Altman: Musk Wanted 90% of OpenAI From the Start

The number that hung over the Oakland courthouse on Tuesday was 90. That's the percentage of OpenAI's equity that Elon Musk allegedly demanded for himself before he'd agree to help build the organization.

Sam Altman, testifying in the third week of the most closely watched corporate lawsuit in AI history, told the jury that Musk's opening position was exactly that: "90 percent of the equity to start." It softened over time, Altman said, but the direction never changed. "It always was a majority."

TL;DR

Altman testified May 12 in Oakland that Musk initially demanded 90% of OpenAI equity, and "always a majority"
Musk also wanted control passed to his children if he died while running the organization
Trial centers on whether OpenAI's nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion breached charitable trust law
Musk seeks $150 billion in damages; closing arguments are set for Thursday, May 14
OpenAI is currently valued at $852 billion with a potential IPO that could exceed $1 trillion

What Musk Demanded, What He Got

The gap between Musk's initial demands and his eventual $38 million donation to a nonprofit he didn't control is the core engine of the case. Altman's testimony puts numbers on what was previously a more abstract dispute about mission and betrayal.

Musk's Position	Actual Outcome
90% equity (opening demand)	Zero equity; $38M charitable donation
Majority control at all times	Left board in 2018 with no equity stake
Control passed to heirs on death	OpenAI foundation governed independently
Tesla merger as alternative	Rejected; OpenAI raised outside capital
Altman and Brockman removed	Both still in leadership at $852B company

Musk's current demand - $150 billion in damages redirected to OpenAI's charitable arm - values his grievance at roughly 4,000 times what he actually put in. The trial opened April 28 with two surviving claims from an original 26 allegations: breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment.

Sam Altman at the Oakland federal courthouse on Day 10 of the trial. Source: localnewsmatters.org

The 2023 Firing Resurfaces

Musk's lawyers spent significant time on cross-examination revisiting Altman's 2023 removal by the board - the crisis that briefly cost him his job before a staff-backed reinstatement.

What Former Colleagues Said on the Stand

Former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, in a 2023 internal memo entered into the trial record, described a "consistent pattern of lying" in Altman's conduct. Former board member Helen Toner testified to a "pattern of behavior" that drove the November 2023 vote. Former CTO Mira Murati sent a text message during the crisis that read simply: "Sam this is very bad."

Altman didn't take the bait. He declined to call the firing evidence of dishonesty, describing it instead as a "miscommunication." When Musk's lawyer Steve Molo opened cross-examination by asking "Are you completely trustworthy?", Altman paused before affirming: "I believe I am an honest and trustworthy businessperson."

"If I had known how difficult and painful it would be, I would never have tried... But it was awesome," Altman said, reflecting on building OpenAI.

Altman also acknowledged that during 2017 negotiations he had considered running for governor of California - a detail Musk's lawyers introduced to argue Altman's ambitions were always personal rather than mission-driven.

Microsoft Is the Quiet Third Rail

Satya Nadella testified the day before Altman, on May 11. His message was precise: Musk never raised concerns about the Microsoft investment partnership to him directly. That matters because Microsoft is named as an aider and abetter of the alleged charitable trust breach.

Microsoft has put roughly $13 billion into OpenAI since 2019. The current dispute over OpenAI's cloud exclusivity arrangements runs parallel to this case. A finding that Microsoft's investment aided a breach of trust would expose those arrangements to legal scrutiny - and potentially complicate the IPO structure.

The Oakland courthouse exterior during the third week of trial proceedings The Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and US Courthouse in Oakland. Source: localnewsmatters.org

Counter-Argument

Musk's legal team has a coherent case, and it doesn't fully depend on the 90% equity claim.

The central argument isn't that Musk deserved control. It's that ordinary donors - researchers, early employees, and supporters who backed OpenAI when it was structured as a nonprofit - were defrauded of a charitable promise. Altman's equity-demand testimony is damaging for Musk personally, but it doesn't directly answer whether the 2025 for-profit conversion violated charitable trust law under which donations were originally made.

Altman's own defense acknowledged the tension. "I do not believe I could get $200 billion into a nonprofit," he told the court - arguing the conversion was necessary, not opportunistic. But "necessary" and "legally permissible under charitable trust law" are different standards, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, not the advisory jury, makes the final call on that question.

"This is not looking good for any of them... at a time when the public perception of AI is quite negative," said Sarah Kreps, director of the Cornell Tech Policy Lab.

What the Market Is Missing

The IPO is the number almost nobody is saying out loud in court, but it explains everything about the case.

OpenAI is valued at $852 billion. A potential public offering could exceed $1 trillion. The nonprofit arm - which the conversion preserved in a governing role - would receive shares in any IPO. How much it receives, and whether the conversion terms hold legally, determines whether that charitable foundation is fairly compensated or quietly diluted by the time the stock starts trading.

Outside the courthouse as trial proceedings continue in week three Outside the Oakland courthouse as the trial entered its third week. Source: localnewsmatters.org

Musk's real target may not be the $150 billion in nominal damages. It's the conversion terms. A ruling that the 2025 restructuring violated charitable trust law would force a renegotiation of the nonprofit arm's stake before any IPO proceeds. At $852 billion and climbing, even a small percentage shift in the foundation's share is worth billions in absolute terms.

Closing arguments are Thursday. Judge Rogers has given no timeline for a ruling. The 90% equity figure is now part of the public record, whatever the outcome - and it has permanently changed how the founding of OpenAI will be described.

Sources: