OpenAI published a blog post titled 'Apple is getting this wrong' rejecting Apple's trade secrets suit, per The Verge and Tom's Hardware.
Background: Why Is Apple Suing OpenAI, Chang Liu, Tang Tan, and io Products?
Apple filed the lawsuit in July, alleging that OpenAI stole trade secrets through former Apple employees, according to Tom's Hardware. The case names OpenAI technical staff Chang Liu, chief hardware officer Tang Tan, OpenAI itself, and io Products as defendants. Liu worked as a senior electrical engineer at Apple before joining OpenAI's technical team, while Tan spent 25 years at Apple, most recently as vice president of product design for the iPhone, AirPods and Apple Watch, before becoming OpenAI's chief hardware officer, Tom's Hardware and The Verge both reported.
io Products, one of the named defendants, was founded by Tan alongside former Apple Chief Design Officer Jony Ive and other former Apple executives, and was acquired by OpenAI last year, according to Tom's Hardware. The outlet also noted that OpenAI's first hardware product is expected to be a portable smart speaker with built-in cameras and sensors — not an iPhone replacement, but something some experts say could challenge Apple's standing in consumer electronics.
Did Chang Liu Steal Apple Secrets? Do the Unreturned-Computer and Cloud-Access Claims Hold Up?
Apple's lawsuit alleges that Liu failed to return a company-owned computer and used an authentication vulnerability to access Apple's cloud-based network storage weeks after leaving the company, according to The Verge. OpenAI's blog post pushes back directly, saying 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." OpenAI adds that 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," The Verge reported.
Did Tang Tan Ask Apple Employees for Confidential Information During Interviews? How Does OpenAI Explain His Conduct?
Apple's lawsuit also alleges that Tan asked for confidential Apple information when interviewing Apple employees for OpenAI jobs, and instructed interviewees to showcase Apple components they had worked on, per The Verge. In response, OpenAI says Tan "has always been clear with the team that we do not want, and must not use, any confidential information from other companies," according to the same report.
Procedural Missteps and Internal Management Responsibility
OpenAI's blog post also disputes Apple's claim that OpenAI failed to respond to its initial inquiries. According to The Verge, OpenAI says Apple "now admit that their outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names," and that Apple has conceded it never had a discussion with OpenAI's General Counsel. OpenAI ties this to the Liu cloud-access allegation as well, arguing that the "residual access" Apple points to reflects Apple's own failure to properly manage system access when employees leave, rather than wrongdoing by Liu — the same framing it used to rebut the unreturned-computer claim.
Is Apple's Claim of "Irreparable Harm" Without an Injunction Well-Supported?
Reuters reports, via The Verge, that Apple asked for a preliminary injunction on Monday to prevent Liu, Tan, and OpenAI from accessing, acquiring, using, or disclosing alleged confidential information while the lawsuit moves ahead. In its court filing, Apple stated: "Apple will be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction," Tom's Hardware reported. Beyond that filing language, the available reporting from both outlets does not lay out further factual detail supporting the harm claim.
How Does OpenAI Rebut Apple's Allegations Overall? Why Call the Lawsuit "Careless, Aggressive, and Oddly Personal"?
In a blog post published overnight titled "Apple is getting this wrong," OpenAI said Apple's lawsuit accusing it of stealing trade secrets is "careless, aggressive, and oddly personal," sharing iMessage and email exchanges to challenge allegations central to the case, according to The Verge. OpenAI further stated: "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." Tom's Hardware quoted the post further: "Apple is one of the greatest companies of all time, and built a reputation for obsessing over the smallest details. This careless, aggressive and oddly personal lawsuit sadly doesn't live up to that reputation."
What This Means
Apple asked the court for a preliminary injunction on Monday and told the court it "will be irreparably harmed" without one. Yet by OpenAI's account — which cites Apple's own admissions — Apple's outside lawyers emailed the wrong person after confusing two Asian last names and never discussed the dispute with OpenAI's General Counsel before that filing. The same rebuttal frames the disputed Liu cloud-access episode as originating with Apple employees asking him for help, then attributes the "residual access" issue to gaps in Apple's own offboarding process rather than to Liu. Put together, the sequence described across the two outlets — a July filing, a Monday injunction request, and an overnight blog rebuttal invoking "careless, aggressive and oddly personal" — shows the two companies contesting not only the underlying facts but the process by which Apple investigated and escalated them.