Twelve jurors are now seated, and the most watched tech trial of the decade is officially underway. Welcome to Musk v. Altman Daily — jury's in, opening arguments are next, and we're breaking down every legal move as it happens. Two billionaires, one courtroom, zero good guys — this is the trial I never wanted to want to watch, and yet here we are. Stay with us — we've got the jury composition, what each side needs to prove, and why the nonprofit conversion question is the legal core of this whole thing. First up, this comes from Implicator:
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers seated a nine-person jury Monday in Elon Musk's lawsuit against Sam Altman, OpenAI, Greg Brockman and Microsoft at the federal courthouse in Oakland, California. Opening statements are set for Tuesday, April 28. Lawyers spent most of Monday probing whether prospective jurors who already held opinions about Musk, Altman or artificial intelligence could still weigh evidence on its own terms.
We've got a jury seated in Oakland — nine people who convinced a federal court they can set aside their feelings about Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and AI long enough to hear evidence. The fraud claims are already gone; what's left is charitable trust law and unjust enrichment, and even then the jury's verdict is advisory — Judge Gonzalez Rogers has the final call. So we're spending federal trial time and taxpayer infrastructure to watch two billionaires fight over who gets to control the AI future. And the jury's answer doesn't even bind the judge. Great system. That's actually a feature here, Devin — the advisory structure lets the judge absorb the jury's factual findings on the nonprofit mission questions without being locked in. Legally, it's a reasonable design for a case this novel. And over on r slash law, this one picked up 188 upvotes:
Imagine dragging a dozen people in plus alternates, ask them to put their lives on hold, to decide which billionaire gets to ruin the world with AI further while getting richer...
Yeah, that Reddit comment is doing real work. Twelve people pulled off their lives to decide which billionaire's vision of AI dominance is slightly more legitimate. The cynicism is earned. I'd push back slightly — the underlying legal question about whether OpenAI violated its nonprofit charter is actually worth adjudicating. The messenger being Elon Musk doesn't automatically kill the claim. Another one from r slash law, this time at 101 upvotes:
Lawyer:Do you have an opinion of Mr. Musk?
Potential Juror: I saw him make several Nazi salutes at the presidential inauguration on TV. I have a poor opinion of him.
Lawyer: We will need to dismiss this juror and all the other jurors who just heard that.
That's a real voir dire problem, not a joke. Finding jurors who haven't formed strong opinions about Musk after the last two years is a genuine selection challenge, and this thread captures exactly why both sides had a lot of work to do Monday. And one more from r slash law, with 20 upvotes:
It's not that I want Altman to win but more that I want Musk to lose.
Honestly? That's where I live. I don't trust Musk's motives here for a second — this is about control, not charity law. But I also don't want Altman walking away vindicated for quietly converting a nonprofit into a for-profit empire. Links to every story we talked about today are in the show notes, so if something stuck with you, you can go read the original reporting there.
That’s Musk v Altman Daily for this Wednesday. This is a Lantern Podcast.