So you are saying that, on “the data”, Microsoft would not be in a materially worse business position given the OpenAI chaos if the security of their rights to OpenAI models in the event of a breakdown in their existing relationship was perceived as insecure?
Because otherwise the chain of reasoning is:
The licensing is secure, because Nadella says so, and Nadella can be trusted because if he was lying it would be securities fraud, and Nadella wouldn't commit securities fraud even if it would benefit Microsoft’s and, therefore, his interests.
To be frank, it's entirely possible that Sam could have been fired for agreeing to a contract like this without board approval because the existential risk OpenAI constantly faces dramatically increases the likelihood that OpenAI investors -- besides Microsoft -- would never be made whole in the case of an implosion. The "Adam D'Angelo spite" hypothesis is possible, too, but it seems far less likely that the board of such a valuable company -- no matter how inexperienced and feckless they might be -- would risk tanking the company on the personal vendetta of a single director.
That alone translates into Microsoft doesn't need to commit fraud, all they need to do is sit back and watch the rest implode and come out winners. They don't even have to sue, all they need to do is do nothing and OpenAI is toast.
That press release from MS the other day is a bowshot, not a promise. 'Play ball or else' with the 'or else' bit conveniently left to the imagination of the recipient.
Satya does not sound like someone communicating from a position of strength - he's been repeatedly assuring his shareholders that no matter what happens, their AI plans moving forward are secure. They need stability, not chaos, because whatever clear lead it seems they have right now could be quickly be eclipsed in the coming months.
Committing securities fraud and accepting a fine would pale in comparison to the potential value erosion.
MSFT actually is fighting for its life. GPT4 is an intriguingly useful curiosity, Later GPTs had the potential to be culturally, politically, financially and technically revolutionary.
That likely won't happen now. We'll get some kind of enshittified prohibitively expensive mediocrity instead.
Ok. That's funny. But if this turns out to be the piece of the apple that MS ends up choking on then maybe it was all worth it?
Could someone suggest Adam D'Angelo for the boards of Facebook, Google and Twitter please. Oh, wait...
Of the slate of $1-3T tech companies the question of "where can we go from here?"... this is where, and the winners will be the first $10T enterprises.
They come out smelling like roses already and it can only get better, not worse for them going forward.
I read this whole situation as putting pressure on OpenAI to come to their senses and quick.
That we are in violent agreement on, the board should negotiate to be allowed to flee indemnified for the fall-out of their action. But if they do not OpenAI is done for, Anthropic has already indicated they are not going to be there to pick up the pieces, and Google and Meta will try to poach as many employees as they can by being 'not Microsoft' (which has a fair chance of working).
So there is damage, but it isn't over yet and for the moment Microsoft looks as though they hold the most and the most valuable cards already. After all they already have 49%. Another 2% as a suing-for-peace pacifier and they're as good as kings.
Unlikely doesn't mean it doesn't happen and the more high profile a case the more likely the SEC will do something about it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/10-ceos-who-went-bo...
I don't think the average citizen will care so much. When it comes to white collar crime making some white lies to bolster shareholder confidence is not in the same orbit as the type of massive fraud for notable jail time cases over the last couple decades.
At worst it should be a moderate SEC fine, perhaps a shareholder lawsuit if things don't turn out favorable. And this is assuming a lot that has to go wrong.
The links to politicians, lobby efforts, the US economy, etc, etc... means something really egregious has to happen for jail time to be an issue w/ high level white collar crime.
EDIT: Since I can't respond further to the chain - tons of people cared about Martha Stewart. They were sick of people in high society getting a slap on the wrist for things like this. It definitely was a cathartis... esp. from someone so unlikely.
I'm trying very hard not to let my personal feelings about Microsoft cloud my judgment and if anything happened to Microsoft I wouldn't shed a tear (and might even open a bottle of bitter lemon). I don't see them committing an own goal like that.
But, I don't think we're going to agree on this.
> That alone translates into Microsoft doesn't need to commit fraud
My prior that “the only possible benefit to securities fraud is in circumstances of imminent existential risk” is clearly weaker than yours. Also, if Microsoft's description of the licensing situation is misleading, the existential risk to OpenAI—which makes it more likely that someone else ends up with control of its assets—makes the risk to Microsoft greater, not less.
Change of control is a very standard clause in Escrow arrangements and it may have been subtly worded specifically to ensure that control of the company remained friendly to Microsoft interests given that they did not have a board seat. That's pretty much the only way they should have accepted that construct. If they didn't they were dumb and you can say a lot about Microsoft (I know I have and they're a shit company in my opinion) but they know the legal world like few other tech companies.
He could have worded it in a far safer way and had the same benefit if he wanted to as well.
IMO, odds are low he’s lying about this. It would likely look much different if he was trying to.
If you don't want Microsoft to take everything, "stop hitting yourself."