We have officially reached the finger-pointing phase of the blockbuster Apple vs. OpenAI lawsuit in which Apple alleges that, with the assistance of former Apple employees, OpenAI is stealing Apple trade secrets.
What the suit alleges, which I outlined here, is pretty damning: A pair of former Apple employees — one a 25-year company veteran and another who spent a decade as an iPhone electrical engineer — allegedly held onto systems, asked OpenAI interviewees from Apple to share proprietary Apple info, and, Apple claims, told partners that sharing Apple’s proprietary manufacturing information was okay with the Cupertino tech giant.
OpenAI quickly denied the allegations and, in short order, we learned that Apple’s claims that it had contacted Lui Chang about the charges were incorrect because Apple’s counsel had mixed up the names of Lui Chang with OpenAI’s own counsel, Che Chang.
Latest Videos FromTechRadar
This week, however, OpenAI offered a more robust response, releasing a text chain between Lui Chang and a current unidentified Apple employee, and the email exchange in which it’s revealed that Apple had been talking to the wrong Chang.
“Apple is one of the greatest companies of all time, and built a reputation for obsessing over the smallest details. This careless, aggressive and oddly personal lawsuit sadly doesn’t live up to that reputation,” wrote OpenAI on its company blog on Monday.
A cry for help
What the messages appear to reveal is not corporate espionage, but something far more mundane and, in some ways, very relatable if you’ve ever worked at a large company.
I should preface this to say that Apple has not confirmed these messages, but it’s hard to imagine OpenAI fabricating them. In fact, the sheer amount of redacted information gives more credence to their authenticity.
There’s so much missing information that it might seem impossible to glean anything from the banter between “Apple Employee #1″ and Chang, so, to help myself, I went through and inserted guesses about ‘[Redacted – Apple Information]” to try and make sense of the conversation. (I decided much of it was about the potential use of Silicon Carbon batteries in the upcoming iPhone 18.)
In the messages, the Apple employees seem to have worked with Chang and were not only missing him, but his expertise.
“Just in case you don’t have enough work, I need some help. I have a vague recollection of you talking about a [REDACTED]. Can you give me a brief refresh of this and point me to an EE who may have some knowledge?” wrote the Apple Employee. I’m assuming he’s referring here to an “Electrical Engineer”
Without apparent hesitation, Chang replied, “I think what you referred to is [REDACTED]. And the small [REDACTED].” He then pointed the Apple Employee to someone else at Apple who “might still remember anything.”
How about, just say no?
Now, Chang could’ve said, “Hey, dude, miss you, too, but I can’t really talk about anything Apple-related anymore.” According to this exchange, Chang did not and kept doing his best to help.
This Apple employee also seems unaware of best business practices and keeps talking about technology, at one point even mentioning a schematic. It looks like he also shared that schematic with Chang, but it may also have been Chang sharing the image with the Apple employee.
As the Apple Employee presses on, Chang tells him to look for a schematic in the “team box folder”. He even mentions a “power block diagram.” I’m a bit surprised that bit wasn’t redacted.
One telling section from Chang jumped out at me, and this is the relatable part. As Chang kept trying to connect Apple Employee 1 to the expertise he required, Chang noted, “Now when I think about it. The other smart people also just left that team. The one that might still [be] in Apple is [Apple Employee #10].”
Brain drain is a real issue, it seems, even for Apple. So in addition to long-timer Chang leaving for OpenAI, others who seem to possess some important technical information have departed as well.
Hi, this is highly irregular, please remove me from this thread.”
Possibly an Apple employee
Later, as the quest for information continues, Chang recommended contacting a pair of Apple employees (#5 and #7).
At this point, there’s a message that might’ve come from an automated system inside Apple’s communication platform:
“Hi [Apple Employee #1 Name], [Apple Employee #3 Name], I can help get the conversation with [Apple Employee #6] and [Apple Employee #7] started.”
Which led to my favorite part of the whole exchange. One of the Apple Employees auto-invited to the conversation essentially freaked out:
“Hi, this is highly irregular, please remove me from this thread.”
Honestly, I feel for that person. As I’ve written before, Apple doesn’t mess around when it comes to NDAs, proprietary information, or corporate secrets. Stumbling on a sort of illicit conversation about tech details between a current and former employee is surely enough to make any Apple employee hit the panic button.
Apple Employee #1 explains he added other employees “for awareness” but also shifts the conversation to an internal discussion. Chang is left to like the last message and, it seems, leaves it at that.
What’s next?
The release of all this communication does not end the case. Far from it.
As of Monday evening, Apple filed with a US judge a strongly worded request for an injunction that, among other things, calls for “a preliminary injunction to stop the theft of its trade secrets.” It also includes the prediction, “Apple is likely to succeed on the merits of its trade secret claims.”
Even so, I think this motion and the OpenAI post may move everything along toward an out-of-court settlement, one that would end the case but likely do little to repair this now-in-tatters Apple-OpenAI relationship.
In the end, though, OpenAI’s post appears to reveal a mortal Apple, one that, despite its size and power, is still run by fallible humans who are often adrift, as any of us would be, when colleagues leave, taking with them friendship and, more importantly, knowledge.
Apple is building complex products, and corporate memory is a critical part of the process (so much so that incoming CEO John Ternus apparently just rehired a retired Apple hardware executive).
Understanding when, how, and why decisions were made and how they could impact future projects is invaluable. Sometimes, only those who were in the room know the truth of the matter. Chang, it appears, was one of those people. He had the information, took it with him, and now, it seems, someone wanted to keep the lines of communication open, which is exactly what Apple doesn’t want.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nbAUYKqtWu8jWs8YGzB8oA-1920-80.jpg
Source link
lance.ulanoff@futurenet.com (Lance Ulanoff)
