# Musk vs Altlman & Taylor Swift Trademarks

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 7 May 2026, 37 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/fbefa4a4-30dc-4ee7-9693-b443002825da/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Bloomberg legal reporter Madlin Mekelburg discusses the high stakes trial where Elon Musk is facing off against Sam Altman over the future of Open AI. Then Cynthia Katz, a music partner at Fox Rothchild, discusses Taylor Swift applying for trademarks for her voice and image. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: Elon Musk is facing off against Sam Altman at a
[0:12] Speaker 2: high stakes trial that could determine the future of open Ai.
[0:17] Speaker 2: The California trial is the culmination of years of animosity
[0:21] Speaker 2: in public feuding over the startup. They found it together
[0:25] Speaker 2: more than a decade ago, before their relationships soured. Musk
[0:30] Speaker 2: claims that Altman and other leaders at OpenAI enriched themselves
[0:35] Speaker 2: by abandoning its altruistic principles and converting it from a
[0:39] Speaker 2: full nonprofit research organization to a for profit company. While
[0:44] Speaker 2: Altman and open Ai are accusing Musk of harassment and
[0:49] Speaker 2: say the real goal of his lawsuit is to undercut
[0:52] Speaker 2: competition with his own startup, XAI. The first witness was
[0:57] Speaker 2: Musk himself. He tried to portray the steaks in the
[1:01] Speaker 2: case as existential, saying he wanted to prevent a terminator
[1:05] Speaker 2: like situation and basically repeating a warning he gave years ago.
[1:10] Speaker 2: There's some chance that is above zero that AI will
[1:13] Speaker 2: kill us.
[1:13] Speaker 1: Well, I think it's low.
[1:14] Speaker 2: But at some chance. The stakes in the trial are
[1:18] Speaker 2: incredibly high and maybe even existential for open AI because
[1:23] Speaker 2: Musk is asking the court to unwind its for profit
[1:27] Speaker 2: conversion that was just completed in October. Joining me is
[1:31] Speaker 2: Bloomberg legal reporter Madelin Meckelberg, who's covering the trial, So Madlin.
[1:35] Speaker 2: Even before the opening statements in the trial, the judge
[1:40] Speaker 2: took Musk and Altman to task for some social media posts.
[1:45] Speaker 3: So just ahead of trial, if you were online on
[1:49] Speaker 3: x you saw a lot of posts coming from Musk
[1:52] Speaker 3: in his account talking about quote scam Altman, his nickname
[1:57] Speaker 3: that he has for Sam Altman, and seemingly promoting social
[2:02] Speaker 3: media posts that included a New Yorker article about Sam
[2:06] Speaker 3: Altman and his conduct on the board of open Ai.
[2:09] Speaker 3: And open Ai also was posting things on social media.
[2:13] Speaker 3: They have a running blog post where they kind of
[2:15] Speaker 3: provide updates on the status of the Elon Musk situation,
[2:19] Speaker 3: I think is what they call it. And when they
[2:22] Speaker 3: got to court first thing on Monday, before they talked
[2:24] Speaker 3: about anything else with the trial, the judge basically reprimanded
[2:28] Speaker 3: both sides and said you need to I think she
[2:31] Speaker 3: said the words control your propensity to use social media,
[2:35] Speaker 3: and she warned them that it may be making things
[2:37] Speaker 3: worse outside the courtroom, and she had Elon Musk come
[2:40] Speaker 3: up and stand in front of her as she gave
[2:42] Speaker 3: this warning, and he agreed that he would not post
[2:45] Speaker 3: anything or at least limit his posting about the case.
[2:49] Speaker 2: The opening statements are the first chance for the parties
[2:53] Speaker 2: to tell their story to the jury give us the
[2:56] Speaker 2: high points of the openings.
[2:58] Speaker 3: So we heard opening statements from the three main parties
[3:02] Speaker 3: in this case, being Elon Musk, Open Ai, and then Microsoft.
[3:06] Speaker 3: Elon Musk, I think we've heard his argument by now,
[3:09] Speaker 3: but basically he's alleging that Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. Essentially,
[3:15] Speaker 3: he keeps saying the words stole a charity. He says
[3:18] Speaker 3: that they enriched themselves by converting this nonprofit entity into
[3:23] Speaker 3: a for profit company, and in doing so, abandoned the
[3:27] Speaker 3: mission that they had at the beginning, which was creating
[3:30] Speaker 3: AI for good. And during opening statements we heard a
[3:34] Speaker 3: lot from them about Sam Altman and Greg Brockman's removal
[3:38] Speaker 3: from open AI's board and kind of the twenty twenty
[3:41] Speaker 3: two to twenty three era, and about how there was
[3:44] Speaker 3: a lack of trust from them from people at open Ai.
[3:47] Speaker 3: We saw some email exchanges talking about how much money
[3:51] Speaker 3: Elon Musk contributed to the foundation, kind of showing that
[3:56] Speaker 3: he was a major party in starting this from the beginning.
[3:59] Speaker 3: And then open AI's attorneys got up and they tried
[4:02] Speaker 3: to paint a different picture, of course, of the situation.
[4:05] Speaker 3: They showed emails where Elon Musk was trying to get
[4:09] Speaker 3: control of open ai when they were discussing forming a
[4:12] Speaker 3: for profit entity back in the day when he was
[4:15] Speaker 3: still affiliated with the organization, and their attorney basically was
[4:19] Speaker 3: trying to paint this case as a really simple one
[4:21] Speaker 3: where Musk was a disgruntled former employee of open ai
[4:25] Speaker 3: who was upset that they didn't want to go with
[4:27] Speaker 3: his vision of the company. He left formed a competitor,
[4:31] Speaker 3: and now he's turning around trying to undercut open ai
[4:35] Speaker 3: and harm one of his competitors in the AI space
[4:38] Speaker 3: and his former company that he helped found. And then
[4:41] Speaker 3: of course there's also the Microsoft element of this. They
[4:44] Speaker 3: tend to come in after the fact that they are
[4:46] Speaker 3: a key player in the lawsuit, and that's because Musk
[4:50] Speaker 3: has accused them of essentially aiding and abedding this theft
[4:54] Speaker 3: that he describes of a charity. And so we heard
[4:57] Speaker 3: from Microsoft talking about that they made an open AI,
[5:01] Speaker 3: why they decided to make those investments, and everything we're
[5:04] Speaker 3: hearing from them over and over is pretty consistent, so
[5:07] Speaker 3: that their actions were above board. They had no part
[5:10] Speaker 3: in anything that they say may or may not have
[5:12] Speaker 3: been happening.
[5:13] Speaker 2: And Musk was the first witness.
[5:15] Speaker 3: Yes, Musk was the first witness called to the stand,
[5:17] Speaker 3: and he spent about three days testifying, answering questions from
[5:20] Speaker 3: his own attorneys and then a little more heated questions
[5:23] Speaker 3: from open AI's attorneys.
[5:25] Speaker 2: So let's talk about the direct testimony first, the easy
[5:28] Speaker 2: testimony when you're a lawyer, quess you what was the
[5:31] Speaker 2: main point he was trying to get across on direct.
[5:35] Speaker 3: So I think the main point that Elon Musk was
[5:37] Speaker 3: trying to make is, and I keep saying this because
[5:40] Speaker 3: he kept saying it on the stand, is it's not
[5:42] Speaker 3: okay to steal a charity. We heard him say that
[5:45] Speaker 3: over and over again in response to many questions. And
[5:49] Speaker 3: it's really interesting across all of the testimony that we've
[5:52] Speaker 3: heard so far, everyone kind of describes these early days
[5:55] Speaker 3: when Musk was still at open AI really similarly, and
[5:58] Speaker 3: they all kind of agreed that there was discussion about
[6:02] Speaker 3: the need for more funding to support their research and
[6:05] Speaker 3: the need to maybe pursue some kind of for profit component,
[6:08] Speaker 3: and Musk said during his testimony that he had no
[6:12] Speaker 3: problem with creating a for profit company to support a nonprofit,
[6:16] Speaker 3: but he felt things crossed the line when they decided
[6:19] Speaker 3: to convert the nonprofit to a for profit. And he
[6:23] Speaker 3: described this situation as three phases of disillusionment with open AI,
[6:29] Speaker 3: and it kind of started with him being happy, pleased
[6:31] Speaker 3: with the mission. Then he started to get concerned that
[6:34] Speaker 3: they were moving in the direction that he didn't agree with.
[6:37] Speaker 3: This was around twenty seventeen twenty eighteen when he did
[6:40] Speaker 3: ultimately leave the board. And then he said Phase three
[6:43] Speaker 3: kind of started in around twenty two when he was
[6:46] Speaker 3: convinced that they did in fact steal a charity. And
[6:49] Speaker 3: so we heard from him a lot about that. About
[6:51] Speaker 3: his support of open AI, he says it wouldn't have
[6:54] Speaker 3: existed without him, And in the beginning he came up
[6:57] Speaker 3: with the name, he brought his guidance, his leaders, his vision,
[7:01] Speaker 3: and most importantly, his money.
[7:03] Speaker 2: He was trying to portray the stakes of the case
[7:05] Speaker 2: as existential, saying several times that AI could quote kill
[7:10] Speaker 2: us all if it's not developed safely, and the judge
[7:13] Speaker 2: eventually told him to stop repeating that phrase.
[7:16] Speaker 3: That's right. So this idea of AI safety is a
[7:19] Speaker 3: big one. That's another part of Musk's case and his
[7:23] Speaker 3: argument for why he's so concerned about this decision to
[7:27] Speaker 3: turn open Ai into a for profit company. And he
[7:30] Speaker 3: said that we need somebody responsible leading AI. There's all
[7:35] Speaker 3: these private companies whose interests are motivated by profit and investors,
[7:40] Speaker 3: and that's why he wanted a nonprofit in this space.
[7:43] Speaker 3: And they had an expert that they called to testify
[7:46] Speaker 3: four Musk's case who was going to talk about the
[7:49] Speaker 3: threats of AI, and that includes this existential threat that
[7:53] Speaker 3: Musks describes of AI someday being smarter than humans and
[7:58] Speaker 3: leading to our demise essential and the judge did reprimand
[8:02] Speaker 3: them and say, you know, this case is not about
[8:05] Speaker 3: AI safety. I don't want to hear about this anymore.
[8:08] Speaker 3: Because Musk kept saying he was trying to prevent a
[8:10] Speaker 3: terminator situation talking about the movie franchise. She said, that's
[8:15] Speaker 3: not what this case is about. It's not about AI safety,
[8:18] Speaker 3: and so that expert's testimony was cut quite short, I
[8:20] Speaker 3: think as a result of that, and we have not
[8:22] Speaker 3: heard that line from us since then.
[8:25] Speaker 2: If Mosk testified to being so concerned about for profit
[8:29] Speaker 2: AI companies, was he questioned about starting his own AI company,
[8:34] Speaker 2: AIX where there have been many complaints about it's grock
[8:39] Speaker 2: chat box for having harmful and sexualized images.
[8:44] Speaker 3: That was a big subject of his cross examination. And
[8:48] Speaker 3: that's okay, If you were so worried about this, why
[8:50] Speaker 3: did you start another for profit? Why didn't you start
[8:53] Speaker 3: a nonprofit when you decided to start XAI. And I
[8:57] Speaker 3: don't think we got a super clear answer from us
[9:00] Speaker 3: on that decision. He kept saying, you know, as I've said,
[9:03] Speaker 3: I have no problem with a for profit. The problem
[9:06] Speaker 3: is if you have a nonprofit and turn it into
[9:08] Speaker 3: a for profit. But you know, that's of course getting
[9:11] Speaker 3: at the details of this case, but not entirely answering
[9:14] Speaker 3: this question of why he decided to do that versus
[9:16] Speaker 3: starting a nonprofit. And I think at one point he said,
[9:19] Speaker 3: why would I do that? I already started a nonprofit
[9:22] Speaker 3: and it was open ai and they stole it. And
[9:24] Speaker 3: so I think Musk's own company is a really key
[9:27] Speaker 3: part of the open AI case because exactly as you said.
[9:31] Speaker 3: He's still a player in this space. He's pursuing something
[9:34] Speaker 3: that he said and acknowledged during testimony that it is
[9:37] Speaker 3: a safety risk, but it also puts him at a
[9:40] Speaker 3: competitor level with open AI, and so it adds this
[9:43] Speaker 3: whole other component to the case.
[9:45] Speaker 2: Musk has testified many times, but on cross it seems
[9:49] Speaker 2: like he's not following the basic rules of being cross examined,
[9:54] Speaker 2: that he's always trying to take over and one up
[9:58] Speaker 2: the lawyer who's questioned him. For example here, so he's
[10:02] Speaker 2: on the stand and he accused open AI's attorney of
[10:05] Speaker 2: asking a leading question, and the judge asked Musk to
[10:09] Speaker 2: repeat four words after her, I'm not a lawyer.
[10:13] Speaker 3: That's right, and that exchange actually went on. She said
[10:16] Speaker 3: you're not a lawyer, are you? And he says, no,
[10:18] Speaker 3: I'm not a lawyer. And she says, you didn't take
[10:20] Speaker 3: any classes on evident Harry law, did you? And he said, well,
[10:23] Speaker 3: actually I took law one oh one and she said, okay, well, still, okay, you're.
[10:28] Speaker 2: Not a lawyer.
[10:29] Speaker 3: Stop. Definitely fair to characterize him that way. I think
[10:33] Speaker 3: obviously on direct exam he has a lot more freedom
[10:35] Speaker 3: to tell his side of the story, but on cross
[10:38] Speaker 3: he became visibly irritated with the attorney for Open AI.
[10:42] Speaker 3: He kept telling him his questions weren't fair. And you know,
[10:46] Speaker 3: lawyers love to say answer the question that I'm asking you.
[10:49] Speaker 3: You're not answering my question. It's yes or no. It's
[10:51] Speaker 3: a simple question. And Musk reply it often that you know,
[10:54] Speaker 3: your questions aren't simple. They need context, they need explanation.
[10:58] Speaker 3: And so it was a pretty interesting cross exam where
[11:02] Speaker 3: you know, you have this lawyer trying to get something
[11:04] Speaker 3: out of him, and Musk is resisting kind of at
[11:06] Speaker 3: every turn.
[11:07] Speaker 2: Talk about being a lawyer. At one point he said,
[11:09] Speaker 2: this case will become case law and become precedent to
[11:12] Speaker 2: looting every charity in America. Okay, stay with me, Madeline.
[11:16] Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll continue
[11:19] Speaker 2: this conversation about the Open AI trial. There was one
[11:23] Speaker 2: question that seemed easy to give a yes or no
[11:26] Speaker 2: answer to, but Musk resisted. Did he invest one billion
[11:30] Speaker 2: dollars in Open AI. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
[11:35] Speaker 2: to Bloomberg. The high stakes trial in California that could
[11:40] Speaker 2: determine the future of open Ai isn't its second week.
[11:44] Speaker 2: Elon Musk is facing off against Sam Altman, claiming that
[11:48] Speaker 2: open Ai betrayed its altruistic mission in pursuit of profit.
[11:53] Speaker 2: The highlight of the testimony so far was the three
[11:56] Speaker 2: days Musk was on the stand on cross examining. Musk
[12:00] Speaker 2: had several heated exchanges with William Savat, the attorney who
[12:05] Speaker 2: represents open Ai, and became visibly irritated as Savat questioned
[12:11] Speaker 2: whether he had backed off his financial commitment to the
[12:14] Speaker 2: startup in the early years. I've been talking to Bloomberg
[12:17] Speaker 2: legal reporter Madlin Mecklberg. So as we discussed Madlin, Musk
[12:23] Speaker 2: resisted answering yes or no to questions, and at one
[12:26] Speaker 2: point Savat questioned him, quote, at the end of it,
[12:30] Speaker 2: you didn't contribute a billion dollars to open Ai, did you.
[12:34] Speaker 2: Savath wanted a yes or no answer, which Musk would
[12:38] Speaker 2: not give until the judge intervened and Tolmusk to answer
[12:42] Speaker 2: the question, which he still didn't give a yes or
[12:45] Speaker 2: no answer to explain the importance of this point.
[12:49] Speaker 3: Right, So, his financial commitments to open Ai are a
[12:53] Speaker 3: big part of this case because obviously he's trying to
[12:56] Speaker 3: say that he donated this money under certain circumstances and
[13:00] Speaker 3: they've now violated that mission that he thought this money
[13:03] Speaker 3: was going to fund. But yes, we saw during the
[13:05] Speaker 3: course of trial a few different statements that Musk has
[13:08] Speaker 3: made publicly about how much money he's given to open Ai.
[13:12] Speaker 3: When they first launched in twenty fifteen, they did so
[13:14] Speaker 3: with a commitment from him that he would eventually donate
[13:17] Speaker 3: as much as a billion dollars, and then he left
[13:20] Speaker 3: the board in twenty eighteen, and then later we saw
[13:23] Speaker 3: a post from him on x in twenty twenty three
[13:26] Speaker 3: where he said that he donated one hundred million dollars
[13:29] Speaker 3: to open Ai, which is obviously a big drop down
[13:33] Speaker 3: from one billion, But through questioning from the attorney, he
[13:37] Speaker 3: revealed that he had given thirty eight million dollars in
[13:40] Speaker 3: total to open ai before he departed, and so an
[13:43] Speaker 3: even bigger dropped down from the one billion dollars that
[13:46] Speaker 3: he had pledged to commit in the early days, and
[13:49] Speaker 3: that money was through quarterly donations that he was making,
[13:53] Speaker 3: but also rent that he was paying on an office
[13:55] Speaker 3: building for open Ai. And this is, you know, this
[13:57] Speaker 3: is an important issue because it gets at this question
[14:01] Speaker 3: of how much Musk was really involved in open AI,
[14:05] Speaker 3: how much stake he had in this, and then of
[14:07] Speaker 3: course there's this attempt to impeach a witness and show
[14:10] Speaker 3: that you know, he's sometimes says things that don't turn
[14:13] Speaker 3: out to be true.
[14:15] Speaker 2: On the whole, how do you think his testimony went,
[14:18] Speaker 2: how'd he come across?
[14:19] Speaker 3: He's an interesting character, and you know, there were a
[14:22] Speaker 3: lot of fireworks, like we're saying, But at the end
[14:24] Speaker 3: of the day, I think the person we saw in
[14:26] Speaker 3: the stand was Elon Musk. Like there weren't necessarily any
[14:29] Speaker 3: surprises in how he was presenting himself. As you say,
[14:32] Speaker 3: he's testified before, he speaks publicly a lot. We kind
[14:36] Speaker 3: of get a stream of consciousness from him on his
[14:38] Speaker 3: social media, so I don't think there's anything. You know,
[14:41] Speaker 3: it wasn't like, oh my gosh, I can't believe he
[14:43] Speaker 3: said that. But I will say they definitely really were
[14:48] Speaker 3: grilling him on cross exam, and I don't know that
[14:50] Speaker 3: he totally helped his case. I think it's really early
[14:54] Speaker 3: to tell, but I think he made a few key concessions,
[14:57] Speaker 3: including talking about the difference in find commitments that he made.
[15:01] Speaker 3: He said at one point that there was no paperwork
[15:04] Speaker 3: that he signed outlining the terms and conditions of his
[15:07] Speaker 3: donation to open AI. I think that was an important point,
[15:11] Speaker 3: and so I think it maybe didn't go as smoothly
[15:14] Speaker 3: as he would have wanted it to go. But that
[15:17] Speaker 3: being said, at the same time, he also had plenty
[15:20] Speaker 3: of time to make his own case, and I think
[15:22] Speaker 3: jurors definitely understood kind of where he was coming from
[15:25] Speaker 3: this too.
[15:26] Speaker 2: So I know during jury selection his connection to Trump
[15:30] Speaker 2: and his position at DOGE came up, which some people
[15:34] Speaker 2: held against him. Did any of that come up during
[15:37] Speaker 2: his testimony.
[15:38] Speaker 3: No, So they tried, but the judge said, we're not
[15:41] Speaker 3: going to go there if there's some kind of pre
[15:43] Speaker 3: trial agreement limiting certain subjects that could be asked, because
[15:47] Speaker 3: obviously this case has such huge characters and such hop
[15:50] Speaker 3: on issues that there's so much they ground they could
[15:53] Speaker 3: really cover, and she's trying to keep it very narrow
[15:55] Speaker 3: to the issues at hand. And at one point Musk
[15:58] Speaker 3: was testifying about meeting that he had with President Obama
[16:02] Speaker 3: when he was still in office about AI safety, and
[16:05] Speaker 3: so the lawyers for Open AI were saying, okay, like
[16:07] Speaker 3: he's opened the door to like talking about his government advocacy.
[16:11] Speaker 3: We want to ask him about his relationship with the
[16:13] Speaker 3: Trump administration, and the judge said that was a no go,
[16:16] Speaker 3: So we didn't get into that on the stand.
[16:18] Speaker 2: An experienced judge, and she seems to really be keeping
[16:23] Speaker 2: control of her courtroom and she's not letting anything slide.
[16:27] Speaker 3: That's honestly kind of an understatement. She runs a tight ship,
[16:32] Speaker 3: and that means that sometimes when the jury's not in
[16:35] Speaker 3: the room, the lawyers are getting a little snappyness from her.
[16:39] Speaker 3: She really has no patience for nonsense, I think, and
[16:44] Speaker 3: we'll cut people off and just say I'm not interested
[16:46] Speaker 3: in hearing about that argument, Like, let's move on to
[16:49] Speaker 3: something else. And I think she's got a really packed calendar,
[16:53] Speaker 3: and we hear that from her a lot in some
[16:55] Speaker 3: of the pre trial hearings, and so I think it's
[16:57] Speaker 3: really important to her that this case stick on schedule,
[17:00] Speaker 3: will and get done. And I think, kind of like
[17:02] Speaker 3: I was saying, there's a lot of potential pitfalls here
[17:05] Speaker 3: and a lot of avenues where this case could turn
[17:07] Speaker 3: and become about something else, And so we're really seeing
[17:10] Speaker 3: her working hard to kind of keep them on track,
[17:13] Speaker 3: keep them focused on this issue, and she's a really
[17:15] Speaker 3: important part of this case. Because we talked about last
[17:19] Speaker 3: time I was on here with you that the jury
[17:21] Speaker 3: decision is going to be advisory, and so the end
[17:24] Speaker 3: of the day, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who's the judge, She's
[17:28] Speaker 3: going to get the final say on who wins and
[17:30] Speaker 3: what the damages should be. So it's really important for
[17:33] Speaker 3: her to get what she needs out of the testimony
[17:36] Speaker 3: as well.
[17:36] Speaker 2: It's been said that this trial is an existential threat
[17:40] Speaker 2: to the company. Explain why what Musk is asking for.
[17:44] Speaker 3: If he wins a lot, he's asking for as much
[17:48] Speaker 3: as one hundred and thirty four billion dollars, And we
[17:50] Speaker 3: say that because his request is based on kind of
[17:52] Speaker 3: open Ay's valuation right now, which is always fluctuating, but
[17:56] Speaker 3: he's pledged to not keep that money. He wants to
[17:59] Speaker 3: donate that much back to the open Ai Foundation, which
[18:02] Speaker 3: is the nonprofit arm of open Ai that still exists today.
[18:05] Speaker 3: And then in addition to that, he's asking for Sam
[18:08] Speaker 3: Altman and Greg Brockman should be removed from their leadership
[18:11] Speaker 3: positions at the company, and he wants a coret order
[18:14] Speaker 3: unwinding this for profit conversion that open AYE kind of
[18:18] Speaker 3: spent the last year working towards and so these are
[18:21] Speaker 3: huge things that any one of them being allowed to
[18:25] Speaker 3: happen could totally shake open AIE and kind of put
[18:28] Speaker 3: them on a path to an uncertain future at this point,
[18:31] Speaker 3: but it really remains to be seen how seriously the
[18:34] Speaker 3: judge is considering all of those options. She's bifurcated this trial,
[18:38] Speaker 3: so the jury is just hearing arguments on liability, and
[18:41] Speaker 3: then once they go to deliberate on that, the judge
[18:44] Speaker 3: is going to hear arguments from the lawyers on these damages.
[18:48] Speaker 3: So if she decides to rule in musks favor, then
[18:51] Speaker 3: she's going to have to decide what is the appropriate
[18:54] Speaker 3: remedy here because some of these are pretty extreme.
[18:57] Speaker 2: Very extreme, and is looking to go public this year.
[19:02] Speaker 3: Open AI is definitely eyeing a public offering at this point,
[19:07] Speaker 3: and it could be one of the largest in history.
[19:09] Speaker 3: I think the last valuation we have for them is
[19:12] Speaker 3: eight hundred and fifty two billion dollars, which is, you know,
[19:16] Speaker 3: a mind boggling number. So that also is adding to
[19:19] Speaker 3: the pressure here and the stakes making him so much higher.
[19:23] Speaker 2: Open AI's Greg Brockman was the next big witness to
[19:27] Speaker 2: testify tell us what he said.
[19:29] Speaker 3: That's right, Greg Brockman, who is the president of open
[19:32] Speaker 3: ai currently and was one of these original co founders
[19:36] Speaker 3: with Elon Musk. His testimony covered a lot of ground,
[19:39] Speaker 3: a lot of similar ground to Elon's Musk's testimony, of course,
[19:43] Speaker 3: where we heard him talk about these early days at
[19:45] Speaker 3: the startup and kind of the dissolution of their relationship essentially.
[19:50] Speaker 3: I think one thing that we heard from him yesterday
[19:52] Speaker 3: that was very interesting was him talking about kind of
[19:56] Speaker 3: early concerns that he Sam Altman and Ilia Setskivier had
[20:01] Speaker 3: with Musk. Setskeger being one of the engineers at open
[20:04] Speaker 3: ai and one of the founders as well, and he
[20:07] Speaker 3: told this anecdote about how Musk was shown a really
[20:11] Speaker 3: early model of chat GPT, or the language model that
[20:15] Speaker 3: would become chat GPT, and he said Musk was very
[20:18] Speaker 3: dismissive of it. He called it stupid and said something
[20:21] Speaker 3: kids on the internet could do a better job making.
[20:24] Speaker 3: And to Greg Bruckman, he said that made him feel
[20:27] Speaker 3: like someone like Musk shouldn't be in charge of this
[20:29] Speaker 3: endeavor because he lacks the ability to dream a little
[20:32] Speaker 3: and see kind of the potential of this technology, which
[20:35] Speaker 3: at that stage in the twenty fifteen twenty sixteen time
[20:39] Speaker 3: is really essential. And so he had a kind of
[20:41] Speaker 3: a zinger and court he was saying, you know, he
[20:44] Speaker 3: knows rockets, he knows electric cars. He did not, and
[20:47] Speaker 3: I believe does not know AI and that was a
[20:50] Speaker 3: major concern. So we heard him really go hard on Musk,
[20:54] Speaker 3: as we expected him to.
[20:56] Speaker 2: But how did he hold up on cross did Musk's
[20:59] Speaker 2: attorney school or any points.
[21:01] Speaker 3: One of the things that they really were focusing on
[21:04] Speaker 3: was the amount of money that he has made from
[21:07] Speaker 3: his involvement with open Ai, because we heard that he
[21:10] Speaker 3: invested zero dollars in creating the for profit company. He
[21:16] Speaker 3: did not donate anything to open ai in the early days,
[21:19] Speaker 3: and now his stake in the startup is worth almost
[21:21] Speaker 3: thirty billion dollars. He testified. I think that was new
[21:24] Speaker 3: information to us on the stand, and so he had
[21:27] Speaker 3: an interesting back and forth with Elon Musk's attorney about
[21:31] Speaker 3: how he had made so much money given that he
[21:34] Speaker 3: had not put anything in. And there's a key journal
[21:37] Speaker 3: entry that we heard from Brockman from a journal that
[21:40] Speaker 3: he has maintained about his professional and personal life, and
[21:44] Speaker 3: there's one entry in twenty seventeen where he was kind
[21:47] Speaker 3: of considering what steps open AI should take, and he
[21:50] Speaker 3: wrote in his entry, financially, what will take me to
[21:53] Speaker 3: one billion dollars? And that's a line that Musk's attorneys
[21:57] Speaker 3: have really seized on because their whole case is arguing
[22:00] Speaker 3: that these guys sought to enrich themselves by turning this
[22:03] Speaker 3: nonprofit into a for profit company, and they're saying this
[22:06] Speaker 3: line shows that that's what he was focused on. His
[22:09] Speaker 3: motivations were personal finance and enrichment, and so they were
[22:14] Speaker 3: asking him about that line, and Brockman told them that,
[22:17] Speaker 3: you know, I was feeling like we were in a
[22:19] Speaker 3: fork in the road. It wasn't about making myself richer.
[22:22] Speaker 3: I was trying to decide if we should go with
[22:24] Speaker 3: this vision Elon Musk had presented, or this other vision
[22:27] Speaker 3: that we had been considering. And my thought was, if
[22:30] Speaker 3: I can reach a billion dollars, I'll feel like I'm good.
[22:32] Speaker 3: It's not going to matter which path I'm choosing. And
[22:35] Speaker 3: so of course Elon Musk's attorneys really seized on that response,
[22:39] Speaker 3: and he said, you know, over and over, so you're
[22:41] Speaker 3: good with a billion dollars. Why didn't you take the
[22:44] Speaker 3: twenty nine billion dollars that you have now over that
[22:48] Speaker 3: and donate it back to the nonprofit if you're so
[22:50] Speaker 3: good with a billion dollars. And so there was a
[22:53] Speaker 3: lot of back and forth fighting about this amount and
[22:56] Speaker 3: whether he should have, you know, not have such a
[22:58] Speaker 3: big stake in this fore propum but now and kind
[23:01] Speaker 3: of this one billion dollar goal that he had for himself.
[23:03] Speaker 3: So I don't know that that went great for Brockman
[23:07] Speaker 3: while he was on the stand. Definitely a lot of
[23:09] Speaker 3: interesting new details. I think another new detail that he
[23:13] Speaker 3: revealed while he was testifying is that OpenAI plans to
[23:17] Speaker 3: spend fifty billion dollars on compute needs this year, which
[23:22] Speaker 3: is a huge jump up from where they were in
[23:24] Speaker 3: twenty seventeen when they were spending about thirty billion dollars
[23:28] Speaker 3: on computing needs. So we also got insights from him
[23:30] Speaker 3: about kind of this scale and how much this enterprise
[23:33] Speaker 3: has really grown since those early days.
[23:35] Speaker 2: I was going to ask you if there were any
[23:37] Speaker 2: very incriminating, kind of mic drop pieces of evidence, but
[23:41] Speaker 2: that certainly seems like one. Thanks Madlin. We'll check back
[23:45] Speaker 2: with you to see how the trial's progressing. That's Bloomberg
[23:48] Speaker 2: Legal reporter Madlin Mecklberg coming up next on the Bloomberg
[23:52] Speaker 2: Law Show. Taylor Swift makes a rather novel legal move
[23:56] Speaker 2: to protect her voice and image. I'm June Grosso and
[23:59] Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg.
[24:03] Speaker 3: Heyday Day, Hey sage Shag.
[24:17] Speaker 2: Popstar Taylor Swift's image and voice have been used in
[24:21] Speaker 2: many AI generated images and deep fakes, including a twenty
[24:25] Speaker 2: twenty four post by then candidate Donald Trump that falsely
[24:29] Speaker 2: showed Swift endorsing him for the presidency. In a new
[24:33] Speaker 2: legal move, Swift seems to be stepping up her fight
[24:37] Speaker 2: against AI copycats and deep fakes. She's filed trademark applications
[24:42] Speaker 2: for these two audio clips.
[24:45] Speaker 1: Hey it's Taylor. My brand new album, The Life of
[24:48] Speaker 1: a Showgirl is out on October third, and you can
[24:50] Speaker 1: click to pre save it so you can listen to
[24:52] Speaker 1: it on Spotify. Hey it's Taylor Swift, and you can
[24:54] Speaker 1: listen to my new album The Life of a Showgirl
[24:57] Speaker 1: on demand on Amazon Music unlimited.
[24:59] Speaker 2: Swift also filed an application to trademark and image of
[25:03] Speaker 2: her on stage in a sequent outfit pink guitar in hand. Historically,
[25:08] Speaker 2: trademarks aren't designed to protect a person's general likeness, voice
[25:13] Speaker 2: or persona. But at least one Hollywood star, Matthew McConaughey,
[25:18] Speaker 2: has successfully trademarked his iconic line from the nineteen ninety
[25:22] Speaker 2: three film Dazed and Confused. All right, all right, all right,
[25:28] Speaker 2: These kinds of voice trademarks have never been tested in court.
[25:32] Speaker 2: My guest is Cynthia Katz, a music partner at Fox Rothschild.
[25:37] Speaker 2: Trademarks aren't usually used for this purpose, are they?
[25:41] Speaker 4: Sound as a potential source indicator ken be used as
[25:46] Speaker 4: a trademark, and has been done in the past in
[25:48] Speaker 4: some celebrity situations, but it is not the primary form
[25:53] Speaker 4: of protection for voice that is typically used, you know,
[25:57] Speaker 4: in the music business. And trademark really, its function at
[26:01] Speaker 4: its core is not to protect the owner of the mark,
[26:05] Speaker 4: rather than to look at preventing consumer confusion in the
[26:09] Speaker 4: marketplace and looking to preserve the consumer so that you know,
[26:13] Speaker 4: the consumer has a good source indicator, you know. So
[26:17] Speaker 4: mostly that turns into you know, I'm going to the
[26:18] Speaker 4: grocery store and I would see a logo, I want
[26:21] Speaker 4: to know that I can count on the quality behind
[26:23] Speaker 4: that product. Because that logo tells me something and it's
[26:27] Speaker 4: based on actual use, so that you know, people really
[26:30] Speaker 4: know that this means that I know who's making this product.
[26:33] Speaker 4: There have been some sort of iconic sounds, you know,
[26:36] Speaker 4: over the years that that have served as source indicators
[26:39] Speaker 4: that have been trademarked, and then celebrities in particular where
[26:43] Speaker 4: they have a very unique catchphrase, for example, which obviously
[26:47] Speaker 4: ties to the Matthew McConaughey all right, all right, you
[26:50] Speaker 4: know that's so iconic, and there are so many brands
[26:55] Speaker 4: that you know, would like to have that exact sound,
[26:58] Speaker 4: you know, maybe indicating a an endorsement. So you know,
[27:01] Speaker 4: in those sort of limited situations, it has been done before,
[27:05] Speaker 4: but it's certainly not the standard bearer for you know,
[27:09] Speaker 4: musicians in terms of protecting their voice.
[27:12] Speaker 2: Would this even qualify to be trademarked? In the case
[27:16] Speaker 2: of Matthew McConaughey, that's a phrase he's widely associated with.
[27:21] Speaker 2: You could almost hear his drawl saying it. But these
[27:24] Speaker 2: phrases from Taylor Swift don't stand out in any way.
[27:28] Speaker 2: I mean, is this even going to get a trademark?
[27:31] Speaker 5: I mean, I don't know.
[27:32] Speaker 4: Obviously, we'll have to see. But trademark is not a given.
[27:36] Speaker 4: You know, you have to show actual use in the
[27:39] Speaker 4: class that you are trying to register, and so you
[27:43] Speaker 4: have to show that you've used that exact phrase to
[27:48] Speaker 4: market or sell a product or service and you know
[27:51] Speaker 4: that you are using it as a source indicator. So,
[27:54] Speaker 4: I mean, Taylor Swift has a massive amount of product.
[27:58] Speaker 4: You go to, say like a target, and I don't know,
[28:00] Speaker 4: there might be a doll out there that looks like
[28:02] Speaker 4: a little girl with a microphone that goes, I'm Taylor Sweat.
[28:06] Speaker 4: You know, like if she does have products and services
[28:09] Speaker 4: out there where she can show that that phrase has
[28:12] Speaker 4: been used by her or her company as a you know,
[28:17] Speaker 4: mark origination from her, It's possible, but I think it's
[28:22] Speaker 4: a little bit, you know, might be a trickier hurdle.
[28:25] Speaker 4: Like often you see it's the tag on a clothing,
[28:29] Speaker 4: you know, back of a T shirt that shows this
[28:31] Speaker 4: is where this came from, or it is the branding
[28:35] Speaker 4: on a website that describes a particular type of service,
[28:39] Speaker 4: you know, the evidence to show people that this is
[28:42] Speaker 4: out there in the marketplace as a source indicator. I
[28:46] Speaker 4: am not familiar with a product that Taylor has put
[28:50] Speaker 4: out using those particular catch phrases. But I don't know
[28:54] Speaker 4: her full suite, you know, I do know more so
[28:57] Speaker 4: than the traditional artist's she's.
[28:59] Speaker 5: A in the sense of she's got.
[29:02] Speaker 4: A lot of branded goods out there, so if she
[29:05] Speaker 4: can show it, it's possible, and I don't know also
[29:08] Speaker 4: for sure how you know, there's some such subjectivity into
[29:12] Speaker 4: all of this. You're going to have an examiner who's
[29:13] Speaker 4: a person at the end of the day sitting in
[29:16] Speaker 4: the trademark office, and they are going to probably understand
[29:21] Speaker 4: who Taylor Swift is and what she's trying to do,
[29:24] Speaker 4: and it's possible that they may give her more deference
[29:26] Speaker 4: than they perhaps would to somebody else just trying to
[29:30] Speaker 4: trademark their voice, because you know, if she's trying to
[29:33] Speaker 4: protect my understanding is against deep fakes, you know, and
[29:36] Speaker 4: the like, and.
[29:36] Speaker 5: They may they may give her some more deference there.
[29:39] Speaker 5: I don't know.
[29:40] Speaker 2: So suppose she does get it trademarked and she wants
[29:43] Speaker 2: to go against a deep fake, can she only go
[29:46] Speaker 2: against one where these particular words are spoken.
[29:50] Speaker 4: Yes, So that is exactly you know, She's going to
[29:53] Speaker 4: get only the very specific marks there's some like expanded
[29:58] Speaker 4: so you only registers Pacific class of goods. But if
[30:02] Speaker 4: it's sort of within the realm of a likely extension
[30:05] Speaker 4: of that, there's a little bit of leeway there, a
[30:07] Speaker 4: little bit of access, you know, if this is something
[30:09] Speaker 4: that naturally would be expanded upon. But it's going to
[30:12] Speaker 4: be limited to the mark, to the specific phrase that
[30:14] Speaker 4: she is registering.
[30:15] Speaker 5: It's not just generally my voice.
[30:18] Speaker 2: So then how far does that get her? If you know,
[30:21] Speaker 2: everyone is anticipating this is going to be used to
[30:24] Speaker 2: fight some of the deep fake AI. So if it's
[30:27] Speaker 2: just those two phrases, how far does that get her?
[30:31] Speaker 2: Not very far, not that far.
[30:33] Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know what's out there. Perhaps you know,
[30:36] Speaker 4: there have been some attempts already that she might be
[30:41] Speaker 4: aware of. Yeah, and she's doing what she can as well.
[30:44] Speaker 4: I would say, you know, look, right of publicity. Unfortunately
[30:47] Speaker 4: we don't have a federal right of publicity. You know,
[30:50] Speaker 4: it's a patchwork of states. It's not the best, you know,
[30:54] Speaker 4: adding more.
[30:55] Speaker 5: To your potential arsenal.
[30:57] Speaker 4: You know, it's not that cost at all, relatively speaking,
[31:01] Speaker 4: to file a trademark application and go through the process.
[31:05] Speaker 4: I mean, if I were her, I would do everything
[31:07] Speaker 4: I could to add to my potential arsenal of things
[31:11] Speaker 4: that I could use to go against people, So why not.
[31:14] Speaker 4: I think it also helps just to put it out there.
[31:17] Speaker 4: The pr and the press of the hey, I'm not
[31:20] Speaker 4: going to stand for this. Look at what I'm doing
[31:22] Speaker 4: should kind of put the world on notice as well
[31:24] Speaker 4: that you know, you might want to think twice before
[31:27] Speaker 4: you do a deep fake with Taylor Swift because she's she's.
[31:30] Speaker 5: Not into it, so you know, that helps.
[31:32] Speaker 4: And then there's also you know, the likeness aspect of
[31:35] Speaker 4: it as well. I don't know, but it seems like
[31:38] Speaker 4: some people might have tried to put images of her,
[31:41] Speaker 4: you know, saying these phrases, looking a certain way and
[31:44] Speaker 4: manipulating them, and you know, there probably was something out
[31:47] Speaker 4: there that they found that this might be you know,
[31:50] Speaker 4: reactionary too. So usually something happens and she's upset and
[31:55] Speaker 4: she calls her lwords is what can we do?
[31:57] Speaker 5: And they say, okay, here's some ideas.
[31:59] Speaker 4: So it's certainly not going to be one hundred percent
[32:02] Speaker 4: fool proof, but can only help. And I think there
[32:05] Speaker 4: is a big thing to it it being out there,
[32:07] Speaker 4: as you can see in the press, picking it up
[32:09] Speaker 4: and putting the world on notice. You know that she's
[32:12] Speaker 4: ready to fight, so that might be part of the
[32:14] Speaker 4: strategy as well.
[32:15] Speaker 2: She has filed more than three hundred trademark applications in
[32:19] Speaker 2: the US alone, so I think this is not unusual
[32:22] Speaker 2: for her. She's also trademarking a photo holding a pink
[32:26] Speaker 2: guitar with a black strap and wearing a multicolored irridescent
[32:30] Speaker 2: body suit with silver boots from one of her concerts,
[32:34] Speaker 2: So then again, it would only be that particular image
[32:39] Speaker 2: that would be trademarked, correct.
[32:41] Speaker 5: I mean with some leeway, you know, a little bit.
[32:44] Speaker 4: I think if you change the color of the boots slightly,
[32:46] Speaker 4: you know it's still going to get picked up. But
[32:49] Speaker 4: it's a specific image. Then you have to look at
[32:51] Speaker 4: the exact application and how she files it, you know,
[32:55] Speaker 4: where you make references to is she trying to get you.
[32:58] Speaker 5: Know, all of the colors or some of the color.
[33:00] Speaker 4: You have to describe the lines and then the depiction
[33:02] Speaker 4: in a certain way. And like there is some leeway
[33:05] Speaker 4: for things that are confusingly similar in nature, but it's
[33:09] Speaker 4: not a broad Anything that resembles Taylor Swift kind of thing.
[33:13] Speaker 4: You know, whoever creates the photos or the drawings, you know, photographers,
[33:17] Speaker 4: the copyright would best in them generally, but she's got
[33:20] Speaker 4: other avenues of protection. If people are using copyrighted photos
[33:24] Speaker 4: to make deep fakes and things like that.
[33:27] Speaker 2: What generally happens is her lawyers will send a cease
[33:30] Speaker 2: and desist letter, and I guess they can put in
[33:32] Speaker 2: it this is a trademarked image or trademarked voice.
[33:37] Speaker 4: It just adds to the potential claims and the potential
[33:40] Speaker 4: damages you know, that they can ask for in the
[33:42] Speaker 4: cease and desist, and you know, gives them more ammunition
[33:45] Speaker 4: of you violated this law and that law and this
[33:48] Speaker 4: and you know, and the penalties and the remedies under
[33:50] Speaker 4: the Landman Act federal are going to be you know,
[33:52] Speaker 4: some more substantial damages than just some of the patchwork,
[33:56] Speaker 4: depending what state we're in, of the right of publicity claims.
[33:59] Speaker 4: So yeah, that can be much more scary as well
[34:01] Speaker 4: to a potential recipient when you see large numbers and
[34:05] Speaker 4: potential consequences that you might just take it down. I
[34:10] Speaker 4: would be hard pressed that anybody if I got to
[34:13] Speaker 4: cease and desist from Taylor Swift's team that I wouldn't
[34:16] Speaker 4: just take it down.
[34:17] Speaker 2: So yeah, I mean, I don't know how much more
[34:21] Speaker 2: they need in their legal arsenal, but every bit counts,
[34:25] Speaker 2: I guess.
[34:26] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[34:26] Speaker 4: Although I will say this is I mean, I've seen
[34:29] Speaker 4: this on every news network, so everybody's covering it. I
[34:33] Speaker 4: think it's also helpful in general for and maybe this
[34:36] Speaker 4: might be part of her thought process for all celebrities
[34:40] Speaker 4: and all artists, because not everybody is in a position
[34:43] Speaker 4: to be Taylor Swift, and so if she starts to
[34:46] Speaker 4: set a precedent that other people can follow suit with,
[34:50] Speaker 4: it further strengthens the position of all celebrities to say,
[34:55] Speaker 4: you know, we're looking for avenues. And perhaps it starts
[34:58] Speaker 4: to impact those in in the lawmaking capacity as well.
[35:01] Speaker 4: You know, we've been we've been looking for some more
[35:03] Speaker 4: protections at AI develops to say, you know, we need
[35:08] Speaker 4: some strength that you know, we need to have some
[35:10] Speaker 4: precedent created, and whether that comes through the courts or
[35:12] Speaker 4: whether that comes through the legislatures for essentially famous people
[35:17] Speaker 4: not to have AI use their name, image, likeness, voice,
[35:22] Speaker 4: what not to imply endorsement of things that they don't endorse,
[35:26] Speaker 4: or you know, I think there's some pornographic things that
[35:29] Speaker 4: happen as.
[35:29] Speaker 5: Well, and all of that.
[35:31] Speaker 4: Her kind of getting out in front of this I
[35:33] Speaker 4: think helps everybody else who's in.
[35:35] Speaker 5: A similar book.
[35:36] Speaker 4: Granted it's only going to help celebrities who probably you know,
[35:41] Speaker 4: but there are different tiers of celebrities. I will say,
[35:43] Speaker 4: you know, kudos for to her and getting getting ahead
[35:46] Speaker 4: of it. And ultimately the goal of trademarkt all that
[35:50] Speaker 4: you know, is to prevent confusion in the marketplace from
[35:54] Speaker 4: from consumers not knowing if Taylor is really endorsing something
[35:57] Speaker 4: or not.
[35:58] Speaker 5: So it's a good sty if it's not enough, you know, it.
[36:02] Speaker 2: Helps adding some more ammunition to those ceasyn desist letters.
[36:06] Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Cynthia. That's Cynthia Katz of Fox Rothschild
[36:11] Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
[36:13] Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
[36:16] Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[36:20] Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
[36:26] Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[36:28] Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[36:32] Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.