Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?

[Rudiger 1181]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

https://www.cnn.com/elon-musk-ccdh-x-lawsuit-judge-skeptical/index.html

Don't fuck with Chuck (Breyer).

[atomheartbevo 90664]

25 minutes ago, Rudiger said:

Don't fuck with Chuck (Breyer).

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

https://www.cnn.com/elon-musk-ccdh-x-lawsuit-judge-skeptical/index.html

Quote

Breyer told Hawk that “in order for you to collect one dime” of the tens of millions of dollars in damages the company says it suffered from CCDH’s alleged terms of service violations, X must prove that CCDH could have foreseen that X’s terms of service would change to allow “neo-Nazi, white supremacist, misogynist and spreaders of dangerous conspiracy theories” back onto the site.

“What you have to tell me is, why is it foreseeable?” Breyer said. “That they should have understood that, at the time they entered the terms of service, that Twitter would then change its policy and allow this type of material to be disseminated?” Breyer added: “I’m trying to figure out in my mind how that’s possibly true, because I don’t think it is.”

Quote

Hawk replied that users agree to changes in X’s terms of service by continuing to use the platform after the terms change.That, Breyer said, is “one of the most vapid extensions of law that I’ve ever heard…. ‘Oh, what’s foreseeable is that things can change, and therefore, if there’s a change, it’s foreseeable.’ I mean, that argument is truly, is truly remarkable.”

“That argument is not going to get [X] anywhere,” Breyer said to John Quinn, an attorney for CCDH.

[Celery Man 21100]

[Brian Fantana 6874]

On 2/28/2024 at 3:43 PM, Chopper said:

"CCDH [Center for Countering Digital Hate] and its attorneys — who include Roberta Kaplan, fresh from her victories against former president Donald Trump on behalf of writer E. Jean Carroll — say the case is about a man who holds himself out as the world’s greatest defender of free speech trying to suppress speech he doesn’t like, by CCDH and others worried that they could be next."

“We’re living in an age of bullies, and it’s social media that gives them the power that they have today,” Kaplan told The Washington Post. The case, she said, is about “standing up to bullies.”

“Elon Musk and X Corp. are trying to intimidate and censor a nonprofit that had the courage to speak the truth about the hate that proliferates on X’s platform,” she said in an email. “We are proud to stand with CCDH.”

...

“People are clearly scared about doing research right now, which is particularly worrying in an election year,” CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed said in an interview. “If we go down, no one will do any more research on X. It will be far too dangerous.”

 

full article
 

 

 

On 2/28/2024 at 4:31 PM, Chopper said:

SHOT

 

CHASER

Wonder why @Incredulity negged these posts hmm interesting will look into it. Concerning!

[Incredulity 11880]

6 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Wonder why @Incredulity negged these posts hmm interesting will look into it. Concerning!

Thank you, Simone.

what are you the fucking rep monitor? Lol what a dork.

[Captain Ron 13133]

15 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Thank you, Simone.

what are you the fucking rep monitor? Lol what a dork.

Elon won't fuck you dude.

[aggie08 21841]

3 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

Elon won't fuck you dude.

You don't know that.

[Brian Fantana 6874]

I'm pretty sure he will tbh

[Francisco 2.0 32607]

So, anyone else seeing a new popup while using Twitter on a desktop when you block an account?  

It's after every single account you block, and you get directed to a new URL [https://twitter.com/i/verified-get-verified]

The only way to get rid of it is to click one of the two options.

 

 

 

 

[Incredulity 11880]

27 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

Elon won't fuck you dude.

Lol.  I don’t give a fuck about Elon or anything to do with this thread.  Feel free to review the post history. Idoit

[atomheartbevo 90664]

17 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, anyone else seeing a new popup while using Twitter on a desktop when you block an account?  

 

I've ignored it, but assume that the people with free accounts won't have the ability to block others pretty soon.

[Chopper 17435]

59 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

Wonder why @Incredulity negged these posts hmm interesting will look into it. Concerning!

Incredulity is a huge cunt begging for attention but I have her on ignore so eh.

[Brian Fantana 6874]

Idoit

[Francisco 2.0 32607]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I've ignored it, but assume that the people with free accounts won't have the ability to block others pretty soon.

 

It's an assumption I have as well.  Just started happening for me in the last hour.  Elon said last summer that he wanted to eliminate the block feature.

Don't see the nag screen on mobile, at least for now.  

 

 

Edited March 1 by Francisco 2.0

[Incredulity 11880]

6 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Incredulity is a huge cunt begging for attention but I have her on ignore so eh.

Sure you do

[B00M 6735]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I've ignored it, but assume that the people with free accounts won't have the ability to block others pretty soon.

Sounds like a lot of folks will simply stop using twitter to effectively block all the bots. His strategy of driving humans away while getting bots to pay is really paying off for him

[NoName 17165]

12 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

It's an assumption I have as well.  Just started happening for me in the last hour.  Elon said last summer that he wanted to eliminate the block feature.

Don't see the nag screen on mobile, at least for now. 

he *never* will be able to remove the block feature. from the fall: https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/18/23837494/elon-musk-twitter-x-remove-blocking

Quote

As multiple people noticed, Apple and Google both include language that suggests social networking apps need a block feature — Google Play developers must provide “an in-app system for blocking [user-generated content] and users,” and iOS developers must provide “the ability to block abusive users from the service.” (While Apple’s language here seems ambiguous about whether users should have a block feature, one publicly posted iOS rejection message flatly says that “users need a mechanism to block abusive users.”)

iOS:

Google Play:

not that any of it matters, i would assume it is totally and completely impossible to delete the function from the code entirely.

 

 

[NoName 17165]

 

the demands are really and truly incredible, even based on the dumb lawsuits Elon has fired off lately.

 

 

[NoName 17165]

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/fda-finds-problems-animal-lab-run-by-musks-brain-implant-company-2024-02-29/

Exclusive: Musk's Neuralink brain implant company cited by FDA over animal lab issues

Quote

U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspectors found problems with record keeping and quality controls for animal experiments at Elon Musk's Neuralink, less than a month after the startup said it was cleared to test its brain implants in humans, according to an agency report reviewed by Reuters.

+

Quote

"These issues show a lack of attention to detail," said Jerry L. Chapman, a senior quality expert with Redica Systems.

article:

 

 

Spoiler

WASHINGTON, Feb 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspectors found problems with record keeping and quality controls for animal experiments at Elon Musk's Neuralink, less than a month after the startup said it was cleared to test its brain implants in humans, according to an agency report reviewed by Reuters.

The inspectors identified quality control lapses at the company's California animal research facility. A similar inspection at Neuralink's Texas facility did not find problems, according to agency records.

 

Those visits took place last year from June 12-22, and represent the FDA's sole inspections of Neuralink facilities on record. The inspector reports were shared with Reuters by Redica Systems

, opens new tab, a data analytics company that obtains FDA compliance reports through open records requests.

"These issues show a lack of attention to detail," said Jerry L. Chapman, a senior quality expert with Redica Systems.

 

The laboratory problems identified by FDA inspectors included missing calibration records for instruments such as a pH meter used in one of the studies. For another study, seven instruments including a "vital signs monitor" had no record of having been calibrated. Neuralink conducted experiments on hundreds of animals, including monkeys.

Other issues included quality assurance officials not signing off on the final study report or documenting any deviations from approved protocols or standard operating procedures.

 

"This certainly is a signal that the company needs to be vigilant about certain practices," said Chapman, adding that the company would be required to follow similar practices for its human trials.

The brain implant is being tested to help patients paralyzed by spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, communicate using thoughts to move a computer device.

 

Reuters reported in December 2022 that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) investigators were probing potential animal-welfare violations at Neuralink following internal staff complaints that its animal testing was being rushed, causing needless suffering and deaths. An animal welfare advocacy group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, submitted a formal complaint to both USDA and FDA over the alleged breaches.

 

In July, the USDA said it did not find any violations of its animal research rules beyond a 2019 incident that Neuralink had already reported.

'VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS'

The FDA has its own requirements for animal research, known as Good Laboratory Practice, to demonstrate that any scientific data being collected in the development of a drug or medical device is reliable, three regulatory experts told Reuters.

Neuralink cited its animal research data in its FDA request to test the implants in humans. Musk, the company's billionaire founder, announced in May that his device was cleared for human trials, and said last month the first patient had received an implant and was recovering well.

Neuralink did not respond to questions about the FDA visit.

The FDA has not issued its designation indicating the severity of problems found in the inspection, according to the agency's database. While the problems identified are serious, they do not appear to be significant enough to justify the FDA's worst inspection designation, which would prompt action, the experts said.

Carly Pflaum, an FDA spokesperson, said Neuralink "provided sufficient information to support the approval" of its human trial application. The agency routinely conducts such inspections, Pflaum said, after human trial approval and before commercial approval to "assure data integrity and reliability" and compliance with other FDA regulations.

"The FDA will continue to monitor the safety of those enrolled in the study for Neuralink's implant device through required, regular reports," Pflaum said.

Ryan Merkley, director of research advocacy at the animal welfare group PCRM, said the FDA should have inspected Neuralink before human trial approval given concerns raised by his organization months earlier.

Victor Krauthamer, a former long-time FDA official, said the agency had jurisdiction to conduct the inspection before permitting the company to go ahead with its clinical trial, and has done so in other cases.

"It would have made sense for the FDA to have conducted the inspection before human trial approval," said Krauthamer, who once reviewed human-trial requests for brain implants at the agency. "These are violations of fundamental requirements that you don’t want to worry about happening again in the human trial."

Reporting by Marisa Taylor; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Bill Berkrot

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

5 minutes ago, NoName said:

 

the demands are really and truly incredible, even based on the dumb lawsuits Elon has fired off lately.

 

 

I don't know about the demands, but in this particular instance, Musk may have a salient point.  It would seem having startups begin as non-profits for tax purposes and then "re-launch" as a profit seeking venture seems wrong.  Not sure what can be done, but yeah.

[gsoda3 3362]

On 1/31/2024 at 8:46 PM, Captain Ron said:

The milestones were based on the stock price of Tesla and their market cap has risen tremendously for reason well outside of the actual performance of the company. 

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

[NoName 17165]

 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

25 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

lol unfair

 

 

[Captain Ron 13133]

2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

You took a month to come up with this?

Quote

... the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies ...

Actually, no that was the judge that did that. From https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-rules-favor-plaintiffs-challenging-musks-tesla-pay-package-2024-01-30/

Quote

McCormick wrote that many of the directors on Tesla's board, including current members Kimbal Musk, Elon Musk's brother, and James Murdoch, son of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, lacked independence because of their close personal ties with the CEO. Two of Tesla's other current directors, Robyn Denholm and Ira Ehrenpreis, showed a lack of independence in the pay decision, she said.

you also say that his pay package was 

Quote

... specifically designed by the board ...

Actually, that was one of the key arguments of the case brought against them. The lawsuit outlined how the pay package was designed by Musk and basically rubber-stamped by the board. The ruling agreed.

Also ...

Quote

the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario

Again, this was argued as not the case by the man who brought this suit

Quote

Tornetta's lawyers argued the Tesla board never told shareholders the goals were easier to achieve than the company was acknowledging and that internal projections showed Musk was quickly going to qualify for large portions of the pay package.

 

 

Quote

this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

OH MOST UNFAIR!!!!

 

And exactly what political interests? Please, enlighten me. Remind me who brought this case. I'll hang up and listen.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, NoName said:

 

In Elon's mind, this makes sense to him (the 'never went to therapy' statement). First of all, HE didn't see a therapist for himself. They (WE) went to a marital therapist which wasn't for HIM, it was for THE MARRIAGE, because the first Mrs. Musk suggested (I'm guessing) it. So HE never went to therapy. Second, if he didn't participate in the marital therapy it was because it was not as cut and dried as "I'm right and she's wrong," and thus he has never been to therapy because the word therapy comes from the Modern Latin word therapia which is derived from the Greek word therapeia which meant "curing, healing, service done to the sick" and Elon does not ever consider himself sick in that way. In Elon's world, his mind is obviously not in need of therapy nor an implant because it is perfect.

[gsoda3 3362]

50 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

 

You took a month to come up with this?

Actually, no that was the judge that did that. From https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-rules-favor-plaintiffs-challenging-musks-tesla-pay-package-2024-01-30/

you also say that his pay package was 

Actually, that was one of the key arguments of the case brought against them. The lawsuit outlined how the pay package was designed by Musk and basically rubber-stamped by the board. The ruling agreed.

Also ...

Again, this was argued as not the case by the man who brought this suit

 

 

 

And exactly what political interests? Please, enlighten me. Remind me who brought this case. I'll hang up and listen.

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

[Brisketexan 106974]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

In what world?  Ummm, in the world where the court applied a long-standing and recognized legal standard (the "entire fairness test"), finding - based on specific facts - that Musk functionally controlled Tesla and the grant-approval process, and further made specific reasonable and supported factual findings that the shareholders were not fully informed because of misleading statements and omissions in the relevant proxy statement.  It doesn't matter what percentage of shareholders approve of something if that something was predicated on lies of both commission and omission.  That's the law pretty much wherever you go.

So....that world.  A world where legal standards and evidence rule the day.  

Yes.  We know that our oligarchs HATE that world, because it brings them down to the level of the rest of us peons who have to follow the law.  Elon and his fanbois HATE this image of justice:

[Pato del Muerto 53565]

Would

[NoName 17165]

17 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

there you go, i think you hit every one of his talking points on this front

1) activist judge

2) crusader against greedy corporate interest

3) vendetta against richest man in the world

4) approved by 70% of stakeholders!

5) how is fair to void it years after approved?

 

[gsoda3 3362]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In what world?  Ummm, in the world where the court applied a long-standing and recognized legal standard (the "entire fairness test"), finding - based on specific facts - that Musk functionally controlled Tesla and the grant-approval process, and further made specific reasonable and supported factual findings that the shareholders were not fully informed because of misleading statements and omissions in the relevant proxy statement.  It doesn't matter what percentage of shareholders approve of something if that something was predicated on lies of both commission and omission.  That's the law pretty much wherever you go.

So....that world.  A world where legal standards and evidence rule the day.  

 

the problem is there isn't a singular long-standing recognized standard for what constitutes independence.  in finance the SEC looks at compensation-  if you and your family members are far enough removed from any compensation from the company you've satisfied that standard of independence.  maybe my knowledge is lacking but as far as i'm aware that's been the standard for corporate governance as it deals with finance for at least the past 20 years.  

 

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In what world?  Ummm, in the world where the court applied a long-standing and recognized legal standard (the "entire fairness test"), finding - based on specific facts - that Musk functionally controlled Tesla and the grant-approval process, and further made specific reasonable and supported factual findings that the shareholders were not fully informed because of misleading statements and omissions in the relevant proxy statement.  It doesn't matter what percentage of shareholders approve of something if that something was predicated on lies of both commission and omission.  That's the law pretty much wherever you go.

So....that world.  A world where legal standards and evidence rule the day.  

Yes.  We know that our oligarchs HATE that world, because it brings them down to the level of the rest of us peons who have to follow the law.  Elon and his fanbois HATE this image of justice:

 

 

needs to throw a weekly cheeseburger into the salad and avocado toast diet. 

 

still wood tho. 

[gofuckyourself 9090]

37 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Would

Absolutely. She's into being blindfolded.

Kinky.

[Pato del Muerto 53565]

Just now, gofuckyourself said:

Absolutely. She's into being blindfolded.

Kinky.

I need to add though, that she’s a gold digger. You have to be rich af to fuck lady justice. 

[gofuckyourself 9090]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I need to add though, that she’s a gold digger. You have to be rich af to fuck lady justice. 

But if you're poor af you can get fucked BY lady justice.

[Pato del Muerto 53565]

Hmmm

[Brisketexan 106974]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

the problem is there isn't a singular long-standing recognized standard for what constitutes independence.

Kind of correct.  See the "entire fairness" rule (which encompasses more than mere "independence") -- it is fact dependent.  It's not a numerical, strictly quantifiable thing.  A huge number of things in the law are not empirical, clearly one way vs. clearly the other (FFS, the civil standard of judgment is "more likely than not" -- so something that a fact-finder decides was 55-45 the likely course of events is how that jury finds).

What we have here is simple: exhibit eleventy billion in the oligarch bedrock belief of "rules for thee, not for me."

[Captain Ron 13133]

4 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

Elon’s not going to fuck you either. 

[Deej 77856]

Elon thought he went to the rapist, not therapist. 

 

[Brian Fantana 6874]

10 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

you cherry picked from that article you linked.  yes there were market cap milestones-  about a dozen of them, but there were also several dozen OTHER milestones that were specifically designed to be independent factors not related to market cap-  important things like revenue targets, profit targets, income targets, specifically designed by the board, whom you claim to be musk cronies, to ensure the healthy growth of the company.  at the time these were negotiated CEO manipulation of stock price was already a concern.  the board's negotiation of these factors in the contract was seen as a moonshot scenario that almost everyone on the street mocked them for, our trading group included.  we've spent lots of time looking at TSLA over the years and this was one of the most outlandish scenarios we'd ever come across.  this was a most unfair ruling spurred by political interests. 

 

7 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

all you're doing is rehashing arguments from a judge who (read her ruling) sees herself as a crusader against greedy corporate interests and in this case, the richest man in the world.  in what world is it fair to void a contract, approved by 70+ percent of shareholders which didn't include elon's or his family's shares, a decade later after he'd satisfied the terms?  unless you just have a vendetta against him, it's not.

This has to be the saddest simping I've ever seen and I've read The Great Gatsby.

[Chopper 17435]

I was too busy chortling to read gsoda's words as closely as I'm sure they deserve. A bit of punctuation and capitalization on his end would have helped. However, Judge McCormick's ruling forcing Mosk to return his $85B bonus was clear in logic and seemingly addressed all aspects of law.

This being the US, Elmo has the opportunity to appeal McCormick's ruling to a higher court.  Bear in mind, McCormick is the very same judge who stepped in when Elmo tried to renege on his offer to purchase twitter, and she forcefully kicked his ass all over the place. I'm sure we'll get to see how he does in a rematch!

 

7 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I don't know about the demands, but in this particular instance, Musk may have a salient point.  It would seem having startups begin as non-profits for tax purposes and then "re-launch" as a profit seeking venture seems wrong.  Not sure what can be done, but yeah.

I regret to inform you that Musk doesn't have much of a point. He filed a lawsuit basically alleging breach of contract. Here's a pdf of Musk's complaint where you can read it all for yourself. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0

If you do read it I suggest you immediately search for a contract between Altman and Musk, or OpenAI and Musk, or indeed Musk and anyone pertaining to OpenAI.

Can't find a contract? Oh, that's right...interestingly, there isn't one. The burden he'll have to meet to prove contractual breach is very high and for a person with his resources and experience to not have a contract at the inception of a business or charitable enterprise will be extremely difficult to overcome when he's suing over an alleged breach. He attempts to assert some sort of informal agreement but his claims border on ludicrous.

 

 

[Brisketexan 106974]

I was too busy chortling to read gsoda's words as closely as I'm sure they deserve. A bit of punctuation and capitalization on his end would have helped. However, Judge McCormick's ruling forcing Mosk to return his $85B bonus was clear in logic and seemingly addressed all aspects of law.
This being the US, Elmo has the opportunity to appeal McCormick's ruling to a higher court.  Bear in mind, McCormick is the very same judge who stepped in when Elmo tried to renege on his offer to purchase twitter, and she forcefully kicked his ass all over the place. I'm sure we'll get to see how he does in a rematch!
 
I regret to inform you that Musk doesn't have much of a point. He filed a lawsuit basically alleging breach of contract. Here's a pdf of Musk's complaint where you can read it all for yourself. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0
If you do read it I suggest you immediately search for a contract between Altman and Musk, or OpenAI and Musk, or indeed Musk and anyone pertaining to OpenAI.
Can't find a contract? Oh, that's right...interestingly, there isn't one. The burden he'll have to meet to prove contractual breach is very high and for a person with his resources and experience to not have a contract at the inception of a business or charitable enterprise will be extremely difficult to overcome when he's suing over an alleged breach. He attempts to assert some sort of informal agreement but his claims border on ludicrous.
 
 

“Gentleman’s Agreement.” FFS, Elmo is aggy.

[atomheartbevo 90664]

20 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

This has to be the saddest simping I've ever seen and I've read The Great Gatsby.

[Chopper 17435]

for the lulz - Ann Lipton, Andrew Jennings, and JJ are each lawyers...alex the tesla pumper, prolly not.

[Chopper 17435]

Going back to grapejuice's issue - Once the judge rules how much the lawyers for the plaintiff are to be paid, Elmo may appeal.

Precedent would have allowed for the attorneys to ask for 15% of the amount clawed back - the "canceled reward" - but they only asked for 11%, and asked for it to be paid in stock free of lockup. Which means they could dump it into the market immediately upon transfer. :insert gif of maniacal laughter here:

https://www.ft.com/content/1512d925-7ded-4d67-993a-4fc03f2735fc

 

 

Edited March 2 by Chopper

[Chopper 17435]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

“Gentleman’s Agreement.” FFS, Elmo is aggy.

Did you get to the Prayer for Relief?

You'd think his attorneys wouldn't make his neediness so obvious and prominent. I guess his own AI company, not to mention Tesla's AI, could use some help.

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

12 hours ago, Chopper said:

I was too busy chortling to read gsoda's words as closely as I'm sure they deserve. A bit of punctuation and capitalization on his end would have helped. However, Judge McCormick's ruling forcing Mosk to return his $85B bonus was clear in logic and seemingly addressed all aspects of law.

This being the US, Elmo has the opportunity to appeal McCormick's ruling to a higher court.  Bear in mind, McCormick is the very same judge who stepped in when Elmo tried to renege on his offer to purchase twitter, and she forcefully kicked his ass all over the place. I'm sure we'll get to see how he does in a rematch!

 

I regret to inform you that Musk doesn't have much of a point. He filed a lawsuit basically alleging breach of contract. Here's a pdf of Musk's complaint where you can read it all for yourself. https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0

If you do read it I suggest you immediately search for a contract between Altman and Musk, or OpenAI and Musk, or indeed Musk and anyone pertaining to OpenAI.

Can't find a contract? Oh, that's right...interestingly, there isn't one. The burden he'll have to meet to prove contractual breach is very high and for a person with his resources and experience to not have a contract at the inception of a business or charitable enterprise will be extremely difficult to overcome when he's suing over an alleged breach. He attempts to assert some sort of informal agreement but his claims border on ludicrous.

 

 

Thanks, I had not dug into deep.  Guess I was more into the idea of non-profits and tax breaks and knee jerked a bit.

The non-profit issue  apparently is why he went the contractual route:

Quote

Does Musk even have standing to sue? “One of the differences with nonprofits compared to other companies is that, generally, no one other than the state attorney general has standing to sue for the kind of stuff that he’s complaining about, like not following your mission,“ Peter Molk, a professor of law at the University of Florida, said of Musk’s lawsuit. That’s most likely why Musk’s lawyers are presenting the case as a breach of contract instead of attacking the company’s nonprofit status.

But as you noted:

Quote

Was there actually a contract to breach? The lawsuit puts forth a sprawling agreement that is made up of conversations and documents, and that makes it harder to show whether there was a binding contract — and what it might have involved.

And again, as you note, the whole thing probably isn't going to work out for Musk.

Quote

What was required of OpenAI? Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School who advised the A.I. company Anthropic on its corporate governance structure, said the contract Musk claims OpenAI and Altman breached contains “a hole you can drive a truck through.” OpenAI’s certificate of incorporation, which Musk’s lawyers claim is part of the deal, says the A.I. maker will seek to open its work to the public for its benefit “when applicable” — and OpenAI can easily argue that it is adhering to this term, which is vague.

This all from an NYT summary.  And I know I make an assumption that I can trust that summary or even fully understand it all.  As a side note, your archive link didn't load for me. But truthfully I'm not going to read a 35 page document.  I have no sympathies or rooting interests for any billionaires.  But from the same NYT summary this was more what piqued my interest:
 

Quote

 

Will this case help catch the attention of the California attorney general? OpenAI’s new board was appointed after the previous board briefly removed Altman as the company’s chief executive. The short-lived mutiny raised questions over whether the company’s corporate structure allowed OpenAI’s for-profit arm to creep away from the parent company’s nonprofit obligation to focus on civic duties over shareholders. The progressive consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen has already petitioned California’s attorney general, seeking OpenAI’s dissolution for failing to “carry out its nonprofit purposes.”

“That petition and Musk’s lawsuit have a more than trivial overlap,” said Joseph Grundfest, a corporate governance expert at Stanford Law School and a former S.E.C. commissioner.

 

[Captain Ron 13133]

On 3/1/2024 at 11:01 AM, NoName said:

 

the demands are really and truly incredible, even based on the dumb lawsuits Elon has fired off lately.

 

 

I never came back to this like I planned to. The idea that he wants GPT-4 declared AGI is hilarious. Anyone knowledgeable in AI knows it isn’t close. 

[Chopper 17435]

43 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

This all from an NYT summary.  And I know I make an assumption that I can trust that summary or even fully understand it all.  As a side note, your archive link didn't load for me. But truthfully I'm not going to read a 35 page document.  I have no sympathies or rooting interests for any billionaires.  But from the same NYT summary this was more what piqued my interest:

Understood. I don't know why the link dithers. However if you cut and paste instead of just click, it's solid.  assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYCUmwA4Xxpw/v0 -- again, pdf warning. Fwiw, bwbx.io is a bloomberg site

Without getting all into the issue of AI, here's a couple other things I find interesting about this. When OpenAI was trying to raise $$ for their work in order to run it entirely as a non-profit, they received less than $150 Million in donations. They required a far greater sum to build and so created a for profit subsidiary, which raised something like $13 Billion to fund their efforts.

I think once again Elmo made a bad deal for himself and he's having remorse, and so we see him acting out. For example, as posted above the first thing he's asked for is that OpenAI show him their work. They're not obligated to do so Just Because the parent company is a non-profit. Also IF if that were part of any deal Elmo made with them then that would be a central part of his lawsuit against them. But, as they say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I can't wait to read OpenAI's response, they will almost certainly light him up. I'm no OpenAI or Altman fan so I have some mixed emotions about it but watching Elmo lose is much more fun. For now.

 

Edited March 2 by Chopper
removed link

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

19 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

I never came back to this like I planned to. The idea that he wants GPT-4 declared AGI is hilarious. Anyone knowledgeable in AI knows it isn’t close. 

True.

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

14 minutes ago, Chopper said:

 

I think once again Elmo made a bad deal for himself and he's having remorse,

 

Fair points, and I think this point in particular is true.  I guess I'm more interested in potential side effects of this suit, but even then that's pure speculation. Intersting HN discussion the suit:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39559966