Musk's Secret Settlement Texts to OpenAI Rejected

Musk Tried to Settle Privately — Then Threatened OpenAI Leaders

Elon Musk secretly texted OpenAI co-founder and president Greg Brockman just days before the second week of their federal trial, attempting to broker a private settlement. When Brockman did not respond with a clear answer, Musk allegedly wrote: 'By the end of this week, you and Sam Altman will be the two most hated people in America.'

The explosive revelation came during testimony on May 5 at the U.S. federal courthouse in Oakland, California, where the high-stakes Musk v. OpenAI lawsuit entered its second week. Brockman took the witness stand and disclosed a series of previously confidential details — including that his equity stake in OpenAI is worth nearly $30 billion, despite never having invested any personal funds into the company.

Key Takeaways From Brockman's Testimony

• Musk sent secret pre-trial text messages to Brockman attempting a settlement, then pivoted to threats when rebuffed
• Brockman's OpenAI equity is valued at approximately $30 billion
• Brockman never invested personal capital into OpenAI
• He received $10 million in equity from Sam Altman's family office early in OpenAI's history as a form of compensation
• Brockman holds equity in multiple companies that have significant partnership agreements with OpenAI
• Early personal diary entries were read aloud in court, revealing internal tensions dating back years

The Threatening Texts: What Musk Wrote Before Trial

According to court filings submitted late on the Sunday night before testimony began, OpenAI's legal team revealed that Musk had reached out to Brockman via text message approximately 2 days before the second week of proceedings. The texts, now part of the official court record, show Musk initially striking a conciliatory tone — probing whether a resolution could be reached outside the courtroom.

When Brockman reportedly failed to provide a definitive response, the tone shifted dramatically. Musk's final message warned that both Brockman and Sam Altman would become 'the two most hated people in America' by the week's end. Legal analysts have noted that such direct communication between a plaintiff and a defendant during an active trial is highly unusual and potentially problematic.

The texts add a dramatic personal dimension to what is already one of the most closely watched legal battles in the technology industry. Musk originally sued OpenAI alleging that the company abandoned its founding nonprofit mission by partnering with Microsoft and pursuing a for-profit structure worth tens of billions of dollars.

Brockman's $30 Billion Fortune Under the Microscope

Perhaps the most striking disclosure from Monday's testimony was the sheer scale of Brockman's personal wealth tied to OpenAI. Under aggressive cross-examination by Musk's lead attorney Steven Molo, Brockman confirmed that his equity stake in the AI company is valued at close to $30 billion — a figure that places him among the wealthiest individuals in the technology sector.

What makes this figure particularly significant in the context of the trial is that Brockman acknowledged he has never invested any of his own money into OpenAI. His wealth is entirely derived from equity grants received as a co-founder and executive.

Molo pressed Brockman on several related financial entanglements:

• Brockman received $10 million in equity from Altman's family office during OpenAI's early days, structured as compensation rather than an investment return
• He holds stock in several companies that maintain major commercial agreements with OpenAI
• These cross-holdings raise questions about potential conflicts of interest in OpenAI's partnership decisions
• The compensation structure evolved significantly as OpenAI transitioned from a nonprofit to a 'capped-profit' entity

For context, Brockman's $30 billion stake would make him wealthier than many Fortune 500 CEOs. It stands in stark contrast to OpenAI's original 2015 founding charter, which emphasized that the organization existed to benefit humanity rather than to enrich individuals — a central pillar of Musk's legal argument.

The Quiet Co-Founder Steps Into the Spotlight

Brockman has long been the least visible of OpenAI's three central figures — overshadowed by Altman's public persona and Musk's outsized media presence. Yet his role in the company's founding was deeply personal. He famously offered his own apartment as OpenAI's first office, a detail that underscores how intimately he was involved in the organization's earliest days.

During Monday's testimony, Molo introduced excerpts from Brockman's personal diaries, written during OpenAI's formative period. While the full contents have not been made public, courtroom observers reported that the entries revealed internal debates about the organization's direction, compensation philosophy, and the tension between its mission-driven origins and growing commercial ambitions.

Brockman's testimony painted a picture of a co-founder who was simultaneously idealistic about AI safety and pragmatic about the financial realities of building a world-class research organization. This duality is at the heart of the case — Musk argues that pragmatism won out over principle, while OpenAI contends that its structural changes were necessary to compete with deep-pocketed rivals like Google DeepMind and Anthropic.

Industry Context: Why This Trial Matters Beyond the Courtroom

The Musk v. OpenAI case has implications that extend far beyond the personal grievances of billionaire tech founders. It is effectively a proxy battle over the future governance of artificial intelligence — specifically, whether organizations that begin with nonprofit, safety-oriented missions can legitimately pivot to for-profit structures when the technology they develop becomes extraordinarily valuable.

Several key industry dynamics are at play:

• Microsoft has invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI and integrated its technology across products like Copilot, Bing, and Azure
• Musk's own AI company, xAI, raised $6 billion in late 2024, making him both a plaintiff alleging commercial harm and a direct competitor
• The trial could set legal precedent for how AI startups structure their organizations, particularly those initially founded as nonprofits or research labs
• Regulatory agencies including the California Attorney General's office are monitoring the case for potential implications on nonprofit governance law
• The outcome may influence how future AI ventures balance safety commitments with commercial pressures

Compared to previous tech industry lawsuits — such as the Oracle v. Google API copyright case or the Epic v. Apple antitrust battle — this trial touches on uniquely modern questions about AI governance, existential risk, and the concentration of transformative technology in for-profit hands.

What This Means for the AI Industry

For developers and businesses building on OpenAI's platform, the trial introduces a layer of uncertainty. A ruling in Musk's favor could theoretically force structural changes at OpenAI, potentially affecting API pricing, partnership terms, or even the company's corporate structure.

For investors, the revelation of Brockman's $30 billion stake — and the complex web of cross-holdings between OpenAI executives and partner companies — raises governance questions that could influence valuations across the AI sector. OpenAI was most recently valued at $300 billion in its latest funding round, making it the most valuable private company in the world.

For AI safety advocates, the trial is surfacing internal documents and communications that provide an unprecedented window into how one of the world's most influential AI organizations made critical decisions about its mission and structure.

Looking Ahead: What Comes Next in the Trial

The trial is expected to continue for several more weeks, with additional witnesses likely to include other OpenAI executives, Microsoft representatives, and potentially Sam Altman himself. Legal observers anticipate that Musk's legal team will continue pressing on the financial enrichment angle — arguing that OpenAI's leaders personally benefited from betraying the organization's founding principles.

OpenAI's defense is expected to emphasize that the structural changes were made transparently and were necessary to attract the capital required to develop frontier AI models like GPT-4 and GPT-5. The company has previously argued that Musk himself supported early discussions about a for-profit transition before his departure from the board in 2018.

Regardless of the verdict, the trial is already reshaping public understanding of how OpenAI evolved from a small nonprofit in Greg Brockman's apartment to a $300 billion juggernaut — and who profited along the way. The secret texts, the $30 billion fortune, and the diary entries all contribute to a narrative that will define how the AI industry thinks about mission, money, and accountability for years to come.