zlacker

>>modele+(OP)
If OpenAI became a non-profit with this in its charter:

“resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will seek to open source technology for the public benefit when applicable. The corporation is not organized for the private gain of any person"

I don't think it is going to be hard to show that they are doing something very different than what they said they were going to do.

>>troupe+Kd1
Let's say for the sake of argument that they violated their original charter, it still wouldn't give Musk standing to bring the suit.

The charter is not a contract with Musk. He has no more standing than you or I.

>>Aloisi+sI1
If Musk's tens of millions in donations were in reliance on the charter and on statements made by sama, Brockman, etc., there's probably a standing argument there. Musk is very different than you or I -- he's a co-founder of the company and was very involved in its early work. I wouldn't guess that standing would be the issue they'd have trouble with (though I haven't read the complaint).

>>Mattic+sN1
I don't see how being a former co-founder or a donor gives one standing for this.

He has no ownership stake. He isn't a director or member of the organization. The thing he claims is a contract he's party to, isn't.

>>Aloisi+uR1
If you make promises to someone in order to get them to give you money, depending on the circumstances, that can (but does not always) create a contractual relationship, even if the promises themselves or the document they're in don't normally constitute a contract in themselves. Proving the implied terms of the contract can be difficult, but as long as the court believes there may have been such a contract created, we've moved from a question of standing to questions of fact.

I've skimmed the complaint now. There seems to be prima facie evidence of a contract there (though we'll see if the response suggests a lot of context was omitted). I find the Promissary Estoppel COA even more compelling, though. Breach of Fiduciary Duty seems like a stretch using "the public" as a beneficiary class. This isn't really my area, but I'll be mildly surprised if that one doesn't get tossed. Don't know enough about the Unfair Business Practices or CA Accounting requirements to have any opinion whatsoever on those. The Prayer for Relief is wild, but they often are.