In the Musk v. Altman trial, Misryoum reports that testimony about an xAI bid for OpenAI assets drew sharp judge scrutiny and objections.
A trial detail about an xAI bid for OpenAI assets slipped out just as courtroom routines were winding down, and the judge immediately took control of the moment.
During Elon Musk’s side of the case. Jared “James Brickhouse” Birchall testified about negotiations tied to a proposed bid for assets connected to OpenAI’s nonprofit.. Misryoum reports that the testimony began like standard record-building. with documents read in. before shifting at the end when a note was referenced and questions turned toward whether Sam Altman’s involvement crossed lines.
What stood out was the framing: Birchall described a process meant to account for the nonprofit’s value as part of negotiations. with claims that “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.” When the defense objected. the court struck portions for missing support. and the questioning proceeded in a piecemeal way to rebuild the basis for what could be heard.
A key detail here is that this wasn’t just narrative. It put the spotlight on how litigation strategy, discovery limitations, and witness testimony interact in real time, especially when the subject touches both corporate structure and deal-making.
As the proceedings moved into cross-examination. the direction tightened around what Birchall knew and where it came from. including whether the information originated from legal channels versus other sources.. Misryoum reports that the court later curtailed parts of the testimony after objections were raised. particularly because of what could be discussed in front of the jury.
Then the atmosphere changed again.. With the jury leaving early. the judge questioned Birchall directly and appeared skeptical about how conversations around a very large bid figure could be recalled in broad terms without clearer recollection.. Misryoum says the judge pressed on whether the discussions were rooted in documentation or business calls. and why there seemed to be limited ability to identify analysis or creation of the figure from anyone besides the legal team.
This mattered beyond the courtroom drama. In technology-sector disputes, especially those involving reorganizations and valuation of major assets, the credibility of how information was handled can become as important as the underlying business claims.
Misryoum also reports that the judge asked who had passed the note that triggered the final turn of questioning.. After moments of silence. responsibility was eventually attributed. with the judge suggesting she was evaluating what to do with the testimony moving forward.. A ruling was expected later, as the court weighed whether the late-stage pivot had improperly opened additional issues.
In this context, the episode serves as a reminder of how quickly a case can pivot when attorneys approach testimony with courtroom tactics. Even when teams try to keep certain subject areas contained, the judge’s scrutiny can turn a small procedural step into a much larger spotlight.