Not saying I agree that being closed source is in the public good, although one could certainly argue that accelerating the efforts of bad actors to catch up would not be a positive.
This is, in many ways, the substance of the lawsuit. This logic of "we must guard this secret carefully... for safety!" doesn't actually inevitably come from most lines of enabling research in any field in academia for example, but it does reliably come up once someone can enclose the findings in order to profit from exploiting this information asymmetry somehow
Secrecy for profit isn't a super benevolent thing to do, but it's generally speaking fine. We have whole areas of law about how to balance the public benefit of wide availability of information and the private benefit to discoverers of some technique, technology, or even facts about the world. It is well understood by most people that trade secrets aren't public knowledge. We see this plea to "safety" come up only exactly in cases where companies want to justify having control over things that have become pervasive and often mandatory to use in many contexts in a way that allows said companies to in turn exert further control over that thing's users, which is to say in tech monopolies. The use of that reasoning basically one-to-one predicts a business model that relies on DMCA 1201 (or its international equivalents) to function, a legal edifice designed by Microsoft lawyers which has become pervasive worldwide essentially at their behest
That said, I don't think it's particularly hard to make the case that writing a whole-ass non-profit charter explicitly outlining the intent to do research in the open and then suddenly switching to the very familiar corporate reality distortion field stance of a convicted monopolist you happen to have formed a partnership with in order to justify effectively abandoning that charter is a good basis for a lawsuit