{"id":70370,"date":"2026-07-14T23:03:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-14T21:03:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=70370"},"modified":"2026-07-14T23:05:04","modified_gmt":"2026-07-14T21:05:04","slug":"openai-has-no-evidence-apple-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/openai-keine-belege-apple-klage","title":{"rendered":"OpenAI sees no evidence to support Apple's theft claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

Four days after Apple's lawsuit, OpenAI has issued a new statement \u2013 denying the allegations. However, a closer look reveals that the response answers a question Apple didn't even ask.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last Friday, Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and several former Apple employees, accusing them of taking confidential hardware information to advance OpenAI's plans for its own devices. The lawsuit centers on trade secrets related to AI hardware<\/a>. OpenAI has now responded in more detail to Bloomberg, stating that it takes the allegations seriously but sees \"no evidence that this lawsuit is justified\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two explanations that don't say the same thing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, OpenAI's communications director contacted X and stated that the company had no interest in the trade secrets of other companies. The new statement<\/a> shifts the tone: It is no longer the interest that is being disputed, but rather the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a subtle but crucial gap between the two formulations. Neither one explicitly states that no files were taken. Furthermore, "not having seen any evidence" is a statement about one's own knowledge, not about the facts of the case \u2013 especially since the exchange of evidence in the proceedings is still pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An argument against a claim that nobody makes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The second part of the statement emphasizes a belief in fair competition and the freedom for people to choose where they work. Apple doesn't dispute this at all. In California, post-contractual non-compete clauses are generally invalid under Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code \u2013 Apple couldn't prevent an employee from joining OpenAI even if it wanted to. The fact that over 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI<\/a> is perfectly legal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple's accusation focuses on something else: that files, hardware documentation, and other confidential material were transferred during the move. The difference between a mind containing knowledge and a hard drive containing files is precisely the dividing line at which the lawsuit will be decided. Defending the freedom to change jobs misses the point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The situation would be different in Germany<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The argument of free choice of workplace is a specifically Californian one. In Germany, the opposite applies: According to Sections 74 et seq. of the German Commercial Code, companies may agree on a post-contractual non-compete clause of up to two years with their employees. The price for this is a compensation payment of at least half of the employee's last salary \u2013 whoever pays the price gets to impose the restriction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple, with German employment contracts, could certainly have delayed the departure of its hardware specialists. Furthermore, the protection of trade secrets would be governed by the Trade Secrets Act, regardless of whether a non-compete agreement was in place. The situation that made the case in California possible in the first place does not exist in this form in Germany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A definitive answer is still pending<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

So far, only one page of the official complaint has been filed. Apple's complaint contains specific allegations, examples, and evidence; OpenAI has so far only issued press statements and has neither explained how the material was reviewed in light of Apple's accusations nor what internal steps were taken. The formal response to the complaint is expected in the coming days. Only then will it become clear whether OpenAI has anything to counter the claim itself - or whether it will simply defend a right that no one is challenging anyway. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Koupei Studio)<\/p>\n\n\n\n