uber left the market in December 2020.
reply
JumpCrisscross
3 hours ago
[-]
I think it’s fair to argue that Uber’s self-driving efforts never recovered after that trial.
reply
consp
3 hours ago
[-]
Cause and effect can be delayed.
reply
compiler-guy
1 hour ago
[-]
They will just settle if a settlement gets them what they want for less than fighting this to legal completion would cost them (on a risk-adjusted basis).
reply
hmmm3
5 hours ago
[-]
reply
speak_plainly
4 hours ago
[-]
I wonder what Jony Ive is thinking about his partnership at the moment.
reply
JumpCrisscross
2 hours ago
[-]
I wonder if he knew.
reply
quux
3 hours ago
[-]
reply
JKCalhoun
5 hours ago
[-]
How can I say this…? Some companies come across like a neon sign flashing "EVIL!".

It's been nothing but warning signs from this company for at least a year now. I'm so happy to have nothing to do with them (having deleted my account a year or so ago).

Their marketing dept is going to have to really dig to get them out of this hole they've made for themselves.

The idea that I would trust any device they might roll out that is as personal as a personal AI assistant… It's no better than Meta and their creepy glasses.

Yeah, no thanks.

EDIT: I don't mind the downvotes—it means I touched a nerve—whether I am on the right or wrong side of the issue is not as interesting.

Apple, for its flaws, has not lost my trust with regard to my personal data—Meta and others are likely to never gain that back. OpenAI continues to do things to signal that they will not have that trust with me as well.

reply
khalic
5 hours ago
[-]
… so… you’re talking about OpenAI or Apple?
reply
JKCalhoun
5 hours ago
[-]
Ha ha. Worked at Apple for over two decades—would not have stayed at a company I thought was evil for that long.

A bully at times? I wouldn't argue with that.

reply
brazukadev
3 hours ago
[-]
> Ha ha. Worked at Apple for over two decades—would not have stayed at a company I thought was evil for that long.

Maybe, just maybe, you are also evil?

reply
yomismoaqui
5 hours ago
[-]
A quick search:

APP STORE, COMPETITION, AND MARKET CONTROL

  - U.S. Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit Accuses Apple of monopolizing
    smartphone markets and anticompetitive behavior.
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets

  - EU Commission DMA breach The European Commission found Apple in breach of
    the Digital Markets Act regarding steering rules.
    https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-finds-apple-and-meta-breach-digital-markets-act

  - Epic Games injunction sanctions Court rules Apple defied App Store order
    regarding external payment links.
    https://apnews.com/article/69b16572d2b2c990f6b69d4bbad9b57b

  - EU €1.8B App Store fine Fined for abusive music-streaming rules and
    preventing cheaper alternative information.
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1161
IPHONE PERFORMANCE AND "BATTERYGATE"

  - Apple Will Finally Pay for Throttling iPhones (WIRED) Apple settled the
    throttling lawsuit for up to $500 million (without admitting guilt).
    https://www.wired.com/story/apple-batterygate-settlement-payments-finally-coming/
RIGHT TO REPAIR AND PARTS PAIRING

  - The End of Parts Pairing? Almost (iFixit) On how software component linking
    forces warnings and loses functionality.
    https://www.ifixit.com/News/100266/the-end-of-parts-pairing-almost

  - Self-Repair Programme Critique (Right to Repair Europe) Critiques
    serialization, remote authorization, and part restrictions.
    https://repair.eu/news/apples-self-repair-programme-is-not-the-right-to-repair-we-need/

  - France is Fighting to Save Your iPhone from an Early Death (WIRED) Regarding
    France's probe into planned obsolescence and parts pairing.
    https://www.wired.com/story/right-to-repair-apple-france/
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE

  - Apple to pay $95 million to settle Siri privacy lawsuit (Reuters) Lawsuit
    alleging accidental Siri recordings and sharing with third parties.
    https://www.reuters.com/legal/apple-pay-95-million-settle-siri-privacy-lawsuit-2025-01-02/

  - Apple's CSAM On-Device Scanning Critiques (EFF) The Electronic Frontier
    Foundation's critique of Apple's plan to scan photos on-device (later
    dropped).
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/apples-plan-think-different-about-encryption-opens-backdoor-your-private-life
LABOR CONDITIONS IN SUPPLY CHAINS

  - Apple Reveals Supply Chain, Details Conditions (Reuters) Early reporting on
    audit findings of child labor and work violations.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/apple-reveals-supply-chain-details-conditions-idUSTRE80C1KV/

  - Rights Group Says Apple Suppliers in China Broke Labor Laws (Reuters)
    Reports of excessive overtime and labor violations in Chinese factories.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/business/rights-group-says-apple-suppliers-in-china-breaking-labour-laws-idUSBRE85R0EF/
TAX PRACTICES

  - State aid: Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to Apple worth up to €13
    billion (European Commission) The EC ruling that Ireland gave illegal tax
    benefits to Apple, later upheld.
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_16_2923
reply
appplication
3 hours ago
[-]
I’ll defend batterygate. If you know anything about batteries (especially the tendencies of those in that era), the actions taken by Apple were reasonable, though they should have considered the light in which throttling would be taken. The claim against them was valid but I don’t think the actions were ever malicious.
reply
illliillll
4 hours ago
[-]
None of this seems like it could reasonably be described as evil.
reply
fsflover
4 hours ago
[-]
How about these?

Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties (yahoo.com)

52 points by notRobot on Jan 1, 2021 | un‑favorite | 5 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25607386

Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments (jessesquires.com)

468 points by ig0r0 on March 31, 2021 | un‑favorite | 291 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216

Apple removes nearly 100 VPNs used by Russians to bypass censorship (elpais.com)

31 points by speckx on Oct 1, 2024 | un‑favorite | 3 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728

Apple's Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA (open-web-advocacy.org)

514 points by yashghelani on July 14, 2025 | un‑favorite | 383 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44557348

Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps (boingboing.net)

146 points by baobun 9 months ago 69 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520407

https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/29/iphone-workers-forced-labor/

reply
illliillll
4 hours ago
[-]
Let’s try:

> Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties (yahoo.com)

Apple routinely terminates relationships with suppliers when they identify abusive practices, sometimes they’re slow about it.

> Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments (jessesquires.com)

> Apple removes nearly 100 VPNs used by Russians to bypass censorship (elpais.com)

Apple obeys local laws

> Apple's Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA (open-web-advocacy.org)

Apple chooses to maintain control over a specific implementation detail of their platform that a handful of nerds object to.

> Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps (boingboing.net)

The claim made in this headline is just straight up false.

I don’t know, I don’t think their less-than-ideal behaviour is anywhere bad enough to reasonably be described as “evil”. Otherwise, we’re probably all evil.

reply
throw10920
4 hours ago
[-]
Thank you for your work. You spent far more time debunking misinformation than fsflover spent spreading it.
reply
alansaber
4 hours ago
[-]
Well, just enough evil to increase profit margins.
reply
camillomiller
4 hours ago
[-]
A list of very normal capitalistic practices. Borderline, sometimes ruthless, sometimes opportunistic. Evil is enabling genocide in Myanmar, which Meta provenly did. Evil is voluntarily steal millions of artworks for your own benefit, which OpenAI has provenly done. Etc…
reply
fsflover
3 hours ago
[-]
reply
Danox
2 hours ago
[-]
That would describe mankind as a whole…

The cars that I’ve driven since 18, My contribution to the plastic problem over the years, etc.

reply
fsflover
2 hours ago
[-]
The difference is Apple intentionally chose unrepairable design, despite much smaller companies offer repairable earplugs (See: PineBuds Pro).
reply
ewild
4 hours ago
[-]
What about the kids they intentionally get driven to suicide by keeping the blue bubbles for no other reason than child indoctrination due to bullying from other kids.
reply
okdood64
3 hours ago
[-]
Sounds like a societal and parenting problem that Apple has nothing to do with.
reply
retsibsi
3 hours ago
[-]
My first reaction was that it was ridiculous, or at least hysterically framed. But the claim is that the whole point of the bubble colour thing, from Apple's perspective, is to take advantage of status games among (largely) kids. If that's true, then it's probably fair to hold Apple partially responsible for the predictable negative consequences. I'd be surprised if something so silly was actually decisive in the worst cases, but I guess if this is playing out among millions of kids, it may be having outsized effects occasionally.
reply
steve1977
3 hours ago
[-]
These are quite heavy accusations. Do you have a source for your claim that this was the intention?
reply
EtienneK
3 hours ago
[-]
You ok bro?
reply
wat10000
3 hours ago
[-]
wat
reply
plufz
5 hours ago
[-]
From what we know this far it’s quite easy to be on Apples side in this particular question, right?
reply
khalic
4 hours ago
[-]
Yes it was more of a jest than a critique, the comment didn't explicitly say which one it was. In this case, it seems quite clear that Apple has a case.
reply
JKCalhoun
5 hours ago
[-]
Especially since Apple has no history of doing this—suggests this is on another level of theft.

(I worked at Apple and am aware of little "theft" incidents that came and went. Obviously those little incidents never made the news cycle.)

reply
nba456_
4 hours ago
[-]
How could you have worked at Apple during the entire Samsung lawsuit and say Apple has no history of suing competitors over IP theft?
reply
JKCalhoun
4 hours ago
[-]
You're right—I didn't mean to suggest they've never sued competitors. Some companies are just known to be litigious—I've never put Apple in that bucket. (And maybe I have blinders on. It's certainly fair to blame me for being biased.)
reply
EPWN3D
4 hours ago
[-]
Because Apple didn't sue Samsung over IP theft. They sued them over copyright infringement.
reply
bradyd
3 hours ago
[-]
reply
oceansweep
58 minutes ago
[-]
apple tracks every binary you execute and run on macos and sends the hash of it to their systems. Do you consider that to be respecting your privacy?
reply
groundzeros2015
4 hours ago
[-]
> Some companies come across like a neon sign flashing "EVIL!".

This is a perception created by your choice of media.

reply
Danox
2 hours ago
[-]
In Samsung’s case, they are evil buy something from them, and you are dead to them after the sale mind you, that probably would be the case with many Korean and Chinese companies too.

Would never buy anything from Samsung.

reply
JKCalhoun
4 hours ago
[-]
Probably.

(HackerNews, FWIW.)

reply
JumpCrisscross
3 hours ago
[-]
> don't mind the downvotes—it means I touched a nerve

Nope. You wrote an ambiguous blurb that then breaks guidelines by commenting “about the voting on comments” [1].

Try taking out the edit and change “this company” in the second paragraph to OpenAI.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

reply
JKCalhoun
2 hours ago
[-]
…and too late to edit my edit…

(Weird thing about HN.)

reply
gsibble
4 hours ago
[-]
Agreed. Very wary of OpenAI these days.
reply
Danox
2 hours ago
[-]
Among 40 greedy humans would several of them get too happy/carried away and copy sensitive information and take it somewhere else probably…
reply
zarzavat
4 hours ago
[-]
It's insane to cross Apple. In the worst case Apple could take the ChatGPT app down like they did to Fortnite. They are probably waiting for discovery to find out how high this goes.
reply
amelius
3 hours ago
[-]
Well, the EU won't allow it.
reply
Normal_gaussian
3 hours ago
[-]
IIRC Apple have been allowed to remove Fornite from the Apple Store, they just fall foul of the EU Digital Markets Act / DMA (?) when also blocking the Epic Games Store as a route to add/sideload it.

Removing ChatGPT due to ToS violations seems like it would be ok.

reply
jimbokun
3 hours ago
[-]
Maybe.

Depends if they hate Apple or OpenAI more.

reply
bel8
3 hours ago
[-]
Apple has a decade of beef with EU.

OpenAI has a lot ot catchup on the EU hate scale.

reply
Ylpertnodi
3 hours ago
[-]
Eu person: neither. We'd rather have the Chinese.
reply
JumpCrisscross
2 hours ago
[-]
Yeah, I feel like given two bad choices the EU’s tendency would be to go with a third, worse option.
reply
zuzululu
1 hour ago
[-]
Looks like a bunch of OpenAI employees involved in the theft are going to see prison time and nobody is going to hire them other than shady startup founders who will probably ask "is this guy going to steal from me "

I think this is a good reminder that no company is going to put their neck out for you. IF you go above and beyond whether, whatever the carrot is on the end of the stick you chase, you are only good as what you give back.

Never stay loyal or go all out for your employers, I think the new gen z are far more wiser. It's simply not worth it and I don't feel guilty for working three different employers via remote. Would they get mad and fire me if they found out? Sure. But then I'd just replace them with the next one.

YOU are the only person you should be loyal to. Don't steal for companies, don't lie for companies, don't work extreme hours for some "startup equity" that won't mount to shit (note those are extremely rare)

Collect your pay check, do the minimum, if possible find more pay checks.

reply
josefritzishere
5 hours ago
[-]
Wait until it comes out that OpenAI stole trade data through their deal with Atlassian. Seems inevitable. The company is fundamentally criminal in nature.
reply
DivingForGold
5 hours ago
[-]
Nag screen, as usual
reply
pembrook
5 hours ago
[-]
I’m a huge fan of Apple but this kind of thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Regardless of whether OpenAI poached some of their talent or is the one in the wrong, Apple has such a massively dominant hardware business (some might say monopoly level in some areas) that for them to be publicly acknowledging how scared they are of OpenAI…it’s just…pathetic.

They’re a $5T company and can’t muster up the motivation to get in the game and compete in the next computing frontier.

Apple fanboys will invent some narrative about them swooping in with the best product as a laggard and claim it’s always their strategy, but I see zero evidence they have the capacity to do that anymore.

The Siri situation is just absolutely pathetic and no amount of bad press about OpenAI is going to change the fact that Apple neglecting Siri for a decade now has been a big F-U to their customers.

reply
NBJack
4 hours ago
[-]
You may want to read the related articles first. I'm personally quite anti-Apple on several fronts, but the evidence so far seems damning if it holds up in court.
reply
jmull
2 hours ago
[-]
You can’t poach talent, because companies don’t own their employees.

You can steal trade secrets, which is what this case is about.

(If you’re going to suggest a full rewrite of IP and anti-trust law, you should at least have an understanding of the current situation.)

reply
presbyterian
4 hours ago
[-]
This isn't just them being scared of a competitor because they're able to outperform Apple, according to Apple they have proof of an active plan not just to poach talent, but to get that talent to syphon out information as they leave, as well as former employees keeping Apple hardware and using it to access confidential information. If what Apple claims is true, this is straightforwardly illegal. Could Apple be lying? Maybe, but that's a very risky move.
reply
pembrook
4 hours ago
[-]
It totally could be illegal, and I don’t care. Those laws exist to entrench dominant incumbents, and make our economy less dynamic.

The history of Silicon Valley and most of its innovation come from this kind of thing, and we eliminated non-competes in California for exactly this reason.

Apple having a serious competitor in hardware would be a good thing for consumers all over the world.

Apple’s overzealous secrecy culture starts to become insidious once you become such a dominant force in the marketplace.

At what point do we allow their innovations to bleed into the rest of humanity and lower their margins so humanity doesn’t pay out a 60% tax to them anymore. I think they’ve made enough profits for investors at this point. Id be happy if my Apple stock went nowhere if it meant 20 other companies could grow and innovate new products off the back of it.

reply
jamespo
4 hours ago
[-]
So we should "make our economy more dynamic" by encouraging IP theft which will simultaneously discourage genuine research & development?
reply
homarp
4 hours ago
[-]
it worked for China, no?

(and to develop 5G modem too)

reply
nomorewords
3 hours ago
[-]
In china's case it wasn't internal but external
reply
lowmagnet
4 hours ago
[-]
In what case is apple a monopoly?
reply
trollbridge
4 hours ago
[-]
Some people think that being the exclusive supplier of iOS based devices is a “monopoly”.
reply
twoodfin
2 hours ago
[-]
Also, I’ve observed a rhetorical trend among the “anti-bigness” crowd towards defining “monopoly” down:

“You may think a monopoly is an overwhelmingly dominant position as a supplier of a good or service, but that’s just naive popular economics! Acshually, according to the latest economic theories (by economists who share our politics), a monopoly is any firm that is big enough to have market power—like pricing power—to do things that can harm a competitor unfairly.”

Us dummies will keep calling that competition.

reply
vel0city
3 hours ago
[-]
McDonald's is the exclusive supplier of Big Macs and McNuggets. They're a monopoly.
reply
steve1977
3 hours ago
[-]
One sells Big Macs... the other Mac minis... there must be a connection.
reply
vel0city
3 hours ago
[-]
Clearly Apple and McDonalds has had a deep level of market collusion on Macs, the FTC should really get involved here and break up this Mac cartel.
reply
Danox
1 hour ago
[-]
In and Out Burger is an even bigger monopoly, the way they organize themselves is unfair to the rest of their competition.
reply
vel0city
1 hour ago
[-]
They control the In and the Out? What other options does the competition have?
reply
covercash
3 hours ago
[-]
And they’re the exclusive fast food partner of Monopoly… so they have a Monopoly monopoly?
reply
vel0city
3 hours ago
[-]
How deep does this rabbit hole go?
reply
Der_Einzige
2 hours ago
[-]
Blue bubble discrimination so bad that android users are the vast majority of incels. Even if that’s not technically a monopoly breaking up Apple would materially increase USA birthrates. Unironically!
reply
small_model
2 hours ago
[-]
So the ex-employee has to pay up or something, whats this got to do with OpenAI the company, seems like desperate attempt to slow down the company that will likely take Apple market share for dropping the ball on AI, they should look inwards rather than lashing out litigiously.
reply
Danox
1 hour ago
[-]
OpenAI the company really is as scummy as they come and that is probably why Apple gave them nothing unlike Microsoft, the Chinese model makers are currently proving that ultimately there is no moat around AI. Every day the cost of entry, software and hardware wise keeps getting smaller.

Note: The only thing Google got out of Apple was a one billion dollar refund on an existing search engine agreement, AI real value in the future is as a new addition, to the existing programming stack or toolkit used by programmers. That value does not add up to spending $1 trillion dollars on capex.

If Apple spends any big money in the next 2 to 4 years, they had better spend it on bringing the design and engineering of memory in-house to the Apple Silicon Group and TSMC.

reply