In the intellectual property theft case filed by Apple against OpenAI, the connection process between the parties became a matter of debate. While Apple claims that OpenAI does not respond to complaints of trade secret theft, the ChatGPT developer denies this claim, pointing to the carelessness of Apple lawyers.

Email records shared by NBC show that OpenAI actually responded to Apple’s arguments. This situation makes the accuracy of the accusation in Apple’s lawsuit document that OpenAI remained silent and controversial.

Misaddressed Emails and Legal Process

It is claimed that Apple’s external legal advisors confused the surnames of two employees within OpenAI. It is stated that this confusion between employees with the surnames Chang and Wang is related to former Apple employee Chang Liu.

It is believed that the legal group sent to the wrong e-mail addresses or made a filing mistake. Apple apologized after realizing this mistake, but it remains unclear how communication between the parties progressed from this point on.

Company rules within OpenAI require that emails threatening legal action be forwarded directly to the legal department. For this reason, even an e-mail sent to the wrong person is expected to reach the relevant units within the company.

Although Apple’s statement in the judicial document that OpenAI did not respond does not change the general course of the case, it weakens the theses that are reflected in the public. It is not yet clear at what stage the disconnection between the two companies occurred.

The Future of Litigation and Communication Problems

Apple’s accusations of trade secret theft continue regardless of this confusion in email traffic. However, Apple’s decision to proceed through legal advisors instead of directly contacting OpenAI CEO Sam Altman raises questions.

As in the case between Apple and Samsung in the past, it seems that the details of this case will remain secret for a long time. The current situation focuses on the disconnection between the parties rather than the systematic theft theses that form the basis of the case.

The word “no response” in Apple’s petition stands out as an eye-catching detail rather than a legal argument. OpenAI uses this situation as an opportunity to refute Apple’s arguments.

In the later stages of the case, the evidence presented by the parties and the full texts of the e-mail records will shed light on the process. It remains a matter of curiosity why Apple did not follow a more direct connection route for making such a big accusation.

Do you think Apple’s email confusion will affect the course of the case?