OpenAI President Admits to Acquiring $30 Billion in Equity for $0: Is Musk Finally Going to Win?
OpenAI President Greg Brockman seemingly “confessed” in court today, admitting he never invested a single penny but managed to acquire $30 billion in equity. This revelation shocked everyone in the courtroom and online. NYU scholar Marcus believes this is the first real opportunity for Musk to win.
The Silicon Valley trial of the century, OpenAI President “Pleads Guilty”
In the Oakland Federal Court in May 2026, the air was thick with tension.
In this courtroom sat some of the smartest minds in the world today, and also the most intense dispute over interests in human history.
On one side was the world’s richest man, Musk, who is dedicated to sending humans to Mars; on the other side were the leaders of OpenAI—currently the crown jewel of global AI—Sam Altman and Greg Brockman.
Now, this trial has evolved into a commercial espionage blockbuster involving hundreds of billions of dollars, betrayal, power plays, secret agreements, and the transfer of interests.
Musk’s lawyer, calm and composed, used Brockman’s own diaries and emails to conduct a “live dissection” in court.
The most shocking moment occurred.
When asked about Brockman’s ownership stake in OpenAI’s for-profit entity, the dialogue went as follows:
Q: “You have ownership rights in this for-profit company, correct?”
Brockman: “Yes, that’s accurate.”
Q: “And to obtain these rights, you invested $0 in cash. Correct?”
Brockman (after hesitation): “That’s also accurate.”
Q: “Your equity in this for-profit entity, based on today’s valuation, exceeds $20 billion, correct?”
Brockman: “Yes.”
Q: “In fact, it’s likely closer to $30 billion. Correct?” Brockman: “I think that’s probably true. Yes.”
The number echoed through the courtroom, causing a slight stir in the gallery.
It’s worth noting that Musk, as one of OpenAI’s earliest funders, donated over $38 million in cash, provided early office space, and even personally recruited top talent.
But in today’s OpenAI, Musk’s personal stake is zero.
Furthermore, Brockman had to admit an awkward fact: he used Musk’s name for endorsements during early fundraising and even verbally promised a $100,000 donation, which he never actually made.
This is the core of Musk’s accusation: unjust enrichment.
According to California’s charitable trust law, trustees of non-profit organizations should receive a salary, not divide charitable assets.
Musk’s logic is simple: I donated to create a public utility for the benefit of humanity, but you secretly dismantled the utility, pocketed the parts, and labeled yourselves with a $30 billion price tag.
Cerebras: A $20 Billion Self-Dealing Transaction
If the $30 billion in shares was the first bomb in this trial, Cerebras was the second. The related transactions regarding Cerebras disclosed during the trial directly touched upon legal red lines.
Musk’s lawyer unearthed an old account.
In 2017, while serving as an OpenAI trustee, Brockman privately purchased shares in AI chip startup Cerebras. At the same time, Altman also invested personally in the company.
However, in the following period, Brockman began aggressively lobbying within OpenAI to push for a deal with Cerebras.
The specific timeline is as follows:
December 2025: OpenAI signed an order to pay Cerebras $10 billion, along with an additional $1 billion loan.
February 2026: With OpenAI’s massive order, Cerebras’ valuation soared from $8 billion to $230 billion, nearly tripling.
April 2026: OpenAI increased the order to $20 billion.
Now: Cerebras has officially submitted an IPO application, aiming for a valuation of $266 billion.
The dialogue in court went as follows:
Q: When you were discussing the financial transaction between OpenAI and Cerebras, you were actually a shareholder of Cerebras, correct?
Brockman: “There was some overlap during the discussions and as a Cerebras investor. Yes.”
Q: Can you point to an email informing Musk that you held Cerebras shares while pushing for a deal between OpenAI and Cerebras?
Brockman: “I don’t believe such an email exists.”
Q: What about chat logs? Brockman: “No.” Q: What about text messages?
Brockman: “No.”
Q: However, if a transaction occurred between OpenAI and Cerebras, you would personally benefit.
Brockman: “I think so, but that wasn’t what I was considering at the time.”
California charitable trust law has a specific name for this: self-dealing. This type of self-dealing is extremely fatal in law.
As the head of a non-profit organization, they used charitable funds to support companies they personally invested in, thereby achieving exponential growth in personal wealth.
This is not just a matter of “deviating from the original intention,” but a suspected serious breach of professional ethics and conflict of interest.
“The Most Hated Man in America”
OpenAI clearly wasn’t going to sit back and take it.
To counter Musk’s “greed” claims, their lawyers disclosed a fiery set of text messages in court!
According to OpenAI, two days before the hearing, Musk proactively contacted Brockman to propose a settlement. Brockman politely responded that both sides should withdraw their lawsuits.
Subsequently, the conversation went off the rails.
Musk seemed to “go berserk” instantly, replying: “By the end of this weekend, you and Sam will be the most hated people in all of America. If you insist (on not settling), then so be it.”
This text message, dubbed an “ominous” sign, was interpreted by OpenAI as a threat and intimidation from Musk.
Trial Documents: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.433688/gov.uscourts.cand.433688.522.0.pdf
OpenAI’s lawyers tried to prove that Musk’s lawsuit wasn’t about “human safety” or “non-profit dreams,” but because he was jealous of OpenAI’s success and wanted to demand a breakup fee from his old partner.
However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wasn’t swayed by these side stories. Her focus remained clear: Did OpenAI violate its contractual obligations at its founding? Was its transition from non-profit to for-profit legal?
Expert Concerns: “Doomsday” Under the AGI Arms Race
In this trial, the only thing that could remind people of the grand topic of “human destiny” was the expert witness brought by Musk—Stuart Russell, a computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
As a titan in the AI field, Professor Russell’s testimony immediately weighed down the atmosphere. He warned that the current AGI competition has turned into an out-of-control “arms race.”
“There is an inherent tension between pursuing AGI and safety,” Russell told the jury.
He pointed out that OpenAI is sacrificing safety in order to win the competition. This “winner-take-all” mentality will lead developers to ignore the strict requirements for AI alignment.
Ironically, while Musk is suing OpenAI for pursuing profits, his own xAI is also a for-profit company and is also frantically buying graphics cards and expanding computing power.
So, is this a battle between two idealists vying for the future of humanity, or a battle between two billionaires vying for a ticket to the power of God?
Professor Russell even expressed a concern: If this lawsuit forces OpenAI to disclose its core technology details, it could stimulate the risk of global AI militarization.
OpenAI: A “Necessary Evil”
Faced with accusations of “betrayal,” OpenAI’s logic is also unique.
Brockman repeatedly emphasized in his testimony that OpenAI’s transition was because they discovered that the computing power required to achieve AGI was astronomical. If they relied solely on charitable donations, OpenAI would have died in the shadow of Google DeepMind long ago.
“To attract top talent, to purchase tens of thousands of H100 graphics cards, we had to introduce a for-profit structure,” OpenAI’s defense attorney insisted, calling it a “necessary evil.”
But Musk’s side countered: If you need money, you can refinance, but you can’t package up the assets and reputation that everyone invested based on the “non-profit” premise and turn it into private shares.
It’s worth noting that in an early email, Brockman once said that if OpenAI turned for-profit, it would be a “moral bankruptcy.”
Now, sitting on $30 billion in equity, he probably doesn’t remember those words.
A Major Rift in Silicon Valley Values
This trial is, at its core, a clash between two Silicon Valley value systems.
One is the “Old Testament idealism” represented by Musk: A promise is a promise, and contracts must be honored.
The other is the “pragmatic expansionism” represented by Altman: Technology is iterating too quickly, and survival comes first. Any adjustment to the legal structure and redistribution of interests is reasonable in order to achieve AGI.
And California law may favor the former.
In California, charitable assets are strictly protected. If you establish a charity and then decide to turn it into a private company, you must go through an extremely complex assessment and return the full value of the assets to the public.
What will happen if Musk wins?
First, OpenAI may be forced to open source—this has always been Musk’s demand.
Second, Microsoft’s investment may be at risk. Musk is seeking to revoke the exclusive licensing agreement with Microsoft. If the court supports this request, OpenAI’s valuation will collapse instantly.
Third, the profits of OpenAI’s for-profit division may be forcibly allocated back to the non-profit parent company, and Brockman’s $30 billion in “zero-cost equity” may vanish.
Finally, this ruling will set a precedent, warning all AI startups: You can’t raise funds under the guise of charity and then reap the rewards under the guise of commerce.
But if OpenAI wins, it means that Silicon Valley’s “wild growth” logic has once again achieved complete victory—
As long as you can create technology that changes the world, all initial promises can be obscured by the golden light of success.