Musk's temper and contradictory testimony dominate OpenAI court battle

Key facts

• Elon Musk testified for about five hours in Musk v. Altman.
• Musk initially demanded four board seats and 51% of OpenAI shares.
• Musk quit his quarterly payments to OpenAI after failing to gain control.
• Musk hired OpenAI engineer Andrej Karpathy for Tesla in 2017.
• Musk proposed merging Tesla and OpenAI in 2018 emails.
• Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Musk 'was at times difficult.'
• Musk stated on the stand, 'I don't lose my temper.'

A courtroom clash over control and temper

Elon Musk spent hours on the witness stand in a San Francisco courtroom on Tuesday, delivering testimony that a federal judge described as 'difficult' and that left jurors exchanging glances. The case, Musk v. Altman, pits the Tesla CEO against OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman over the future of the artificial intelligence company Musk helped launch. Under cross-examination by defense lawyer William Savitt, Musk refused to answer yes-or-no questions, quibbled over simple queries, and at one point visibly lost his temper — directly contradicting his earlier claim that 'I don't yell at people.' Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers repeatedly prompted Musk to give direct answers, cutting off his argumentative responses. After the jury left the room, she remarked, 'He was at times difficult. Part of management from my perspective is just to get through testimony.' The tension was palpable: one juror was seen rubbing her head during a testy exchange.

Musk's failed bid for control and withdrawal of funding

Savitt's cross-examination painted a picture of Musk as a founder who walked away from OpenAI when he could not secure full control. Initially, Musk demanded four board seats and 51 percent of the company's shares, with the other co-founders sharing three seats voted on by shareholders. Musk testified that the plan was to eventually expand to 12 seats, but the initial seven-member board would have given him outright control. When his demands were not met, Musk stopped his quarterly payments to OpenAI. He then hired Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI's second-best engineer, to join Tesla in 2017. Despite his fiduciary duty as an OpenAI board member, Musk did not try to retain Karpathy. 'I think people should have a right to work where they want to work,' Musk said on the stand. By 2018, Musk was declaring in emails to OpenAI co-founders Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman that the company was on 'a path of certain failure' under its current structure.

The proposed Tesla-OpenAI merger that never happened

In the same 2018 emails, Musk proposed merging Tesla and OpenAI, arguing that 'in my and Andrej's opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google.' The plan never came to fruition, and Musk resigned from OpenAI's board that year. The revelation underscores Musk's long-standing ambition to dominate the AI landscape, a goal that now fuels the legal battle. Savitt used the emails to suggest that Musk's efforts to kneecap OpenAI and fold it into Tesla were driven by personal ambition rather than altruism. Musk's testimony on direct examination had painted a heroic self-image, but the cross-examination systematically undermined that narrative.

Inconsistencies and memory lapses under oath

Throughout the cross-examination, Savitt repeatedly confronted Musk with his own deposition testimony, highlighting contradictions. Musk occasionally 'forgot' details he had testified to earlier in the day. Even if jurors did not conclude Musk was lying, the inconsistencies were stark. At one point, Musk scolded Savitt, and the exchange grew so heated that the judge had to intervene. Musk's direct testimony had been an improvement over the previous day, buoyed by his lawyer's leading questions. But the cross-examination obliterated that progress, leaving the jury with a lasting impression of a witness who was evasive and combative. The courtroom atmosphere grew tense as Musk's composure cracked.

The stakes: control of OpenAI's future

The trial centers on Musk's claim that OpenAI, now a for-profit entity, has strayed from its original nonprofit mission. Musk argues that Altman and the board breached their fiduciary duties by prioritizing profits over humanity. The defense counters that Musk's lawsuit is sour grapes after he failed to seize control. The evidence so far suggests that Musk's involvement with OpenAI was always conditional on his dominance. His demand for 51 percent of shares, his withdrawal of funding, his poaching of key talent, and his merger proposal all point to a pattern of seeking control. The jury must decide whether these actions constitute a breach of contract or simply a founder's failed power play.

What comes next in the courtroom drama

The trial is expected to continue for several more days, with Altman and other OpenAI executives likely to take the stand. The jury will weigh Musk's credibility against the documentary evidence, including emails and board minutes. Judge Rogers's comments suggest she is closely monitoring the proceedings to ensure a fair trial. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already exposed the raw dynamics behind one of the most important companies in artificial intelligence. The testimony has laid bare the personal ambitions and rivalries that shaped OpenAI's trajectory — and that continue to define its future.

The bottom line

• Elon Musk's courtroom behavior contradicted his claim of not losing his temper, as he argued with the judge and opposing counsel.
• Musk initially demanded 51% control of OpenAI and four board seats, and withdrew funding when those demands were not met.
• Musk hired OpenAI engineer Andrej Karpathy for Tesla in 2017 without trying to retain him at OpenAI.
• In 2018, Musk proposed merging Tesla and OpenAI, declaring OpenAI on a 'path of certain failure' without the merger.
• Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers described Musk as 'difficult' and had to repeatedly prompt him to answer questions directly.
• The trial will continue with testimony from Sam Altman and other OpenAI executives, with the jury deciding on breach of contract claims.