Musk Went Straight to X — and Attacked the Judge

Musk didn't address reporters. He didn't show up to the courtroom when the verdict was read. He posted on X.

His statement: the judge and jury ruled on a "calendar technicality" — NOT on the merits. "There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!"

He went further. According to the New York Times, Musk called Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers an "activist Oakland judge, who simply used the jury as a fig leaf" for a decision that "creates such a terrible precedent."

Attacking a sitting federal judge after losing in her courtroom was his immediate response.

His Lawyer Apologized for Him in Court

Before the verdict, Musk's legal team had to apologize to the court because Musk violated a court order requiring him to remain available for potential further testimony.

He prioritized attending the Trump-Xi summit instead, according to Ars Technica. His lawyers sat with, per the New York Times' courtroom account, a "sunken" look when the verdict was announced. Musk was not there.

The Appeal Is Coming — But the Judge Already Signaled How She Feels

Lead counsel Steven Molo told Judge Gonzalez Rogers directly that Musk intends to appeal to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Attorney Marc Toberoff gave reporters a one-word statement walking out: "Appeal."

Toberoff later compared the loss to the Siege of Charleston and Battle of Bunker Hill during the Revolutionary War, according to Wired. "These were major losses for Americans, but who won the war?"

The judge's response to the appeal talk was blunt. According to CNBC and Engadget, Gonzalez Rogers told Musk's lawyers she was prepared to dismiss an appeal "on the spot." She added: "There's a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury's finding."

The comment suggested confidence in the verdict.

OpenAI's Lawyers Celebrated in the Hallway

Lead OpenAI attorney William Savitt — the same lawyer who spent days grilling Musk on the stand, and who notably used to work as Musk's lawyer — gave reporters a statement outside the courthouse.

"The finding of the jury confirms that what this lawsuit was: a hypocritical attempt to sabotage a competitor," Savitt told reporters, according to NPR.

He pushed back on Musk's "technicality" framing. "It's not a technical decision, it's a substantive one," Savitt told Wired. "It says you brought your claims too late, and you did it because you were sitting on them to use them as a weapon."

OpenAI's lawyers hugged in the courtroom. Back slaps in the hallway. According to the New York Times, Savitt was wearing "a wide grin."

Microsoft Piled On

Microsoft, which Musk had also sued for allegedly aiding OpenAI's restructuring, released a statement through spokesperson Alex Haurek: "The facts and the timeline in this case have long been clear, and we welcome the jury's decision to dismiss these claims as untimely."

Microsoft walked away without a scratch. The jury found zero liability for the $13 billion OpenAI investor.

What the Merits Question Actually Means for the Appeal

The jury — technically an advisory jury — never ruled on whether Altman and Brockman actually breached OpenAI's charitable trust. They ruled only that Musk sued too late.

Musk knew or should have known about OpenAI's for-profit shift as early as 2019–2021, according to ZeroHedge's summary of the jury's reasoning. He filed in 2024. The statute of limitations on the breach of charitable trust claim is three years.

According to MIT Technology Review's detailed breakdown of the trial timeline, Musk himself testified he went through three phases: enthusiastic support, losing confidence, then certainty that Altman was "looting the nonprofit." OpenAI's lawyers used that Phase Two against him — arguing it proved he knew something was wrong well before 2021.

On appeal, Musk's team will argue the clock should have started later. The 9th Circuit is not typically a friendly venue for long-shot reversals on statute of limitations rulings.

What the Trial Actually Revealed

The Atlantic, which covered the trial extensively, noted that everybody who testified came out looking bad. Altman was evasive, describing himself as an honest person with a hesitant "I believe so" before amending his answer. Former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati testified she couldn't trust Altman's words. Musk was "impish" and rambling on the stand.

The three-week trial revealed how the people running the most consequential technology in human history operate: through backroom deals, broken promises, and personal vendettas dressed up as principled disputes.

OpenAI is now valued at $730 billion. It is moving toward an IPO. The nonprofit restructuring Musk fought to undo is done. None of that changes because of the appeal.

What's Next

Musk lost, attacked the judge online, skipped the verdict reading, and announced an appeal the same day. His lawyers compared it to the Revolutionary War. OpenAI's lawyers hugged.

The 9th Circuit is next. Musk has money, lawyers, and motivation. What he doesn't have right now is a winning record in court.