OpenAI releases emails to counter Apple trade secrets lawsuit
In brief
- OpenAI released emails and iMessages from former Apple engineer Chang Liu after his January departure
- Apple accused of confusing two employees with similar names and falsely claiming OpenAI ignored outreach
- OpenAI denies possessing Apple trade secrets and disputes claims that recruiting encouraged bringing sensitive materials
The Lawsuit and OpenAI's Response
Apple sued OpenAI in July, accusing the company and former Apple engineer Chang Liu of misappropriating hardware trade secrets. In its complaint, Apple alleged that Liu retained a company laptop after leaving and exploited an authentication bug to access Apple's internal systems.
OpenAI's rebuttal hinges on evidence it says proves the opposite. The company published iMessage exchanges between Liu and Apple employees sent after he left in January. According to OpenAI, those exchanges show Apple employees relied on Liu's access and that any remaining access resulted from Apple's own offboarding process—not from Liu's deliberate retention or misuse.
The move marks an unusual escalation: releasing private communications in a public forum to discredit a lawsuit before trial.
Accusations and Denials
Apple's complaint also targeted former Apple executive Tang Tan, claiming OpenAI's recruiting process encouraged prospective hires to bring sensitive materials. OpenAI disputed this, saying Tan was repeatedly instructed not to bring or use confidential information from his previous employer.
The company further accused Apple of confusing two employees with similar names, falsely claiming OpenAI ignored its outreach, and incorporating incorrect facts into the lawsuit. OpenAI stated it does not have, nor want, Apple's trade secrets, and called Apple's request for a preliminary injunction "both based on false information and completely unnecessary."
What's Next
The case remains in early stages. OpenAI's public rebuttal—unusual in litigation—suggests the company is fighting both in court and in the court of public opinion. Whether the published messages will influence the judge's view on a preliminary injunction, or serve as admissible evidence at trial, remains unclear.
