> sell to Microsoft without the regulatory scrutiny
I keep hearing this, principally from Silicon Valley. It’s based on nothing. Of course this will receive both Congressional and regulatory scrutiny. (Microsoft is also likely to be sued by OpenAI’s corporate entity, on behalf of its outside investors, as are Altman and anyone who jumps ship.)
> non-compete clauses are unenforceable in California, so what exactly are they suing for?
Part of suing is to ensure compliance with agreements. There is a lot of IP that Microsoft may not have a license to that these employees have. There are also legitimate questions about conflicts of interests, particularly with a former executive, et cetera.
> pretty sure Satya consulted with an army of lawyers over the weekend regarding the potential issue
Sure. I'm not suggesting anyone did anything illegal. Just that it will be litigated over from every direction.
Such as? Unless they are in the habit of downloading multiterraby copies of the trained model and taking.g it home what IP would they have? The training data is the open internet and various licensed archives far to much for them to take and arguably isn't OAI IP anyway. The background is all bases on openly published research much of it released by Google. And Microsoft already has licensed pretty much everything from OAI as part of that multi billion dollar deal.
Microsoft can buy the company in parts, as it “fails” in a long drawn out process. By the end, whatever they are buying will have little value, as it will already be outdated.
Sue Sam for what? They fired him and he got amother job with another company. thats on them for firing him in a state with law prohibiting noncompete clauses
I keep hearing this, principally from Silicon Valley. It’s based on nothing. Of course this will receive both Congressional and regulatory scrutiny. (Microsoft is also likely to be sued by OpenAI’s corporate entity, on behalf of its outside investors, as are Altman and anyone who jumps ship.)