Law

TL;DR Apple sued OpenAI on July 10, 2026 in the Northern District of California, alleging the company stole trade secrets “at every level” to build its own hardware - CNBC Central to the claim: Tang Tan, OpenAI’s hardware chief and a former Apple VP, allegedly told job candidates still employed at Apple to bring “actual parts” to interviews for show-and-tell, and circulated an Apple offboarding document that taught new hires how to dodge exit security checks A separate allegation names Chang Liu, a former Apple systems electrical engineer, who allegedly kept an Apple-issued laptop after joining OpenAI in 2026 and used it to pull confidential documents on unannounced Apple products OpenAI’s on-record response: “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets. We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” Two days later, on July 12, Elon Musk and Sam Altman traded insults on X - Musk opened with “Scam Altman strikes again,” Altman replied with a post that hit 11 million views - CNBC The spat lands seven weeks after a jury dismissed Musk’s own lawsuit against Altman and OpenAI on May 18, 2026, and while both SpaceX (public since June 12) and OpenAI (confidentially filed for IPO) are courting the same public markets Three storylines collided this week, and it’s worth pulling them apart before deciding how much any of it matters. Apple filed a serious federal lawsuit against OpenAI over alleged theft of hardware trade secrets. Two days later, Elon Musk and Sam Altman were back to public insults on X, in a feud that has now run for the better part of a decade. And underneath both, two of the most valuable private companies on the planet - SpaceX and OpenAI - are mid-transition to public markets, which changes the stakes of looking undisciplined in public. ...

TL;DR The EU AI Act is now in force with full enforcement of high-risk AI requirements from August 2026, carrying fines of up to 7% of global turnover - this is no longer a distant deadline Over fifty copyright lawsuits against AI developers are working through US courts, and the EU Copyright Directive puts the burden of verifying training data rights on the AI developer, not the rights holder Courts in multiple jurisdictions are consistently finding that deploying AI does not transfer liability to the vendor - “the AI did it” is not a defence that holds up The US has no comprehensive federal AI law; instead, businesses must navigate a patchwork of state statutes (California, Colorado, New York, Texas) alongside existing federal agency enforcement from the FTC, CFPB, and FDA The “move fast and figure out the legal stuff later” era is over - enough of the legal framework has arrived that the gaps are no longer a safe place to operate For the past few years, AI law has been one of those topics that felt perpetually five minutes away. Governments would announce frameworks. Committees would publish white papers. Experts would debate what the rules should eventually look like. ...

If you’ve ever compared a Behringer Model D or Poly D to a classic Moog, you might have thought: “Wait… that looks exactly like a Minimoog!” Yet somehow, Behringer isn’t breaking any laws. How does that work? The answer lies in the fascinating intersection of patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade dress - the legal forces that shape hardware synth design. Patents: The Clock Ticks Out Patents are the most obvious form of protection for inventors. They grant exclusive rights to an invention for a limited time - usually 20 years. Once a patent expires, the invention becomes public domain. ...