If OpenAI has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear

29/08 18:15 - If OpenAI has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear
Apple has filed a motion demanding expedited discovery in its trade secrets litigation against OpenAI.  The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI and some former Apple employees now at the AI firm deliberately worked to exfiltrate valuable trade secrets from Apple. The initial allegations describe a series of serious attempts to grab this information, including one claim that OpenAI attempted to get a partner manufacturer to demonstrate proprietary Apple manufacturing process technology. Apple argues that this information is not free, belongs to Apple, and reflects decades of effort in building the tech. OpenAI’s counter arguments so far have been easy to paraphrase; it’s claimed that if Apple hadn’t wanted its secrets to slip, it would have put more security in place to protect them.  The company has also said it is making something completely new, so it doesn’t need Apple’s secrets anyway. But that doesn’t seem to add up against the evidence Apple has provided so far, though I’m neither judge nor lawyer; the case will be decided in the court, not here. A familiar defense The poverty of OpenAI’s defense aside, one truth is clear: If the company has nothing to hide, then it should have nothing to fear, and in that context it is strange that it has tried to block Apple’s attempt to expedite the discovery process.  After all, if there is nothing to hide, then surely it makes more sense to get the trial over and done with. That would free up OpenAI’s resources for its looming IPO, the introduction of an entirely new product category it claims has nothing to do with Apple (bar the services of around 400 ex-Apple staff, including former Chief Designer Jony Ive), and attempting to build its business. The need for speed Apple seems keen to put the case behind it, which is why it is arguing for expedited discovery, which in this case would include production of documents, communications, forensic imaging of devices and accounts, and witness depositions.  Apple wants this to happen within 30 to 50 days and says it needs this process to help it uncover any additional details about the extent to which OpenAI has been raiding its trade secrets treasure hoard — or whether OpenAI has done so at all.  Apple also wants the process speeded up as it argues that, “Every day that passes without an injunction allows OpenAI to embed their knowledge of Apple’s stolen information into its hardware development efforts, further damaging Apple and making it increasingly more difficult to unwind the harm.” (That seems to be a reasonable position in the context we find ourselves.) OpenAI pushes back Despite its protests of innocence, OpenAI is fighting any effort to accelerate this side of the case, arguing that Apple is asking too much and that the request is unnecessary. OpenAI also argues that Apple needs to define its requests to a specific time frame, which Apple now defines as “on or after August 1, 2023,” which happens to be six months before one of the key accused parties, former Apple Vice President for Product Design Tang Tan, left Apple to join OpenAI. This, in part, is because Tan is accused of deliberately exfiltrating confidential data and finding ways to get additional information from ex-Apple staffers in what seems to be an ongoing pattern of behavior. OpenAI argues that Tan followed standard industry practices when interviewing former Apple staffers, said it has not stolen secrets, and blames Apple’s own security practices. The way I see it is that if OpenAI/Tan’s defense arguments are correct, there will be nothing to fear from expediting discovery on the matter and everything to gain in accelerating the case so all parties can put it behind them.  So, why haven’t they?  In OpenAI’s defense Of course, there are arguments that what Apple is demanding will be burdensome to the company, that it may rush things beyond OpenAI’s comfort zone, or even that the scope of Apple’s request needs refining.  That said, it is worth noting that Apple’s argument contextually supports a wide scope of inquiry, given that it says it needs discovery to identify the full scope of the offense. Both could be true — innocence in this case could be burdensome to prove. Resisting fast-tracked discovery is an extremely common approach. All the same, in the context of OpenAI’s claims of innocence, the resistance to discovery doesn’t ring true to. It also doesn’t seem to resonate positively in Cupertino. You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core for the best daily Apple-related news summary in your in-box. ...