Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI has revealed a complex web of ambition, conflict, and shifting priorities within one of the most influential AI companies in the world. The case, now set for a jury trial in April 2025, centers on Musk’s claim that OpenAI abandoned its original nonprofit mission—founded to ensure artificial general intelligence (AGI) would benefit humanity broadly—by moving toward a profit-driven model, particularly through its deepening partnership with Microsoft. Key evidence from unsealed depositions paints a vivid picture of internal tensions and strategic maneuvering. In 2022, OpenAI leaders, including Ilya Sutskever and Sam Altman, expressed serious concerns about the rise of open-source competitors like Stability AI. Sutskever, who later became one of OpenAI’s most powerful figures, reportedly owned $4 billion in vested shares when Altman was briefly fired in 2023—highlighting the growing financial stakes involved. The relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft evolved rapidly. Initially, Microsoft approved a $2 billion investment, but ultimately limited it to $1 billion to pressure OpenAI into commercializing faster—directly contradicting the nonprofit’s founding principles. In exchange, Microsoft secured a convertible interest with a 2,000% return cap, a figure Microsoft’s own CFO noted was “larger than 90% of public companies” and “a good investment.” The deal was later expanded, with the 2023 agreement capping Microsoft’s return at 600% initially, rising 20% annually, while the nonprofit entity would receive only 2% of profits until investors were paid back—totaling $261 billion in returns. Microsoft also gained expanded intellectual property rights and the ability to embed up to 20 employees at OpenAI, reflecting a shift toward a tightly integrated partnership. The 80%-20% revenue split further underscored the commercial focus. The firing of Altman in June 2023 remains a flashpoint. Board member Helen Toner testified that the decision to remove Adam D’Angelo, Quora’s founder and a board member, was not based on clear conflict-of-interest grounds. D’Angelo’s company, Poe, used third-party LLMs but did not train its own. Toner said Altman and Greg Brockman offered vague justifications, such as communication difficulties, but she later learned Altman had never actually spoken to D’Angelo about the issue. Instead, Altman reportedly objected to Poe using Anthropic’s models—making the removal appear politically motivated. Toner also revealed concerns about Altman’s personal ties to a startup fund he controlled, which had not been disclosed to the board. This raised questions about his independence. Another board member, Tasha McCauley, described Altman’s consideration of a large personal campaign donation to a board candidate as a sign of “total disregard” for board independence. Meanwhile, Altman’s own ambitions are clear. He is the largest investor in Helion Energy, a fusion power startup, and during his deposition, he stated he believed OpenAI was worth at least $500 billion. He acknowledged that at that price, the company would need to perform exceptionally well to justify it. The lawsuit also highlights the personal rift between Musk and Altman. In a February 2023 email exchange, Altman told Musk, “you’re my hero,” while expressing hurt over Musk’s public criticism. Musk responded that the stakes were too high—“the fate of civilization is at stake”—a sentiment Altman echoed but questioned in tone, asking how attacks on Twitter helped that cause. Together, these revelations show a company transformed from a mission-driven nonprofit into a high-stakes, profit-oriented venture, with deep ties to Microsoft and a leadership team increasingly focused on scale, control, and influence. Musk’s lawsuit is not just about broken promises—it’s about who gets to shape the future of AI.