Apple is cutthroat in business too.<p>Tony Fadell, the inventor of the iPod and co-inventor of the iPhone, and later Nest founder, commented this in Stratechery about the lawsuit when filed:<p>"This is Apple’s typical tactic to scare Apple employees — either former or current. I heard this lawsuit was driven by the Apple board.<p>Steve threatened to file a lawsuit against Nest for poaching 80-100 Apple employees. He called me, screamed for a while with lots of accusations. Then I said, “Steve, it’s Apple’s job to retain its talent, not mine.” He stopped his rant and then we went on to talk about our families and vacation plans. We kept hiring…"
Apple was the ringleader in the illegal anti-poaching agreements between SV companies a couple decades ago.
If Tony and Steve were friends, that's not Apple being cutthroat. Cue: the chapter about poaching from friends in Ben Horowitz's The Hard Thing About Hard Things. If you cross that line and poach from your friends, expect to hear about it. Another example: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/EntrepreneurRideAlong/comments/1jgz9iu/steve_jobs_email_to_adobe_ceo_in_2005/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/EntrepreneurRideAlong/comments/1jgz...</a>
It's worse. "Cutthroat" implies being ruthless but legitimate. So-called "poaching" is completely moral and legal, whereas trying to get others not to "poach" "your" employees is immoral and illegal.<p>There's a bright, clear line between targeted attempts to hire someone who has a job working for a competitor, and trying to get that person to take confidential information with them when they switch jobs. The latter is wrong and will rightfully result in legal action. The former is perfectly fine, and good for employees, which I'd wager still includes most of this site's audience despite the startup-founder focus.<p>Remember, employers don't own the people who work for them. They cannot be "poached." They can only be given a better offer. If your employee decides they'd be better off working for your competitor instead, then you have only yourself to blame for not giving them enough incentive to stay. Either up your game, or give them a friendly goodbye.
Jobs had something to prove though. He was kicked out, brought back, he definitely wanted to ensure his legacy. But while I don't agree with it, I think it's harder to be an ethical company that makes it to a billion than a non ethical one. When shareholders are involved you don't have a choice really.. You're obliged to maximize their earnings.
Also: <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...</a>
cutthroat vs blatantly breaking the laws and manipulating employees to break laws ...
This entire OpenAI hardware thing is a vanity project by Sam Altman wanting really bad to be Steve Jobs. Just look at this comical announcment photo and letter from last year <a href="https://openai.com/sam-and-jony/" rel="nofollow">https://openai.com/sam-and-jony/</a>. If this lawsuit results in the whole thing getting canned it might actually be good for OpenAI because it'll save them from pouring further billions down the drain over what will eventually be the Humane Pin 2.0.
Tangentially related, but I was rewatching the old iPhone 3G keynote recently, and you wouldn't believe who made an appearance.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X5xOI_qu9I&t=1649s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X5xOI_qu9I&t=1649s</a>
If he really wants to be Steve Jobs he needs to get a woman pregnant the 'traditional' way and then abandon his child, but later proceed to name an expensive product after the child. Which I don't think is on the table as an option for Altman.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs</a><p>But how is he doing at the 'ranting and yelling tirades at his staff' metric? That's also a known characteristic of Jobs.
We are all long aware that Jobs was a flawed individual.<p>But he made good products that most people like to use. That was GP they were getting at with "he wants to be Steve Jobs."<p>You don't need to hamfist that into the conversation every times Jobs' name comes up.
No need to be disrespectful.
Altman has far worse issues, considering his alleged actions towards his sister.
A lot of the discussion here is pretty surprising. Saying "The information is in people's heads" is wild considering the allegations involve taking screenshots of documents, not just fond memories of working on hardware. Apple deserves a lot of criticism for how it's acted when losing employees, but these allegations are about a lot more than that.
> And, [OpenAI] said that Apple didn’t admit to the claim that the “residual access” allowing former employees to access Apple’s system was the result of poor security procedures on Apple’s part.<p>Sam "I hack others by mistake" Altman dunking on the security practice of others is funny, is there any glass house he won't go to?
The outcome shouldn't depend whether they had "poor" security anyway. If I leave my front door locked, it might increase the chances I get robbed, but it doesn't make robbing me legal.
It just goes to show how Saltman thinks. "If the door is open, it's not my fault I've walked in and stolen all of your stuff!"
Sure, but this is about IP law instead of physical goods.<p>This is like if you left your door wide open, and a neighbor peaked in and told another neighbor about your decor or what posters are on the walls.<p>You didn’t lose anything tangible, but something you wanted to be secret isn’t anymore. Where the balance of blame falls is up to you, but I do think to some degree that if you want to keep a secret and can’t put in the bare minimum effort to even try to protect it then you own some of the blame.
The difference is there's no laws around your home decor, but there is a clear legal framework around trade secrets. Apple's allegation is that a vulnerability was exploited to access some of the data as well which, if true, carries potential CFAA criminal charges.<p>For trade secrets, it only requires "reasonable measures" even just having an NDA is enough, even if the rest of your security is wide open. Just because someone found a loophole or grabbed files before their access was revoked doesn't make it legal (under trade secrets law).<p>Almost certainly the employees at some point in their tenure at apple signed some duty of confidentiality, or some acceptable use policy, etc. which is grounds enough for illegal misappropriation. "You didn't lock down their access enough" isn't a valid legal defense.
There are <i>absolutely</i> laws about IP theft. That's why it's called Intellectual <i>Property</i>.<p>You really don't want the law to be "Well you didn't lose a physical thing, so why should it be illegal?"
> You really don't want the law to be "Well you didn't lose a physical thing, so why should it be illegal?"<p>There are people who feel this way, so it's possible that the parent comment does actually want it to be this. You're 100% correct that this doesn't describe the law right now though, which is what actually matters for this lawsuit.
It's more like if you left your door unlocked, and I hire somebody to break into your house and make copies of documents you left sitting on the counter. They discover that the door is unlocked so their job is real easy, hooray! Doesn't matter, still very illegal, and both I and the person I hired should be prosecuted for it.
It makes breaking and entering legal because no breaking to enter happens. It allows people to move in and squatting is now in play so they could lock you out and call police if you try to enter.
No. Unlocked door != legal entry. "Breaking" in B&E doesn't require any physical damage. Pushing open an unlocked door or entering a place without authorization counts. If I leave my home to go to the store, and leave the door unlocked and someone walks in, they are still committing a crime.<p>There are also no tenant protections for criminal intruders, squatter protections require a claim of right like a disputed lease or a holdover tenancy, or continuous possession over many years. Someone that just walks into a residence is an active trespasser and can be arrested for criminal trespass or burglary.
This is not how it works. Even a cursory glance at the law makes it clear that this is not how it works.<p>Here is New York: <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/140.20" rel="nofollow">https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/140.20</a>
Funny enough, I had some valuable stuff (including my passport!) stolen from my car, which I'd left unlocked because I was moving some heavy boxes. The police in my area (bay area) said they couldn't really do anything about it because they didn't break a window.<p>I don't know exactly what legal technicalities are involved, but this did actually happen to me in a de facto sense!
That's cops being lazy because they now don't need to write a report for your car insurance to replace the non-broken window. However, your homeowners or renters insurance may cover the stolen items. In general, there's probably nothing to do about stolen items from a car because literally anyone could have done it and it's not like your car was a sterile environment to begin with (millions of fingerprints and pieces of random DNA everywhere). To give them the benefit of the doubt, why should they expel manpower and resources over items that your insurance will replace when those resources could be put to use in investigating violent crimes? Although in reality, even with photographic evidence and location tracking of the stolen items, the cops still probably won't do anything other than write a report unless it's a very slow day.
That’s like saying it’s not manslaughter if you kill a woman because no ”man” died.
Laws around breaking and entering date back to WELL before mechanical locks were commonplace or even affordable to residences.
Do not try this at homes that belong to other people.
No it doesnt, that's still breaking and entering
Ha this is the logic Richard Chase used to enter peoples homes
lmao you dumbass
If your best defense is "it was easy" you're probably not in a legally great position...
That is both a yikes (towards Apple) and very unethical (towards OpenAI and the engineers who did this). Why do people do these things? Do you have no shame that you might have a harder time landing future jobs if you're perceived as someone who might sell out your future employer on a whim and steal proprietary information?
"Why do people do these things"<p>Money, ideology, coercion, and ego.
They probably were presented with huge comp packages which made bending ethics incredibly easy.
Future jobs? I thought AGI was the future of work!<p>And plus, their duty is to a higher cause! <i>All humanity</i> needs them to win, so that the superintelligence is “aligned” to their superior values… like “all’s fair in love and war”! (/s)<p>…rumblings of “divine mandate” in there somewhere…
> is there any glass house he won't go to?<p>The one containing his children, only the nanny goes there.
I’m kind of horrified that he has children.
Ah, probably why he thinks its such a great idea to have ChatGPT make a podcast about your children to listen to instead of, you know, talking to them.
Maybe Apple will buy Open AI at a rock bottom price after this lawsuit.<p>I've used chatGPT voice conversation tech since Sept 2023 and was expecting the new Siri to match the user experience. The new Siri is far far away from matching chatGPT's voice tech. The new Siri is smarter and can now answer your question for anything yet it's SLOWer and you can not have a full conversation with it. I continually have to say "Hey Siri," to continue the conversation on my iPhone 15 Pro Max. Yet with the chatGPT app I can have a full conversation making me think Open AI's voice conversation tech is light years ahead of the new Siri.
You aren't supposed to have a full conversation with Siri, it's an assistant not a chatbot. Tell it to do a task, and it does the task. In those leaked system prompts/instructions Apple pretty explicitly wants to avoid conversational engagement to stop the whole "AI friendship" crap from happening.
I can get a lot done in the car talking to chatGPT where i use voice conversation the most. I do not use it for an AI friend but as a voice assistant who can get things done for me quicker then picking up my phone in the car, when it's across the room, when i dont want to pick up my phone and etc, etc.<p>Apple is working now on a slew of devices focused on voice as Open AI (Space X is purportedly working on an AI focused phone / device) too. Thus, I had anticipated Siri to match the same experience of GPT.
Because chatGPT can get away with listening to you all the time, but if Siri does that without it being explicitly prompted it will be a class action
Well Apple is building a slew of AI voice devices, Open AI is too and purportedly so is Space X creating an AI focused phone. Many are and will be all focused on voice driven usage / less screen time.<p>We'll see if consumers embrace it, but ive been using chatGPT's voice conversation tech since Sept 2023 especially while driving to get things done. For me it feels like the next natural UX Internet usage paradigm.
I cannot imagine there is any value in OpenAI for Apple. They don’t need to own an AI lab, they can rely on open source for free and fine tune to their need. But really, so far what makes Apple great is that they *have not* pushed for AI in everything!
In fairness, that's an incredibly glaring MDM problem that was always going to blow up like a landmine if Apple didn't address it. I'd expect the macOS MDM policy to cover this if Apple was actually concerned about IP leakage.
“It’s your fault we stole your trade secrets”
Saw this in the legal filing:<p>"he took advantage of an authentication bug to gain access to Apple’s confidential third-party cloud repository to download at
least thirty-seven highly sensitive and proprietary technical documents related to, among other things,
Apple’s hardware technologies and research and development."<p>Anybody know what they mean by "third party" ? Who provides Apple internal employees with a cloud repository?
Really don't like all the drama around this. Should be dealt with in court, not tried in the press.<p>Both sides should learn to remain silent and work the case through legal channels.
Why are you both-sidesing this?<p>Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements.<p>OpenAI is acting like a teenager posting screenshots of literal texts and being overall petulant.<p>This is open and shut. The mature company will win this.
> <i>Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements</i><p>More to OP's points, Apple made legal filings. OpenAI is penning blog posts.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
"Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements."<p>Apple does this to most any company that ends up with any of its former employees. It's basically expected. Apple is being the bully.
Looking at things from multiple perspectives and trying to see validity in each point of view is a virtue, not a vice. I really hate that "both-sides" has become a copy-paste insult by ideologues.
It's a virtue when there <i>is</i> validity to both sides.<p>But it's extremely harmful when there <i>isn't</i>.<p>"Alice says murder is bad, while Bob says murder is a fun and healthy recreational activity. Trying to see validity in each point of view is a virtue, not a vice." See, it doesn't work.
The point is you need to TRY in order to have a chance of finding validity. No one is talking about murder here, which a pretty trite counterexample.<p>In the case of Apple and OpenAI, since that's actually what we're talking about: why is it wrong to suggest that there may be validity to each other's points of view, especially given that we don't have all the facts?
Nah , OpenAI doing it right , defending its interest and valuable employee with both legal and public from competing company negative oppinion.
This, and the books, and the government contracts, and the distillation… It’s like that one friend who complains how drama always finds them and they are clueless why.
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."<p>It's 2026; we can probably update "pound the table" to "pound social media"
The whole affair and the blog post feels like proxy signal to potential investors from OpenAI that they have now developed/acquired tech that is worth enough to grab Apple's attention ?
I mean, they are dealing with it in the courts, right? This is the press picking up on public court filings <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73602437/49/apple-inc-v-liu/" rel="nofollow">https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73602437/49/apple-inc-v...</a>
Seems to be Altman's playbook, just like how he got the CEO job back.
It's OpenAI still trying to maintain control of the narrative while they burn to the ground. For years they haven't really delivered while bullying anyone who doesn't have an "AI strategy".<p>The media is happy to stoke the flames.
> Both sides should learn to remain silent and work the case through legal channels.<p>This isn't a "both sides" situation.<p>OpenAI is posting drama blog posts. Apple isn't doing that.<p>"Apple says" in the headline here actually means: Apple filed for a preliminary injunction with the court and since that is a public record we are reporting the contents of it.
>Both sides should learn to remain silent and work the case through legal channels.<p>Why? Apple surely doesn't want to and why should they?
I have never gone from one job to another where the new job was in the same exact industry I was in prior, but I'm glad I never have to be thrown into such a scenario where I'm accused of taking confidential data, I can only imagine for some employers that makes you a red flag, very dangerous territory to be in.
The only time I did that, the company I was leaving begged me to take one of their corp laptops with me so I could offer "consulting" to them on the side. I never called them on their plausible deniability, I just said I felt that would be a conflict of interest and they shut up real fast.
Can you elaborate on the plausible deniability part.<p>Was your past employer trying to make best of the situation by hoping to fish for information about your next employer's projects via the consulting gig?
I said "never called them on their plausible deniability" to mean I never pulled off the veil of the conversation, so there's nothing to talk about in front of a judge.<p>FWIW both the company I was leaving and the company I was joining were startups selling dynamic seat pricing systems to airlines. Your call if that's a conflict of interest :).
Ehmm... offering "consulting" should come with a contract specifying scope of work, data/device access, and expectations.
I agree it feels scary from the employee's perspective, but at least in this case, it doesn't seem like it would've been difficult to avoid: simply return your work devices when handing in your badge:<p>> [...] multiple former Apple employees now working at OpenAI reached out to discuss returning Apple-issued work devices they kept when they left Apple.<p>By not doing that you effectively just cry "sue me", this is stupidity on the employee's part (or malice). Oh and maybe don't take "screenshots of confidential documents".
These guys are pushing boundaries knowingly.<p>A good company also doesn’t want you to take IP bc it creates the liability.
It's not hard if you are honest
People in silicon valley do this every day. California has a lot of laws to protect employees. Companies need tangible proof of a violation, not just "this guy had vague company IP in his head".
I really think this is apple feeling really threatened rather than confidential data really being stolen.<p>Apple is known for threatening companies that hire from them, and occasionally having secret agreements with other companies not to hire from each other.<p>People move from a company to a direct competitor all the time (i have a number of friends that went from working at aws to working on gcloud for example) and guess what, no one of those companies really went bankrupt due to this.<p>So really long story short: i think apple is being a sore loser at the employee retention game.
I don’t know where you’re drawing your conclusions from but they literally have messages from the OpenAI exec laughing at how he can still access data at Apple and talking about copying it, as well as messages encouraging candidates from Apple to bring unreleased prototype hardware to demonstrate during interviews.
Yeah Apple does have a history of doing these things. There was Palm, where Jobs told them if they didn't stop recruiting Apple employees he would destroy Palm with patent lawsuits. Jobs was also one of the main architects behind the no poach cartel in SV between Google, Adobe, and Intel, and Apple.<p>More recently there was Nuvia, which the lawsuit was dropped, and Rivos, which was settled.
> I [...] imagine for some employers that makes you a red flag<p>Maybe. It also advertises a moral flexibility that is high in-demand here in America. Clearly OpenAI has no scruples entertaining a turncoat of this scale, I can believe that businesses will be lined up out the door to hire these people.
Bring back Scott Forstall and get rid of half the employees at Apple. Time to clean house, they’ve lost their innovation and hunger.
What on earth does this opinion have to do with anything?
this reads like a blind comment
What was so great about Scott Forstall?
I wonder if OpenAI could use a novel defence of “we’re just using it to train AI for better hardware intelligence. Fair use.”<p>It seems to have played out decently in courts so far.
A few of my colleagues were fired for including source code derived from Apple specifications in their Copilot session (yes we use Copilot).
When I was interviewing for a new software job a couple years ago every company wanted to know details about past projects. What I built, what technical decisions I took, what scale I operated at, what the setbacks were, what was the final result. Some companies even made the round presentation style, like a real tech spec review, and you had to present slides and architecture diagrams. And the project had to be real, something you had actually worked on at your current job.<p>"But all this stuff is confidential, I can't really talk about it."<p>"Well too bad. If you want the job, figure it out."<p>So I did what probably thousands of engineers in silicon valley do every day, and leaked company IP. It got me the job, and I'm pretty sure all the interviewers forgot about what I said 5 minutes later. But in practice every tech interviewee and every company doing interviews today (including Apple) can be charged with most of what Apple is alleging.
> <i>But in practice every tech interviewee and every company doing interviews today (including Apple) can be charged with most of what Apple is alleging.</i><p>No it can't. I've worked for a bunch of tech companies large and small and interviewed for way more, and I have literally never seen this.<p>What Apple is alleging is not normal at all, nor is your interview experience. I've literally never even heard of anything like you describe, presenting architecture diagrams of your previous work? That's such a huge red flag, and these companies are opening themselves up to similar lawsuits. The fact that you describe multiple companies requesting this is genuinely shocking to me.
The allegation is that OpenAI explicitly requested that people bring and explain actual prototypes ("show and tell"), and downloading files from iCloud Drive after quitting Apple to join OpenAI. What you're describing is not even remotely on this level.
You're making assumptions that aren't supported if you read the actual lawsuit.
What’s the speculation about what leaked? Are we talking about next-gen on-device neural accelerators or something along those lines?
Apple is historically successfully secretive.<p>I suspect their security “lapses” are more along the lines of “give them enough rope to thoroughly hang themselves”
A lot of the legal action is a warning to current employees who may have been considering doing the same.
That secretive culture died over a decade ago. Everything gets leaked now.
Why do think they would want to be vindictive? The point is to prevent leaks, leaving lapses is exactly counter to that goal.
Apple leaks like a sieve. The extreme secrecy culture is a pointless drag on productivity, maintained long past its usefulness for the sole benefit of the execs practicing their Steve Jobs "one more thing" keynote cargo cult.
Does it matter? As long as the data is in the 1st brain and can be taken outside and used as a skill.
Well with OpenAI saying strongly the opposite now they can’t both be right. Someone is lying through their teeth here.
AI seems to always be stealing from someone
OpenAIs response:<p><a href="https://openai.com/index/apple-is-getting-this-wrong/" rel="nofollow">https://openai.com/index/apple-is-getting-this-wrong/</a><p>Personally, this reads a bit ridiculous in the face of what Apple is claiming but time will tell.
This should be shown in court, first, to avoid predictable blowback around making a weak-appeal.<p>I feel like OpenAI is attempting to obscure the public sentiment trend. And that are willing to taint a jury pool by releasing evidence.<p>I assume then, that OpenAI is "feeling" or has determined it is perceived negatively by the public, in general. They may be seeking to influence their talent pipeline, to reduce inbound constraint they predict are coming from a lack of perceived trustworthiness of OpenAI.<p>Seems inappropriate for OpenAI to post this public-appeal, to me.
Tech company drama is followed by .1% of the population. The jury pool is not going to be tainted. This has no impact on the public and nobody expects it to.
> This should be shown in court<p>"Weak security" isn't a defense to theft, so probably wont.<p>>Seems inappropriate for OpenAI to post this public-appeal, to me.<p>They are desperate and are behaving desperately. Who actually qualifies anything they say anymore anyway? I certainly don't
It’s the insinuation of racism regarding the “mixing up Asian last names” bit that’s really got me feeling like their response is the public appeal move.
yeah that is pretty crazy, who is even the intended audience? This seems like something they'd be discussing with their legal team instead of blogging about it. To me, these kinds of public outbursts are just making their hole deeper.<p>IP disputes between some of the richest corporations on the planet don't get a lot of sympathy in the court of public opinion anyway. Even if they did, what difference does it make? There isn't a sheriff or DA with a public face that has to make a decision here.
I mean... who has control over OpenAI's web page? No self-respecting PR firm would do something like this. And Counsel must be hopping mad.
Wow. This makes Apple seem like amateur hour. The case should be dismissed with prejudice.
I might be dense but from what I read I have no idea why any of the stolen documents have any value to OpenAI in the context of their business. Knowing Apples maybe future products etc seems pointless.
Scam Altman.
What is the issue here? Seems like Apple wants to own people. If you don't want employees to leave for competition, pay them well enough so they don't entertain the idea.<p>It's always employer neglecting workers and then having pikachu face.
Yes
At the end of the day, all the money Sam Assman used to lure people into doing crime will be paid for by all the 401k accounts of ordinary people.