Altman Testified That Musk Wanted 90% of OpenAI. Here Is What the Trial Means.

Hey guys, Mr. Technology here.

The Musk v. OpenAI trial in Oakland Federal Court reached a turning point on May 12, 2026, when Sam Altman took the witness stand and testified that Elon Musk wanted 90% of OpenAI's equity in the earliest fundraising discussions. The number is striking, but the story around it is more important: a year-by-year, message-by-message account of the most-watched corporate divorce in AI history. This trial will set precedents for how AI companies are governed, how for-profit conversions are evaluated, and how much equity early backers can claim when a non-profit transitions to a commercial entity.

The Witness Stand, In Quotes

Altman's testimony, as reported by Al Jazeera on May 12, 2026, was direct:

"An early number that Mr. Musk threw out was that he should have 90 percent of the equity to start. It then softened, but it always was a majority."

Altman framed Musk as "a competitor obsessed with exercising control over OpenAI" and pushed back on the central claim of the lawsuit — that Musk was persuaded to invest $38 billion on a charitable premise and then saw the company pivot to for-profit in 2019 without his consent. Altman's defense: Musk knew about the for-profit plans, and the lawsuit is about a control dispute dressed up as a charity theft.

The trial began testimony in mid-April 2026, more than two weeks before Altman's stand. Musk testified earlier that OpenAI's leadership "looted a charity" by steering it toward commercial products. The framing on both sides is dramatic. The legal substance is narrower: did OpenAI honor its commitments to Musk as an early donor and board member, and what remedy is appropriate if it did not?

What Musk Is Actually Asking For

The complaint, as filed in 2024 and updated through the trial, seeks $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, plus the removal of Altman and OpenAI president Greg Brockman. The $150B figure is roughly the valuation gap between what Musk claims his stake would be worth at OpenAI's rumored $1 trillion IPO and what he is alleged to have received. The number is large enough that it would constitute one of the largest judgments in US commercial litigation history if awarded.

The removal remedy is more interesting than the damages. Musk is not primarily asking for money. He is asking for control. The complaint's language specifically asks for Altman's removal from OpenAI's leadership. That is a remedy courts almost never grant in commercial disputes — replacing management is normally outside the scope of a damages award. The fact that Musk is asking for it tells you what this trial is really about: a power struggle inside a company that became the most valuable private enterprise in history.

What Has Been Revealed About Early OpenAI

The trial has surfaced internal communications and early-stage investment negotiations that were never public. Key revelations:

• Musk's $1B commitment was conditional. Per earlier reporting in the case, Musk's initial commitment to OpenAI was $1 billion, of which roughly $130 million was actually transferred before the relationship deteriorated in 2018. The remaining $870 million was the basis for the "stolen charity" claim.
• The 90% demand is now on the record. The previously private equity negotiations are now trial evidence. The 90% number came from Musk in 2017-2018, per Altman's testimony, and softened over time to "majority." Altman's account is that the OpenAI board discussed the number and rejected it as outside the bounds of any reasonable structure.
• The for-profit conversion timeline is contested. Musk's team argues the 2019 conversion to a "capped-profit" structure was a betrayal of the original non-profit mission. OpenAI's team argues the conversion was necessary to fund the compute requirements of frontier model training and was discussed openly with all board members, including Musk, before he left the board in 2018.
• Microsoft's role is now in the record. Microsoft is a co-defendant. The $13 billion investment that gave Microsoft a 49% stake in the for-profit entity is now being examined for whether it represented appropriate consideration or a sweetheart deal at the non-profit's expense.

The trial is, in effect, a forensic audit of OpenAI's governance history, with $150 billion in damages and the leadership of the most valuable AI company in the world at stake.

What This Means for the IPO

OpenAI is rumored to be preparing for a late-2026 IPO at a $1 trillion valuation. The trial outcome affects the IPO in three ways:

Damages payment. If Musk wins the $150B, OpenAI either pays it or settles. A $150B cash payment is impossible without an IPO. The trial is, functionally, a forcing function for going public — the equity that would be used to satisfy a judgment is the same equity that would be sold in an IPO.

Equity overhang. If a court orders Altman's removal, the IPO valuation is at risk. Investors buy into leadership as much as into technology. Removing Altman before the IPO would reset the valuation. This is the strategic reason Musk is asking for removal.

Settlement is more likely than a judgment. Trials this large rarely reach final judgment. The expected outcome is a settlement that includes some combination of equity to Musk, governance changes, and a payment to a charity. The settlement would unlock the IPO. The trial, as expensive as it is, is the price of forcing the settlement.

The IPO is therefore the underlying economic purpose of the trial. Both sides are negotiating toward an outcome that makes the IPO possible. The trial is the venue, not the goal.

The Take

Three things to act on this week.

If you hold OpenAI equity (as an employee, former employee, or early investor): watch the trial transcript. The settlement, when it comes, will determine the per-share value of your stake. If the settlement includes equity dilution, the per-share value drops. If it includes a cash payment funded by a primary offering at IPO, the per-share value is preserved. The trial outcome is the largest single determinant of the per-share number.

If you are building an AI company: the governance history lesson is that founding documents matter forever. The OpenAI non-profit structure was created in 2015 with language that did not anticipate a $1T IPO in 2026. That language is now the basis of a $150B lawsuit. Every AI company founded with a "we will do good" charter should expect that charter to be litigated if the company becomes valuable. Write the founding documents as if a hostile party will read them in 2035.

If you are an observer of the AI industry: the trial is the most public look at AI company governance we have ever had. Read the testimony, read the filings, and watch the precedent. The rules being written in this courtroom will apply to the next 50 AI companies that grow from non-profit to for-profit to public. We are watching the formation of the AI corporate-law canon in real time.

The 90% number is the headline. The lesson is the governance. Every AI company is now a potential Musk v. OpenAI, and the founding documents you sign in 2026 are the documents that will be read aloud in a courtroom in 2034.

— Mr. Technology

Sources: Al Jazeera — Sam Altman says Elon Musk wanted 90 percent of OpenAI in high-stakes trial, Al Jazeera — Musk accuses Altman of betraying OpenAI's nonprofit founding mission, Al Jazeera — Musk testifies at OpenAI trial: 'It's not OK to loot a charity', Al Jazeera — Elon Musk trial against Sam Altman to reveal OpenAI power struggle, Al Jazeera — SpaceX backs Anthropic with data centre deal amidst Musk's OpenAI lawsuit, Al Jazeera — Pentagon announces deal with seven AI companies for classified systems.