OpenAI slams Apple lawsuit as “careless, aggressive, oddly personal”

OpenAI’s blog post on Tuesday labeled Apple’s trade‑secret lawsuit “careless, aggressive, and oddly personal,” and released iMessage and email excerpts to dispute the claims that former Apple staff stole confidential hardware data [1].

OpenAI’s public counter‑argument

OpenAI’s response was not a court filing but a blog entry titled “Apple is getting this wrong,” where the AI firm posted redacted iMessage conversations showing Apple employees contacting former engineer Chang Liu after his departure to locate files. The post also highlighted a misdirected email that Apple’s outside counsel sent to the wrong person, undermining Apple’s claim that OpenAI ignored earlier outreach [2]. OpenAI asserted it never received Apple’s February inquiry and only learned of the lawsuit after five months of silence [3].

Apple’s allegations and OpenAI’s defense

Apple’s complaint, filed in July, accuses Liu and former design chief Tang Yew Tan of taking “secret and confidential information” on unreleased iPhone and Apple Watch hardware to aid OpenAI’s own hardware efforts. Apple seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent OpenAI and the two ex‑employees from using or disclosing any such information [1]. OpenAI counters that the alleged “residual access” is a known Apple security issue, not evidence of theft, and that former employees often retain access unintentionally [1][3]. The company also emphasized that Tan has repeatedly told his team that OpenAI does not want, nor will use, any confidential data from other firms [2].

Legal escalation and broader implications

Apple’s latest filing asks a federal judge to bar OpenAI, Liu, Tan, and OpenAI’s hardware arm io Products from accessing Apple’s confidential designs, and it requests expedited discovery of additional former Apple staff who may hold relevant information [3]. OpenAI rejected the injunction request, calling Apple’s request “based on false information and completely unnecessary” [1]. The public release of internal communications marks an unusual move to sway public opinion and could influence how courts view the evidentiary weight of such material.

What to watch

• Court rulings on the preliminary injunction – a judge’s decision could set precedent for how trade‑secret claims are handled in AI‑hardware disputes.
• Further disclosures from OpenAI – additional logs or emails may emerge as the case proceeds, potentially shifting the narrative.
• Apple’s next filing – any expansion of the list of former employees or new claims could intensify the legal battle.

The clash underscores the growing tension between leading hardware manufacturers and generative‑AI firms over talent and proprietary technology, raising questions about how future employee transitions will be governed and what safeguards both sides will need to implement.