OpenAI says Apple has only itself to blame in trade-secret fight

On August 31, OpenAI argued that Apple is solely responsible for a trade-secret dispute, claiming the tech giant failed to demonstrate any confidential information was stolen by former employees Tang Tan and Chang Liu. In a U.S. District Court filing, OpenAI accused Apple of making a mess and attempting to blame others. Apple initiated legal action against OpenAI and the two former employees in July, alleging the theft of trade secrets related to hardware design, manufacturing, and supply-chain operations as OpenAI pursues a consumer device strategy.

OpenAI contends Apple is using the lawsuit to hinder a potential competitor and deter employee departures. The AI lab has hired around 400 former Apple employees for its hardware initiative, according to court filings. California law permits employees to freely transition between rival companies. The lawsuit represents a significant escalation in tensions between the two companies, which previously formed a partnership in 2021 to enhance ChatGPT's reach and strengthen Apple's position in AI.

However, their relationship deteriorated as AI industry competition intensified. OpenAI stated that Apple permits employees to utilize personal iCloud accounts for work-related tasks, making it challenging for departing employees to separate personal and company information. Apple's policy of promptly escorting departing employees from its premises does not allow enough time to return company devices, transfer internal files back to the company, or hand over responsibilities.

Liu stated that any access to Apple documents after leaving was to assist former Apple colleagues in locating files or answering work-related questions. He claimed Apple frequently reached out to him for assistance. Tan asserted he returned Apple prototypes before leaving and only retained non-confidential materials, including a departure checklist not considered confidential.

OpenAI emphasized that although Apple may disapprove of employees' choices to leave for an AI-focused startup, it cannot claim those choices are unlawful and cannot blame others for its own procedural issues.