OpenAI published an unbylined blog post overnight, responding in public — but not yet in court — to Apple’s new motion for a preliminary injunction. It’s an unusual move to respond to a high-stakes legal filing with a blog post, but OpenAI is an unusual company. A few snippets from their post, and some commentary:
Apple had claimed that they contacted OpenAI in February and that we didn’t respond. They now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names — only after we brought this to their attention.
OpenAI is hanging on to the fact that Apple’s outside counsel, Gabriel Gross, sent one email to the wrong address, and quickly emailed an apology. In OpenAI’s phrasing, it sounds like Apple’s attorney sent the entire initial letter of concern to the wrong person, and that’s why OpenAI never responded — because it wasn’t sent to the correct person (OpenAI general counsel Che Chang). That’s not what happened. The initial blockbuster “hey we think you guys are stealing our trade secrets and we want to talk to you about it” letter was sent to Che Chang. And Che Chang never did respond to Apple’s lawyers. That a mistaken email thanking Che Chang for a phone call that never happened (because that email was intended for another OpenAI employee) was also sent is irrelevant. I don’t understand why OpenAI is continuing to focus on this inconsequential mistake. (Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction includes the full text of the mistaken email and subsequent apology.)
Apple accuses Chang Liu of accessing Apple confidential information after leaving the company, but only now admits that Apple employees reached out to him and asked for his help to locate this information (you can read the messages here). Apple now tries to shift the blame to “residual access”, but they also don’t disclose that this is a common issue with Apple which is caused by them failing to properly manage system access when people leave. What that means in practice is that former employees who are trying to do the right thing when they leave still have access to Apple files — despite not wanting them or even being aware of them.
OpenAI is seemingly alluding to Apple’s unusual use of iCloud Drive, tied to employees’ personal Apple Account IDs, that I (coincidentally?) wrote about yesterday. Apple’s motion for injunction, however, addresses this very point. From page 3 of the motion:
Mr. Liu resigned on Thursday, January 22, 2026, and provided notice that he would start at OpenAI the following Tuesday. On his last day, he failed to respond to Apple’s attempt to schedule his exit interview or sign his confidentiality reminder.
In the days following his departure, Mr. Liu seemed initially cooperative and aware of his obligations to Apple. He worked with others on his former Apple team to return certain Apple information remaining on his personal iCloud account to Apple.1 He also continued to converse with former co-workers, for example, to answer questions about his earlier work and where certain information was stored. But these interactions and exchanges cannot explain the repeated, unauthorized downloading of voluminous technical files from Apple’s cloud-based storage discussed below, which Mr. Liu performed on multiple occasions from February to April 2026 while employed by OpenAI.
That footnote reads:
1 While Apple seeks discovery into what Apple confidential information Mr. Liu accessed from his personal storage accounts (including iCloud) and devices after his departure, the specific unauthorized downloads referenced in the complaint and at the heart of this motion are not based on iCloud activity, but instead relate to Apple’s third-party cloud storage.
Nowhere in any of Apple’s filings (here’s the Court Listener index page for all the documents filed in the case) does it say who the third-party cloud storage provider is, but I’m almost certain it’s Box, which I know is widely used throughout Apple.
The iMessage transcripts that OpenAI provides at the bottom of their post do not contradict Apple’s claims at all. Apple’s motion states that Liu helped former colleagues find certain documents that were in iCloud; that’s what OpenAI’s transcript shows. But that’s not in dispute. Apple also claims that Liu accessed confidential information, presumably in Box and definitely not in iCloud Drive, on five different occasions, up until 27 April 2026, over three months after he left Apple. These chat transcripts offer no explanation for that. The chat transcripts explain iCloud Drive access that Apple itself says is not in dispute, and do not explain the 37 documents Liu downloaded from the third-party cloud provider (Box?) that Apple says are at the heart of naming him in the lawsuit. Here is Apple’s declaration from digital forensic specialist Daniel Roffman, documenting Liu’s access to confidential files post-employment (albeit with significant redactions).
I do not understand why OpenAI is treating this as a PR problem instead of as a legal problem. Dan Moren, linking to it from Six Colors, is of similar mind, writing:
What kept running through my head while reading this was the old legal chestnut: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Thus far this feels like table-pounding from OpenAI to me. Their blog post does, however, move the ball from “we have no interest” in Apple’s trade secrets to “we don’t have them”, (emphasis added):
Apple also accuses Tang Tan of trying to get and use their trade secrets. However, Tang has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies. Tang served Apple for more than 24 years and was widely known as one of the most innovative leaders at the company. [...]
Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction is both based on false information and completely unnecessary because we do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets. We’re much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier.
To me, the most interesting response from OpenAI wasn’t their blog post. It was an email released by Apple, as “Exhibit F” to one of their expert declarations submitted to the court last night. OpenAI has retained the renowned law firm Quinn Emanuel as outside counsel, and this exhibit is a long email from Quinn Emanuel attorney Patrick Curran to Apple’s attorneys. From that email, dated Monday July 20, Curran writes:
You also ask that we “revisit” the specific points proposed in your July 15 letter. It appears that you want to move backwards. As noted, we already discussed these during our meet and confer but Apple was unable to respond to basic questions my colleagues raised about these requests. For example, your letter proposes that OpenAI “[p]roduce witnesses to testify at deposition” but Apple was unable to identify who those witnesses would be. Similarly, Apple was unsure when we asked if it was actually proposing that hundreds of OpenAI employees fill out “questionnaires” even if Apple has no basis to allege (and is indeed not alleging) that such employees have any connection to this litigation. The seven sections in your letter are broadly worded and remain vague and general. This is not what a forensic protocol looks like and we’re sure you understand that you will not get this as relief from the court. You first need to (preliminarily) identify the TS you are suing for, and your email states that you “appreciate the need” to do so. Any protocol will be informed by such identification. A forensic protocol cannot be based on general terms like “Apple confidential information”; you need to tell us what you’re looking for, and it sounds like you understand that and are prepared to do so. The efficient way forward is therefore to tackle these issues as part of the negotiation of a proper, detailed forensic protocol. If you instead prefer to move for a PI because OpenAI did not agree off the bat to subject hundreds of employees to “questionnaires” about “Apple confidential information” generally, that is unfortunate — and inconsistent with what I understand both our clients have requested. If you choose this path instead of working with us, we look forward to filing an opposition that sets the record straight.
Apple, obviously, did choose this path (“PI” = preliminary injunction), and I too look forward to OpenAI’s setting the record straight, especially if they do so in plainspoken language like Curran’s in this email. Curran continues:
Finally, although I know OpenAI would like to resolve this amicably, as their counsel I have to tell you what I think you already know — this case lacks merit. You have not articulated any basis to support a preliminary injunction. Your complaint is predicated on a misrepresentation of facts and allegations that are speculative at best. It fails to even remotely identify any trade secrets. You are attacking ordinary business practices (used widely across the industry). You are complaining about situations that you have caused, including through your own procedures and decisions. We stand ready to oppose any preliminary injunction motion and tell the world what really happened here to set the record straight. We made clear we would prefer to quickly and collaboratively address any legitimate concerns that your client has, but that is not well-served by repeated threats.
This email is a far better response than what OpenAI published on their blog.
Instagram Engineering
Shopify Engineering