Judge Denies xAI’s Request for OpenAI’s Source Code in Apple AI Litigation
In a significant development within the ongoing legal battle over AI integration in Apple’s iOS, a federal judge has denied X and xAI’s motion to compel OpenAI to disclose its proprietary source code. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the lawsuit, emphasizing the judiciary’s cautious approach to the disclosure of sensitive intellectual property.
Background of the Case
X and xAI initiated legal proceedings against Apple and OpenAI, alleging that the incorporation of ChatGPT into Apple’s iOS ecosystem unfairly disadvantages competing AI products, notably their own AI system, Grok. The plaintiffs contend that this integration creates an uneven playing field, hindering the competitiveness of alternative AI solutions.
The Motion for Source Code Disclosure
To substantiate their claims, X and xAI sought access to OpenAI’s source code. They argued that examining this code was essential to determine whether Grok could be seamlessly integrated into Apple’s platform, thereby assessing the feasibility of fair competition.
OpenAI’s Defense and Judicial Ruling
OpenAI opposed the motion, asserting that technical constraints, rather than preferential treatment, were the primary reasons Grok could not be integrated into Apple’s AI features. U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray Jr. concurred with OpenAI’s position, ruling that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient efforts to obtain the necessary information through less intrusive means.
In his order, Judge Ray stated:
> The Court concludes that OpenAI’s source code is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and is not within the scope of discovery under Rule 26. Although OpenAI’s source code certainly would be of great interest to Plaintiffs, Rule 26 does not require its disclosure.
The judge further noted that X and xAI have alternative methods to assess the integration potential of Grok without necessitating access to OpenAI’s proprietary systems.
Rejection of Alternative Legal Strategy
In an additional legal maneuver, X and xAI proposed that OpenAI’s refusal to disclose its source code should be interpreted as an admission that Grok could indeed be integrated into Apple’s operating system. Judge Ray dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the court would not compel OpenAI to produce its most sensitive proprietary information or infer technical concessions from its refusal to do so.
Pattern of Discovery Disputes
This ruling is part of a broader pattern of contentious discovery disputes in the case. Despite the lawsuit being less than five months old, the court docket already contains over 135 entries, many related to discovery issues. This history reflects the court’s limited tolerance for expansive discovery requests that may be perceived as fishing expeditions.
A similar setback occurred when South Korea’s government denied X and xAI’s request for documents from Kakao, a major super app operator, citing the request’s overly broad scope and lack of proportionality to the case’s needs.
Implications and Future Directions
While this ruling restricts one avenue of evidence collection for X and xAI, the lawsuit continues. The decision underscores the judiciary’s protective stance toward source code, recognizing it as one of the most sensitive forms of business information. Moving forward, the plaintiffs will need to rely on alternative forms of evidence, such as documents, expert testimony, and technical analyses, that do not require access to OpenAI’s core systems.
