Elon Musk is in a lawsuit against OpenAI and their big partner Microsoft. This lawsuit has been going on for a while now.. People outside of it can understand what is going on a lot better because of some new information that came out. In January 2026 a lot of documents were made public. There are than 100 documents and they have thousands of pages. These documents have parts of interviews emails, texts and private notes from OpenAI president Greg Brockman. The private notes from Greg Brockman are the most talked about part of this. Elon Musk and his lawsuit, against OpenAI are getting a lot of attention because of these documents.

Now that both sides are arguing in public and not just in court the information that is no longer secret has become something that both sides can use to tell their stories. The unsealed record is being used by both sides to make their points. Both sides are using the record to try to prove that their story is the true one.

Elon Musks story is that OpenAI got help, from charities and nonprofit organizations because they said they would always be a nonprofit and focus on their mission.. Then OpenAI did something different. They worked with Microsoft to build a company that makes money, which is not what Elon Musk says he was told would happen. Elon Musk says this is not what he was promised about OpenAI.

OpenAIs story is really interesting. People figured out back in 2017 that OpenAI needed to be run like a business. Elon Musk wanted to be, in charge of OpenAI. He tried to merge OpenAI into Tesla.. The founders of OpenAI did not want that to happen. They did not want to give Elon Musk control of OpenAI. So Elon Musk just walked away when the founders of OpenAI refused to give him control of OpenAI.

So what do these new documents really show us.. What do they not show us even if they seem like a big deal on social media? Let us take a look, at the newly unsealed documents and see what they actually reveal. We will go through the unsealed documents and give you a simple breakdown of what they mean. The unsealed documents have some interesting things in them but the newly unsealed documents do not tell us everything.

1) First let us talk about what this case’s all, about and where the case stands now

The core dispute (in plain language)

Elon Musk helped start OpenAI in 2015 and then he left the company.

The lawsuit that Elon Musk filed says that OpenAI and the people in charge of OpenAI lied to him and maybe to people too, about what OpenAI was supposed to do as a nonprofit organization.

Elon Musk says that OpenAI did things that go against what he paid for when he gave them money to start the company.

OpenAI does not agree with that view. Says Elon Musk is changing the facts. The company says it talked about making some changes like becoming more commercial from the start. This was part of the plan to be competitive, in the field of frontier intelligence. OpenAI says it knew it had to do this to succeed in frontier AI.

Microsoft is involved in this situation because of its connection with OpenAI and what Elon Musk said about Microsoft. Musk said that Microsoft was partly responsible for what happened which could mean Microsoft is liable.. Microsoft does not agree with this. A lawyer, for Microsoft says there is no proof that Microsoft helped OpenAI do anything. Microsoft says it did not help OpenAI all.

The case is going to be decided by a jury. This is what is going to happen with the posture of the case. The procedural posture is that it is headed to a jury now.

* The jury will hear all the details of the case

1. They will listen to what everyone has to say about the case

The procedural posture is very important and it is going to be decided by a jury.

A federal judge who works in Oakland which is in the Northern District of California did not throw out the case. The federal judge in Oakland decided to let the case go to a jury trial. This jury trial will start at the end of April 2026. The jury selection will happen on April 27. The trial will start on April 28. The trial might go into May. The federal judge, in Oakland made this decision so the case can be heard by a jury.

That matters because getting to trial is not a sign that someone’s guilty. It means the judge thinks there are facts that people do not agree on so a jury should be the ones to decide who is telling the truth and what the person who did something was thinking. The judge believes that a jury is better at figuring out these things than a decision made before the trial. This is, about the trial and the facts of the trial and the trial is what matters here.

The headline-grabbing damages request

In the middle of January 2026 Elon Musk asked for a lot of money in damages up to 134 billion dollars. He said this is because OpenAI and Microsoft made this money wrongly and they would not have made it without his help at the beginning. OpenAI thinks this demand, for money is not serious. OpenAI and Microsoft also do not think Elon Musks way of figuring out the damages is correct. They are questioning the expert he is using for this. Elon Musk and his damages model are being challenged by OpenAI and Microsoft.

2) What these unsealed documents actually show us about the situation is that there is a lot more, to it than we initially thought. The unsealed documents are really important because they give us a better understanding of what happened. When we look at the unsealed documents we can see that they are very detailed. The unsealed documents are going to help us figure out the truth.

A) There really was intense 2017-era debate about control, structure, and “getting out from Elon”

Greg Brockmans private journal entries from 2017 are really popular. These were written a while back. The Indian Express talked about them. In these entries Greg Brockman is worried that if he says no to Elon he might lose Sam. He thinks saying yes to Elon is the way to get out of this situation with Elon. He also writes about feeling bad because he does not want to promise that they will only be a nonprofit if they might become a b-corp later. He says it would be like telling a lie if they change their plan. Greg Brockmans journal entries are very interesting. They show what he was thinking about Greg Brockmans situation, with Elon.

The notes also show that there are plans to get rid of Elon Musk and change the structure to make a profit. This is what the people involved are arguing about now. They do not agree on what these plans mean. The notes are talking about planning and this is a big part of the fight between the parties. Elon Musk and the, for-profit structure are the points of discussion.

The main thing to take away is that the information we have shows that by the end of 2017 the people in charge of OpenAI were dealing with two issues. OpenAI leadership was trying to figure out how to handle Elon Musks influence on OpenAI. They were also wondering if a nonprofit that only relied on donations could really afford to pay for the computers and talented people that were needed to keep up with the developments in artificial intelligence. OpenAI was facing a lot of challenges and OpenAI leadership had to make some decisions, about the future of OpenAI.

B) The idea that we may need a for-profit phase was not thought of later. OpenAI says that this was something that people agreed on from the start. The people at OpenAI think that the idea of needing a for-profit phase, for the OpenAI project was mutually recognized.

OpenAI made a response called “The truth Elon left out”. This response says that OpenAI and Elon Musk agreed in 2017 that OpenAI would become a for-profit company at some point. OpenAI claims that the talks between OpenAI and Elon Musk did not work out because Elon Musk wanted to be, in charge of OpenAI. Elon Musk also suggested that OpenAI could become a part of Tesla. Openai did not want that to happen. OpenAI says it refused this idea.

That OpenAI blog post is not really a piece of information but it is useful because it talks about the unsealed materials and includes links, to the actual court filings. The OpenAI blog post also shows what OpenAI thinks it can successfully argue for in court.

The thing is, now that the records are out in the open it is going to be tough for anyone to say that nobody ever talked about making money or changing the way things are set up. The records actually show that people did talk about things, like b-corp and c-corp.

C) Depositions and exhibits help us learn more about the story of OpenAI. This story is not about Musk versus Altman. It is, about how OpenAI became the company it’s today which is OpenAI.

One important thing that people tend to overlook is that the unsealed documents are not just about Musks exit. The unsealed documents also have things like depositions or discovery material that are related to Musks exit and other things. The unsealed documents are pretty interesting because they have a lot of information, about what happened with Musk.

Sam Altman (CEO)

Greg Brockman (president)

Ilya Sutskever and Mira Murati (technical leadership)

Satya Nadella (Microsoft CEO)

Former board members (including names associated with the 2023 Altman board crisis)

That means the record talks about more than just the problems Microsoft had when it was first starting out. The record also talks about Microsofts place in the market and the worries it had about companies competing with it. For example the Indian Express says that Nadella was worried about where Microsoft stood in the race to develop intelligence as it thought about working with OpenAI. The people in charge of OpenAI also talked about some limitations like stopping investors from putting money into other labs that competed with them. Microsoft was concerned about this and it affected its position in the market so Microsoft had to think about its next move, with OpenAI.

So what is really important here is that the unsealed information gives us a rare chance to see what the top artificial intelligence institutions are thinking about when it comes to competition making money being, in charge and using their power to get what they want. The artificial intelligence institutions are really showing us how they think about these things.

D) Now it is clear to everyone that both sides are trying to win people over by using the information that has been made public. They are using the documents that’re no longer secret, as a way to fight each other in the eyes of the public. Both sides are doing this. The public documents are the weapons they are using to fight this battle of public opinion with the court of public opinion being the place where they are fighting. The court of opinion is where both sides are trying to gain the upper hand.

Elon Musk has posted about the materials on X. He is saying that the unsealed materials on X are proof that some people did something very wrong which is fraud. Elon Musk thinks the unsealed materials, on X show that fraud really happened.

OpenAI made a post. They said that Musk is only using the parts of the conversation that help him. OpenAI thinks that Musk is taking them to court just to bother them and slow them down. This would help Musks artificial intelligence company, xAI. OpenAI believes Musk is doing this on purpose to get an advantage for xAI.

This matters because it affects how the public reads the documents. The public is not just reading the evidence. The public is seeing curated snippets of the documents that are framed for impact of the documents. The documents are very important, in this case. The way the public reads the documents is important.

The main thing to remember is that these documents that are now out in the open show us things that happened a time ago and they also show us that there is a big fight going on right now over how information is shared and controlled which is a strategic communications battle. The unsealed documents really do reveal facts and, at the same time the unsealed documents are a part of this current strategic communications battle.

E) The trial timeline (and why the unsealed docs matter now)

The jury selection is happening on April 27 2026. Both sides in the case want to influence what the public and potential jurors think about the jury selection and the case on. This is because a lot of issues in the case are going to depend on who people believe. The jury will have to figure out what was promised by the people involved in the case what was understood by these people. What these people intended to do with the jury selection and the case. The jury selection and the case are very important because the people involved in the case have ideas, about what was promised and what was intended.

Unsealing discovery exhibits is really important because it helps to reduce the gap between things. This is a deal when it comes to discovery exhibits. Unsealing discovery exhibits makes a lot of difference. It is about discovery exhibits and how unsealing them can make things better.

* Discovery exhibits

The main point is that unsealing discovery exhibits is very important, for discovery exhibits.

What lawyers can say in court and what they are not allowed to say is very important. Lawyers can say things that are based on facts and the law. They can also ask questions to people who are testifying in court. Lawyers can say things to try to prove that their client is innocent. The things that lawyers can say in court are controlled by rules of evidence and other laws. Lawyers must be careful about what they say in court because it can affect the outcome of the case. Lawyers can also object to things that the other lawyer says in court if they think it is not fair or if it is not based on the law. The main goal of what lawyers can say in court is to try to win the case for their client. Lawyers must always follow the rules of the court. Be respectful to the judge and the other people, in the courtroom. What lawyers can say in court is a part of being a good lawyer.

The public can look at things outside of the court. They want to see what is going on with the court case outside of the courtroom. The public is very interested, in what the court’s doing outside of the court.

The main thing is that when things are unsealed it is harder to believe stories that’re not clear. Now people can look at the words that were written down at the time. They can see the exact words in the records from back then. Even though people may still disagree about what these words mean, unsealing documents, like these still makes a difference because people can point to the documents and say this is what the documents actually say about the issue of unsealing. The issue of unsealing is important because it allows people to look at the records and not just believe what others are saying about unsealing.

3) What these unsealed documents do not reveal or what they do not prove, about the newly unsealed documents themselves is something that people are really waiting to find out. The unsealed documents have got everyone talking but there is still a lot that the newly unsealed documents are not telling us.

This is the part where people often get it wrong. Some documents can be really dramatic. They are not enough to prove what Elon Musk is saying. Especially when it comes to fraud. Elon Musk is making some big claims and the documents just do not cut it. Elon Musk needs more, than what he has to prove that someone committed fraud.

A) These things do not automatically prove that there is fraud involved with the situation of fraud. The fact that something looks like fraud does not mean it is actually fraud. Fraud is a matter and it requires a lot of proof to show that fraud is really happening. So we should not jump to conclusions. Say that something is fraud just because it seems that way. We need to look at the situation of fraud carefully.

I am writing in my journal. I have to say, if we make a commitment and then switch that is basically a lie. This is really disturbing to me from a standpoint. However when we talk about fraud in a court of law there are things that have to be proven.

The person has to have made a statement or left out important information on purpose. They have to have wanted to deceive someone. The other person has to have believed what they were told and made a decision based on that.. They have to have been hurt in some way because of it.

There are also a lot of things that can affect the outcome. If the judge says the case can go to a jury that means there are facts that people do not agree on. It does not mean that we already know for sure that someone committed fraud. The jury has to look at the evidence and decide what really happened.

The fact that the judge is letting the case go to a jury is important. It means that the fraud case is not already proven. We have to wait and see what the jury says about the evidence.

I think it is interesting that the journal entry says “if we commit and then switch it was a lie”. This is a point. If we say we are going to do something and then we do not do it that is not right.

The court case is about fraud and the judge is being careful. The judge wants to make sure that all the facts are considered before making a decision.

I think this is a way to handle the situation. We have to be careful and make sure that we have all the information before we make a decision.

The journal entry is saying that committing and then switching is a lie. I think this is true. We have to be honest and do what we say we are going to do.

The court case is complex. The judge is doing a good job of handling it. I think we will have to wait and see what happens next.

The main point is that fraud is a thing and we have to be careful. We have to make sure that we are honest and do what we say we are going to do.

If we do not then we could be in trouble. The court case is an example of this.

I hope that the jury will make a decision and that justice will be served.

The journal entry is a reminder that we have to be honest and do what we say we are going to do.

I think this is a lesson for all of us.

The court case is an example of why this is so important.

I am glad that the judge is being careful and considering all the facts.

I think this is the way to handle the situation.

The journal entry is saying that committing and then switching is a lie and I think that is true.

I hope that we can all learn from this and be more careful, in the future.

So when people look at the things that are discovered they often find a mess of ideas, complaints and personal worries. These things can be really interesting. They do not necessarily mean that Elon Musk was told things that were false on purpose when he was told them. The discovery dumps have a lot of this kind of stuff. It is important to remember that just because something is written down it does not mean that Elon Musk knew about it or that it was false at the time. The things that are discovered can be. They can make it seem like people were trying to deceive Elon Musk but that is not always the case. Discovery dumps are like a box of notes and ideas and they can include things, like brainstorming, venting and private doubts and these things can be compelling but they are not always proof of anything.

What is missing for a clean fraud slam dunk:

We need to give an direct message that says “we will tell Elon Musk while planning this” and it has to be connected to specific times when we ask donors for money and we also need to show that Elon Musk actually used this information.

The public record, as we have seen it in the news does not have that one piece of evidence that proves everything. The public record just does not show that one thing that makes everything clear. We have not found that smoking gun, in the public record yet.

B) The people in charge do not figure out the mission versus structure problem on their own. They need help to decide what is more important the mission of the organization or the structure of the organization. The mission and structure are two things that the organization has to think about and the people in charge have to make a decision, about which one is more important the mission or the structure.

People often get confused about one thing. They think that if a company is set up to make money it will automatically give up on its goal.. That is not true. Even OpenAI says that it wants to keep working towards its goal. OpenAI has a way of doing things to make sure this happens. It has an organization in charge and a special kind of company that benefits the public. This way OpenAI can still make money and work towards its goal at the same time. OpenAIs main goal is still important, to them. They want to make sure they do not forget about it.

So the thing is does that structure really do what it was supposed to do in the place? That is a question of:

What was actually promised in the founding communications of this thing the founding communications is something that I am trying to figure out. The founding communications, as I recall had a lot of plans and ideas but I do not really remember what exactly was promised in those founding communications.

What legal duties exist under law and corporate law and what kind of responsibilities do nonprofit organizations and companies have to follow. Nonprofit law and corporate law are pretty complex. Basically nonprofit organizations and companies have to do certain things to stay on the right side of the law.

Nonprofit organizations and companies have to follow rules about how they’re run and how they make decisions. They also have to be transparent about what they do and how they spend their money. This is a part of nonprofit law and corporate law.

Some of the things that nonprofit organizations and companies have to do include:

* Following the rules that govern how they are set up and how they operate

* Being honest and open about what they do and how they spend their money

* Making sure they do not break any laws or regulations

* Being responsible for the things they do. The decisions they make

Nonprofit law and corporate law are, in place to make sure nonprofit organizations and companies behave properly and do the right thing.

What kind of agreements whether they are written down or just understood are, in place to govern the support that Elon Musk gives. Are there any agreements that control how Elon Musk provides his support. What rules or understandings govern Elon Musks support.

The unsealed documents give us information but they do not answer the legal question by themselves. The question is this: Was OpenAI allowed to make changes so it could keep working towards its mission?. Did OpenAI go too far and start to mislead people about what it was doing? The main issue is still about OpenAI and what it did. Did OpenAI have the right to change its structure to achieve its goals. Did OpenAI do something wrong by not being honest, about its actions?

C) The thing is, they do not tell you everything. There are still things that are not included like parts that are blacked out which are called redactions. Then there are orders that keep some information secret. And sometimes the information is just missing so you do not get the picture with the Freedom of Information Act documents or any documents, for that matter because of these missing context and redactions and protective orders.

When we say something is “unsealed” it does not mean we have everything. The courts can still decide to keep some things secret. They can let people remove sensitive parts or they can control who gets to see certain business information. Even when the courts do make something unsealed we might still be missing some important parts, like the attachments that go with it or the whole conversation that happened over email or the context that helps us understand what it really means. The “unsealed” documents can still be missing some things, like the email threads or the context that explains what the “unsealed” documents are all, about.

OpenAIs blog post says that Musk is choosing what he wants people to see, which is something that often happens when someones private writing like what they write in a diary becomes part of a public court case. OpenAIs blog post points out that Musk is picking and choosing what to share and this is a problem when private writing like diaries is used in a public court case involving people, like Musk.

So here is the thing: if you only look at screenshots that people post on media you are probably only seeing the parts that are meant to upset people the most. You are not seeing the story that the jury will get to hear. The jury will hear the story but people on social media are only showing you the parts that are meant to be shocking. This means you are not getting the picture, just the parts that are meant to get a reaction, from social media users.

D) They do not validate Elon Musks seventy nine billion, to one hundred thirty four billion dollar number

The amount of money Elon Musk is asking for is really getting a lot of attention. Even Reuters says that OpenAI and Microsoft are questioning the way Musks expert is doing things. They are saying that the model Musks expert is using is not something that can be checked and it has never been done before. OpenAI and Microsoft think this model could give the jury the idea, about OpenAI and Microsoft and the things they are doing with Microsoft.

To prove that someone was really hurt by something, like what Elon Musk’s saying he needs to show that someone did something very wrong and that it caused a lot of harm or made someone get money they should not have. He cannot just say that the company is very valuable now. Elon Musk has to show that the bad thing that was done actually caused the harm or made someone rich unfairly.

Here is the thing: an unsealed record can give us a really interesting story.. It does not mean we will automatically have a good reason, for damages that a court will accept. The unsealed record is important because it can give us a narrative.. The unsealed record itself is not enough to prove damages in court. We need to look at the record and see if it really gives us a good damages theory. The unsealed record can be very helpful. It is not a guarantee that we will have a court-acceptable damages theory.

E) The thing is, OpenAIs technology does not really show what OpenAIs technology was supposed to be. OpenAIs technology is just not what it should have been. I mean OpenAIs technology is missing something. It does not really prove what OpenAIs technology could have become if it was done right.

People often think that the lawsuit will decide if OpenAI should be open or closed. They also think it will decide if OpenAI should be a nonprofit or a company that makes money. Some even think it will decide if OpenAI is good or bad.. That is not what the lawsuit is about. The lawsuit is about OpenAI. It is, about what OpenAI does. If that is okay. OpenAI is the thing here.

A jury trial in this case is really about one thing: the alleged misrepresentation and commitment breach by Microsoft and maybe Microsofts role in all of this. It is not about deciding what is fair when it comes to intelligence commercialization. The focus is, on what Microsoft did specifically the alleged misrepresentation and commitment breach and how Microsofts actions relate to the situation.

4) The big issues that people are arguing about are now clearer because of the record. The unsealed record really helps us understand the contested issues better. We can see the contested issues more clearly now.

Issue 1 is about what Elon Musk thought he was paying for. The question is what did Elon Musk reasonably believe he was funding when he gave the money. This is a question because it is, about what Elon Musk knew about the project he was putting his money into. So we need to think about what Elon Musk believed he was funding at the time.

Musk needs to show the jury that he gave money and time to OpenAI because they promised to stay nonprofit. Musk also gave OpenAI credibility. This is important because it helps Musks side of the story. People keep talking about how OpenAI did not stay nonprofit like they said they would. This is a part of the problem between Musk and OpenAI. OpenAI was supposed to stay separate from companies like Microsoft. That is not what happened. Musk is saying that OpenAI went back, on their promise and that is why he is upset.

OpenAI says that Elon Musk was aware that they were going to make money from this project and that the real problem was who got to be, in charge of OpenAI.

The unsealed documents are really important because they have writings and messages from back then that show two things about the situation.

First the unsealed documents show that people were talking about doing more than raising money for nonprofit organizations.

Second the unsealed documents also show that there was a lot of tension about Elon Musks influence on things.

The unsealed documents are helpful because they have these writings and communications that talk about moving beyond just nonprofit fundraising and they also talk about the problems, with Elon Musks influence.

The thing about control and mission is that they are very different. When we talk about control and mission we have to think about why people do things. This is important because it can affect what happens in a sense.

Control is when someone is in charge and they make the decisions. Mission is what people are trying to accomplish. The reasons why people want to accomplish something are very important.

For example if someone is doing something because they want to help others that is a motivation.. If someone is doing something because they want to hurt others that is a bad motivation.

So when we look at control and mission we have to think about the motivations behind them. This is what matters in a sense. Control and mission are not just about what people do they are about why they do it. The motivations, behind control and mission are what make them important.

OpenAI said that the talks with Musk did not work out. This happened because OpenAI did not want to give Musk control of OpenAI. OpenAI also did not want to become a part of Tesla. Musk wanted these things to happen. Openai said no. So the negotiations, between OpenAI and Musk ended.

Elon Musk says that the founders are trying to take the charity for themselves. He actually used the words “steal the charity” in the things he posted online that people are talking about. Elon Musks public statement makes it sound like the founders have intentions and want to take the charity away.

The thing that matters in a sense is what the jury thinks about the people who started this. If they think these people were mainly trying to get from Musks control and still do what they wanted to do that is different from thinking they were trying to trick people into giving them money by being dishonest, about what they were really doing. The legal relevance of this is important because it changes how we see the actions of the founders and what they were trying to accomplish with the mission.

The unsealed documents are important because they provide information for these stories. For example the language in the journals can sound like “get out from Elon” which’s about control issues. It can also sound like “do not say we are committed” which is about saying something that is not true. The unsealed documents contribute by giving us this material for the stories, about Elon.

Issue 3: Microsoft’s role and “aiding and abetting”

Elon Musks filing says that Microsoft got some benefits that they did not deserve. This happened because of how OpenAI changed and worked with Microsoft. Reuters says that Microsoft does not think they are responsible for this and they do not agree with the idea that they helped someone do something. OpenAI and Microsoft are still part of this situation. Elon Musk and OpenAI are pointing out that Microsoft got these benefits from OpenAIs evolution and partnership, with Microsoft.

The unsealed documents do a few things. They have depositions and internal strategy information that can help us understand how Microsoft viewed the partnership. The documents can show what Microsoft knew. When they knew it. These are facts if the claims against Microsoft are about what they knew or what they did. The unsealed documents can contribute a lot to this. They can give us information about the partnership and what Microsoft was thinking. The documents have details about what Microsoft knew and when they found out. This is important for the claims, against Microsoft.

5) Why people are paying much attention to the Brockman diary and why the Brockman diary is still important

The diary is powerful because:

This thing feels really honest and open it feels candid when you talk about it feels candid.

It uses words and the language is pretty direct. The thing, about this language is that it uses language and that is what makes it sound so honest.

It seems like they are worried about a problem with making a promise or a commitment. They think that if they say something is going to happen and it does not people will think they were not telling the truth. They are concerned that this will make them look bad like they lied to people. The problem is that they do not want to say one thing and then do something because that would be, like lying.

But diaries also:

capture half-formed thoughts,

reflect fear and speculation,

and often omit the “steelman” of other people’s views.

OpenAI says that the diary is losing the story behind it. The diary is being stripped of its context OpenAIs response is saying that the diary is not being understood the way it should be. OpenAI thinks that the diary is missing the details that explain what it is really, about.

A good “adult” reading of the diary is:

The fact that people are careful with what they say about a commitment is a good sign that they know what is going on inside. This shows that people are aware of what’s happening with nonprofit commitment and they are being thoughtful about it. Nonprofit commitment is something that people are clearly paying attention to. They do not want to say the wrong thing, about nonprofit commitment.

This information does not show everything that was explained to Elon Musk or to the people who make rules or to people who have an interest in the matter. The information is not a map of what was represented to Elon Musk or to the regulators or, to other stakeholders.

This thing is probably going to be really important when we get to court. The reason is that it has a lot to do with whether someone’s telling the truth and what they were trying to do. The judge already said that these two things. Credibility and intent. Are very important. The credibility of the people involved and their intent are what this is, about.

6) What to watch next (before and during the April–May 2026 trial)

From what I have seen far there are a few important things that will probably happen next. The next big things that will change everything are likely to be the big inflection points, for the companies. These inflection points are what we should be looking at. The next big inflection points are likely to be based on what’s happening now and what has been reported.

Pretrial evidence fights are about what the jury’s allowed to see and how they are allowed to see it. The jury needs to see things to make a decision. The question is what the jury is allowed to see and how they get to see the evidence. This is a deal because the jury has to know what is going on with the pretrial evidence. The pretrial evidence fights are really, about making sure the jury sees the things.

Reuters says that OpenAI and Microsoft want to limit what Elon Musk can say when he gives his opinion in court about the damages. OpenAI and Microsoft are trying to control how much information Elon Musk shares when he talks about the damages as an expert.

The jury is told about the mission and they need to understand what that means. This is important because they have to figure out if the nonprofit is really doing what it is supposed to do. The nonprofit mission is what the organization is trying to achieve. The jury has to think about whether the nonprofit’s following its mission. They also have to consider if the nonprofit is relying on its mission to make decisions. This means the jury has to look at how the nonprofit mission’s used to guide the organizations actions. The nonprofit mission is a part of this. The jury is instructed to think about the mission and how it affects the nonprofits work.

The case is going to depend on if what Musk expected was fair. This is because of the talks that were happening at the time, about how the funding and structure would work. The Musk expectations are a deal and people are going to look at what Musk expected.

The Microsoft knowledge timeline

So the thing about liability theories is that they need Microsoft to be fully aware of what’s going on. This means that things like depositions and emails that talk about how the partnership started and how it worked on are really important. The emails and depositions about the early partnership dynamics are key to understanding what Microsoft knew. When they knew it. Microsofts role, in the partnership is a deal and these documents can help figure out what really happened.

Any newly unsealed or newly surfaced exhibits

Big trials usually cause people to ask for more information to be made public and the media will continue to look through court documents for information about high-profile trials. The media really likes to find details, about these high-profile trials.

7) Let us take a look, at the important details: the unsealed documents show us some things but the unsealed documents do not show us other things. We need to think about what the unsealed documentsre telling us and what the unsealed documents are not telling us. The unsealed documents are very important because they give us information. We have to remember that the unsealed documents do not give us all the information we want.

What these things reveal to us is really important. We are very sure, about it. These things show us something. That is what they reveal.

The people in charge of OpenAI were having some discussions about money and how the company should be set up as early, as 2017. They were even talking about becoming a kind of company called a b-corp. OpenAI was considering what it would mean to be a b-corp and how that would affect OpenAI.

There was significant tension about Musk’s influence/control, and internal writing frames decisions as a chance to “get out from Elon.”

The evidence we have is really big. It includes things that important people said and wrote down like what Microsofts Satya Nadella said.

The judge has decided that the case will go to trial in April 2026. This is when a jury will hear the case. Elon Musk is asking for a lot of money, up to 134 billion dollars. The people being sued the defendants do not think this is an amount of money. They are saying that the way the amount of money was calculated is not correct. Elon Musk and the defendants are fighting about the case. Elon Musk wants the 134 billion dollars. The defendants are attacking the way the damages were figured out.

What the people involved do not tell us or what they have not shown to be true far is the thing that the information is missing. The information that the people involved are giving us is not complete because there are some things that they do not reveal. They have not proven some things yet.

I am looking for one piece of evidence that shows all parts of the fraud. This evidence is like a proof that everything about the fraud’s true. I want to find this one thing that proves every element of the fraud the thing, without any doubt. The fraud is what I am trying to understand. This evidence is what I need to see it clearly.

We need to figure out if the changes that OpenAI is making to its structure are really in line with what OpenAI’s trying to do. This is a part of what people are arguing about. OpenAIs mission is important. We want to know if these changes to OpenAIs structure are consistent, with OpenAIs mission.

There is a reason for the seventy nine billion to one hundred thirty four billion dollar damage amount. This amount will likely be argued about a lot in court by the people involved in the case. The seventy nine billion, to one hundred thirty four billion dollar damages range is what people are talking about.

Full context for every snippet circulating online (selective quoting is a major theme of the dispute).