New evidence in the Musk v. OpenAI lawsuit shows that even Microsoft executives expressed concerns about OpenAI’s transformation from a nonprofit to a commercial venture, questioning whether the shift aligned with the expectations of the organization’s original donors.
Court filings from January 15, 2026, reveal internal Microsoft communications from March 2018 that capture early reactions to OpenAI’s commercial ambitions. The emails, now part of the discovery process, show Microsoft’s leadership grappling with the implications of OpenAI’s strategic pivot just weeks after Elon Musk’s resignation from the OpenAI board.
The Proposal
In March 2018, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shared plans with Microsoft to launch what he described as a new commercial venture focused on delivering integrated AI training hardware and related services to the market. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella circulated Altman’s proposal internally among his executive team for review.
An Insider’s Concern
The response from Kevin Scott, Microsoft’s Chief Technology Officer, raised pointed questions about the propriety of OpenAI’s planned transformation. Scott wondered whether the major donors who had funded OpenAI were aware of these commercial plans.
His concern centered on a potential ideological mismatch. Scott questioned whether donors had funded what they understood to be an open, nonprofit effort to attract machine learning talent, only to see that foundation used to build a closed, for-profit enterprise.
I wonder if the big OpenAI donors are aware of these plans? Ideologically, I can’t imagine that they funded an open effort to concentrate [machine learning] talent so that they could then go build a closed, for profit thing on its back.
The Timing
The timing of these communications is significant. Musk had just resigned from OpenAI’s board in February 2018, citing conflicts of interest with Tesla’s AI work. Within weeks, Altman was presenting commercial venture plans to Microsoft, one of the technology industry’s most powerful players.
Scott’s email suggests that even potential partners in OpenAI’s commercialization were questioning whether this direction represented a departure from the organization’s founding mission and the reasonable expectations of those who had supported it financially.
What Makes This Evidence Significant
The email is noteworthy for several reasons. First, it comes from a senior executive at Microsoft, which would later become OpenAI’s primary commercial partner and investor. Scott’s concern that the transition might contradict donor expectations echoes the central argument in Musk’s lawsuit.
Second, the question about whether donors were aware of the plans suggests that the commercial pivot was not broadly communicated or may have represented a departure from what supporters understood OpenAI’s mission to be.
Third, Scott’s characterization of the original effort as “open” and the new venture as “closed” highlights the fundamental tension at the heart of the dispute: whether OpenAI abandoned its commitment to open research in favor of proprietary, profit-driven development.
Microsoft’s Subsequent Role
Despite Scott’s initial reservations, Microsoft went on to become OpenAI’s closest partner, investing billions of dollars in the company and integrating its technology across Microsoft’s product line. The partnership has proven enormously valuable to both organizations, with OpenAI’s ChatGPT and GPT models becoming central to Microsoft’s AI strategy.
However, Scott’s March 2018 email captures a moment before that partnership solidified, when even a potential collaborator questioned the ethical and ideological implications of OpenAI’s transformation.
Implications for the Case
For Musk’s legal team, Scott’s email provides evidence that concerns about OpenAI’s departure from its nonprofit mission were not limited to Musk himself. The fact that a sophisticated technology executive at a major corporation immediately identified potential problems with the shift may support arguments that the transformation represented a significant departure from the organization’s original commitments.
The email also demonstrates that questions about donor awareness and consent were raised contemporaneously, not merely constructed after the fact for litigation purposes.
The Broader Context
These revelations come alongside other evidence in the case, including personal notes from OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman showing internal debates about converting to a for-profit structure while reassuring Musk of the organization’s nonprofit commitment.
Together, the evidence paints a picture of an organization in transition during 2017 and 2018, with leadership exploring commercial options while managing relationships with founding donors who had supported a different vision.
As the litigation continues, more details about OpenAI’s evolution and the communications surrounding its transformation are likely to emerge, providing insight into one of the most consequential organizational restructurings in the technology industry.