Technologies
OpenAI trial: Nadella says Musk never raised concerns to him about Microsoft investment
Elon Musk named Microsoft as a defendant in his lawsuit against OpenAI
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella took the stand in the Musk v. Altman trial on Monday, where he testified that Elon Musk never contacted him with concerns that Microsoft’s investments in OpenAI were in violation of any special terms or commitments.
Nadella, wearing a navy suit with a blue tie, concluded his testimony in federal court in Oakland, California, after several hours of questioning. He answered questions about the early days of Microsoft’s strategic partnership with OpenAI, his understanding of the companies’ relationship and his role during the chaotic few days when Sam Altman was briefly ousted as CEO of OpenAI.
Altman’s testimony is slated to begin on Tuesday, according to his lawyers.
In 2024, Musk sued OpenAI, Altman, and the company’s president, Greg Brockman, alleging that they went back on their vow to protect the artificial intelligence company’s nonprofit structure and follow its charitable mission. Microsoft is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, as Musk accuses the company of aiding and abetting OpenAI’s purported breach of charitable trust.
Microsoft has been one of OpenAI’s major backers since 2019, years before the company rocketed into the mainstream with the launch of its ChatGPT chatbot in late 2022. Microsoft’s more than $13 billion worth of investments in OpenAI, including a $1 billion investment in 2019, a $2 billion investment in 2021 and $10 billion in 2023, have come up repeatedly over the course of the trial.
Nadella said he was “very proud” that Microsoft took the risk to invest in OpenAI when “no one else was willing” to bet on the fledgling lab.
Musk, who testified late last month, said Microsoft’s $10 billion investment was the key tipping point that made him believe OpenAI was violating its nonprofit mission. He testified that the scale of the investment bothered him, and it prompted him to open a legal investigation into OpenAI.
“I was concerned they were really trying to steal the charity,” Musk said from the stand.
Nadella said he did not believe Microsoft’s investments in OpenAI were donations, and that there was a clear commercial element to their partnership from the outset.
He said during the partnership’s early years, Microsoft gave OpenAI sharp discounts on computing resources, and Microsoft believed it would reap marketing benefits from doing so.
During a separate video deposition that was played on Monday morning, Michael Wetter, a corporate development executive at Microsoft, said the company has recognized approximately $9.5 billion in revenue to date through its partnership with OpenAI as of March 2025.
Musk co-founded OpenAI alongside Altman, Brockman and a handful of other executives and researchers in 2015. After a number of disagreements about OpenAI’s direction, including a failed effort to join it with his automaker Tesla, Musk left the OpenAI board in 2018. He went on to launch a competing AI startup, xAI, which he merged with SpaceX earlier this year.
OpenAI established a for-profit subsidiary in the months following Musk’s departure, which allowed the company to raise outside funding more easily. Investors, including Microsoft, have since poured billions of dollars into OpenAI’s for-profit arm, and the company’s valuation has swelled to more than $850 billion.
In November 2023, Altman was briefly fired from his role at OpenAI after the board determined he had not been “not consistently candid in his communications.” He was reinstated days later, after an intense few days of negotiations.
Nadella said he was “pretty surprised” by the board’s decision, and that his priority was to try and figure out how to maintain continuity for Microsoft customers. Immediately after Altman was removed, Nadella said he made an effort to learn more about what happened, adding that he suspected jealousy and poor communication was at play.
During conversations with OpenAI board members after the firing, Nadella said he was simply trying to understand the language in the OpenAI’s statement about Altman being “not consistently candid” while communicating with the board.
That language, Nadella said, “just didn’t sort of suffice, because this is the CEO of a company that we are invested in and we’re deeply partnered with, and so I felt that they could have explained to me what are the incidents or what is the detail behind it.”
There must have been instances of jealousy or miscommunication that could have justified pushing out Altman, Nadella said. He wanted more depth from the board members after the remark about candor, but no such information was available, he said.
“It was sort of amateur city, as far as I’m concerned,” Nadella testified.
In October, OpenAI completed a recapitalization that cemented its structure as a nonprofit with an equity stake in its for-profit business. As part of that announcement, Microsoft disclosed that it held a roughly 27% stake in OpenAI’s for-profit unit that was valued at around $135 billion.
The relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft has shown signs of strain in recent months, even as both companies continue to tout it as strategic and core to their businesses. Late last month, the same day that jury selection kicked off in Musk v. Altman, the companies announced a revamped partnership agreement that allows OpenAI to cap revenue share payments and serve customers across any cloud provider.
OpenAI said in a release that the agreement aimed to “simplify our partnership and the way we work together.”
Musk testified that he is not entirely against OpenAI having a for-profit unit, but he said it became “the tail wagging the dog.” He repeatedly accused Altman and Brockman of enriching themselves from a charity while also reaping the positive associations that come from running a nonprofit.
“Microsoft has their own motivations, and that would be different from the motivations of the charity,” Musk said from the stand. “All due respect to Microsoft, do you really want Microsoft controlling digital superintelligence?”
During a videotaped deposition shown in court last week, former OpenAI director Tasha McCauley recalled a discussion with Nadella and her fellow board members after the 2023 decision to dismiss Altman as OpenAI’s CEO.
“To the best of my recollection, Satya wanted to restore things to as they had been,” McCauley said. The board members didn’t think that was the right move, she said.
But as a court witness on Monday, Nadella said he never demanded that the board reinstate Altman as OpenAI CEO.
Musk lawyer Steven Molo showed Nadella screenshots of text messages Nadella had exchanged with Kevin Scott, Microsoft’s technology chief, about potential candidates to join OpenAI’s board.
Among those named in the conversation were Coinbase Chief Operating Officer Emilie Choi, former Eventbrite CEO Julia Hartz, former Gates Foundation CEO Sue Desmond-Hellmann, former Klein Perkins Caufield & Byers investor Bing Gordon, former Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, former LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner and former Alphabet director Diane Greene.
In 2015, Google bought Greene’s company Bebop, and she took over Google’s cloud division. In 2019, she left Google and the Alphabet board.
Nadella said “no” in a text message regarding Greene taking an OpenAI board seat. On Monday, he said that he was opposed because Greene, at the time, was affiliated with Google or had been until recently.
“I thought there were going to be conflicts because of our major competition with Google,” he said.
Nadella said that when he became Microsoft’s CEO in 2014, Google had been its main competitor in AI, following the search advertising company’s acquisition of AI lab DeepMind.
OpenAI announced the appointment of Desmond-Hellmann to its board in March 2024.
“I had known her from the past,” Nadella said.
Molo also asked about an email Nadella had sent in 2022 to Microsoft executives regarding terms that would be favorable when collaborating with OpenAI.
“I don’t want to be IBM and OpenAI to be Microsoft,” Nadella wrote.
In 1980, IBM signed a non-exclusive agreement to distribute Microsoft’s DOS operating system on IBM personal computers. The deal allowed Microsoft to do business around DOS with several other PC makers, leading the software to become pervasive. Later, Microsoft sold licenses of its Windows operating system to device makers, cementing its role in information technology.
“Eventually Microsoft grew to be a much more prominent and important company than IBM, correct?” Molo asked.
“That’s right,” Nadella said.
As of market close on Monday, Microsoft’s market capitalization stood at $3 trillion, while IBM was worth $210 billion.
OpenAI co-founder Sutskever takes the stand
After Nadella concluded his testimony, Ilya Sutskever, a former OpenAI co-founder and a renowned AI researcher, was called to the stand. Sutskever was wearing a blue button-down shirt, and he answered questions about his decision to join the company, his communications with Musk and his involvement in Altman’s ouster.
Sutskever used to work at Google, and he testified that the company offered to pay him as much as $6 million a year to try and keep him from leaving for OpenAI. He was one of the employees who eventually expressed concerns about Altman’s behavior to the board, in part because he said he felt “a great deal of ownership” over the startup.
“I simply cared for it, and I didn’t want it to be destroyed,” Sutskever said.
Bret Taylor, chairman of the board at OpenAI, followed Sutskever on the stand. He explained OpenAI’s structure to the jury, and he also spoke about the “dire” period when Altman was removed as chief executive.
Taylor did not finish his testimony before proceedings concluded on Monday, so he will be back on the stand on Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. PT.
— CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed to this report.
WATCH: The Musk vs. OpenAI trial is underway — here’s where things stand
Technologies
China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration
European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.
BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.
The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.
Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.
However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.
Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.
European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.
Technologies
Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge
Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.
Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.
Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.
The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.
Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield
Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.
In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.
If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.
But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.
That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.
Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.
CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.
“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.
AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.
GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.
Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.
In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.
And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.
The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.
For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.
Technologies
Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network
Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.
Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX
Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.
Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.
Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.
What is Starshield and how does it function?
Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.
SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.
In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.
SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.
On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.
How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?
While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.
Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.
Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.
SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
-
Technologies5 years agoiPhone 13 event: How to watch Apple’s big announcement tomorrow
