They might have code escrow and IP transfer clause that are activated on some condition, like actual OpenAI defunction.
> This is, quite obviously, a phenomenal outcome for Microsoft. The company already has a perpetual license to all OpenAI IP (short of artificial general intelligence), including source code and model weights; the question was whether it would have the talent to exploit that IP if OpenAI suffered the sort of talent drain that was threatened upon Altman and Brockman’s removal. Indeed they will, as a good portion of that talent seems likely to flow to Microsoft; you can make the case that Microsoft just acquired OpenAI for $0 and zero risk of an antitrust lawsuit.
> (Microsoft’s original agreement with OpenAI also barred Microsoft from pursuing AGI based on OpenAI tech on its own; my understanding is that this clause was removed in the most recent agreement)
> Microsoft’s gain, meanwhile, is OpenAI’s loss, which is dependent on the Redmond-based company for both money and compute: the work its employees will do on AI will either be Microsoft’s by virtue of that perpetual license, or Microsoft’s directly because said employees joined Altman’s team. OpenAI’s trump card is ChatGPT, which is well on its way to achieving the holy grail of tech — an at-scale consumer platform — but if the reporting this weekend is to be believed, OpenAI’s board may have already had second thoughts about the incentives ChapGPT placed on the company (more on this below).
Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38346869
https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkw...
Good luck with that line of argument, I wouldn't want my reputation and my fortune to hinge on that.
> Sam & Greg saw fit to leave him in place.
Bad mistake on their part given the guy's history.
> Nothing from Emmett yet.
I wonder if he'll resign...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-21/altman-op...
As for whether or not investors have a case: Microsoft may not, but the smaller investors probably do because they can fairly easily prove that their interests were harmed by the ill advised actions of the board.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-21/openai...
And until that proof surfaces I'm going on the assumption that it doesn't exist because if it does exist they would have certainly used it to bolster their case.
Note Ilya's statement of regret and that none of the board members have said a word and that the current CEO is nowhere to be seen. That does not look like a group of people that are acting boldly in the defense of their corporate charter to me.
It looks like a bunch of weasels that thought they could get away with murdering the chicken while they were unattended for five minutes and they're now all covered with blood and pretending to be innocent.
Leaks say whatever they want to say and if I found myself in this position - highly unlikely - and I would have leaked something it would have definitely been something to make me look good. Or did you think that if it made them look bad that it would have been leaked as well? In that case I can see your point.
Note this key quote by Nadella:
"“As a partner, I think it does deserve you to be consulted on the big decisions.”"
That's one way to look at what might be grounds for a suit. He could be wrong, but that won't stop them from suing to establish that fact and they have very little to lose.
Hint: the 51% are more likely to go after the board than that they are going to go after Microsoft because the board action is what precipitated this whole mess.
Microsoft is just - conveniently - picking up the pieces and periodically drops hints about what they'll do if anybody gets in their way of doing that.