Silicon Valley Century Trial Explodes! OpenAI CEO pleads guilty in court and cashes out 30 billion yuan with zero yuan, maximizing Musk's chances of winning? The most explosive AI century trial in Silicon Valley history has completely ignited the global technology circle! OpenAI President Greg Brockman made a heavy confession in court, revealing a series of shocking insider information. This showdown around original intentions, interests, and contracts directly put Musk in the closest position to victory. Brockman personally admitted in court that he did not invest a penny in OpenAI's for-profit division, but held a huge $30 billion worth of equity out of thin air; In contrast, Musk, as the core founding sponsor of OpenAI, has invested $38 million in real money, provided early office space, and led the recruitment of top talents, but ultimately had zero shareholding in OpenAI. What is even more shocking is that Brockman and Sam Altman privately hold personal shares in the AI chip company Cerebras. Renowned scholar Gary Marcus from New York University bluntly stated that this is the closest Musk has ever come to winning this lawsuit. This trial can be considered a business showdown with no way out. Elon Musk's legal representative held ironclad evidence and used Brockman's personal diary and email correspondence as a sharp blade, pushing forward step by step and dismantling layer by layer, to complete a precise and deadly interrogation in court. Faced with the lawyer's continuous questioning, Brockman's testimony is irrefutable: Is it true that you hold ownership interests in OpenAI for-profit entities? ” Yes, it's true You haven't invested any cash to obtain these rights, have you ... it's true Based on the current valuation, do you hold over $20 billion in equity Yes It's actually closer to $30 billion, isn't it I think this is a fact, yes When the figure of 30 billion dollars echoed in the courtroom, the entire venue was instantly thrown into turmoil. Everyone knows that Musk invested a huge amount of money and resources to support the establishment of OpenAI, with the original intention of creating a non-profit AI public welfare organization that serves all mankind. However, now the founding team has quietly turned the non-profit platform into a tool for personal wealth accumulation, zero cost acquisition of sky high wealth, completely deviating from the original mission of public welfare. Even more outrageous, Brockman admitted in court that during his early fundraising efforts for OpenAI, he repeatedly endorsed Musk's name and even verbally promised to donate $100000, but never paid a penny. This behavior of exploiting others' reputation for profit and breaking promises precisely confirms Musk's core claim of unjust enrichment. According to the California Charitable Trusts Act, non-profit organization trustees can only receive reasonable compensation and have no right to divide or misappropriate charitable assets. Brockmann's actions have crossed the legal red line. If 30 billion zero cost equity is the first bombshell, then Cerebras related party transactions are the second bombshell that crushes the OpenAI team, directly exposing the suspected illegal self trading scheme. The court evidence clearly shows that in 2017, Brockman privately purchased shares of Cerebras while serving as a trustee of OpenAI, and Ultraman also made personal investments simultaneously. Afterwards, Brockman used his power to vigorously lobby within OpenAI, pushing for a huge partnership between the company and Cerebras, and using charitable funds to support personal investments. The timeline of cooperation between the two parties is even more shocking: In December 2025, OpenAI signed a $10 billion purchase order with Cerebras, along with an additional $1 billion loan; In February 2026, relying on OpenAI's sky high orders, Cerebras' valuation skyrocketed from $8 billion to $23 billion, nearly tripling; In April 2026, OpenAI increased its order limit to $20 billion, and now Cerebras has submitted an IPO application with a valuation of $26.6 billion. In the crucial questioning, Brockmann's answer completely exposed the conflict of interest: When asked by the lawyer whether he had informed Musk of his identity as a shareholder of Cerebras when promoting cooperation, Brockman gave a clear answer of "no" in emails, chat records, and text messages; At the same time, he also assumed that the collaboration between OpenAI and Cerebras could bring him huge personal benefits. This kind of behavior, which utilizes the power of non-profit organizations and uses public welfare resources to support individual investment in enterprises and achieve a surge in wealth, is strictly prohibited by California law as "self trading". It not only seriously violates professional ethics, but also is suspected of illegal and irregular activities, becoming the key ironclad evidence for Musk's victory. This trial is essentially the ultimate collision of two core values in Silicon Valley: On one side is Musk's steadfast contractual idealism: promises are paramount, non-profit intentions cannot be violated, and charitable assets must not be reduced to personal wealth tools; On one side is the practical expansionism pursued by Ultraman and Brockman: in order to iterate AGI technology and survive the company, it is possible to break through legal frameworks, change the distribution of benefits, and abandon initial commitments. From a legal perspective in California, charitable assets are strictly protected by law, and non-profit organizations transforming into commercial companies must complete rigorous evaluations and return all assets to the public. The legal balance has already tilted towards Musk. Once Musk wins the lawsuit, the entire AI industry landscape will undergo a disruptive change: Firstly, OpenAI will be forced to open source its core technology to fulfill Musk's initial public welfare demands; Secondly, OpenAI's exclusive licensing agreement with Microsoft may be revoked, posing significant risks to Microsoft's massive investment and causing OpenAI's valuation to collapse instantly; Thirdly, Brockmann's 30 billion zero cost equity will be completely shattered, and profits from the for-profit sector will be forcibly transferred back to the non-profit parent company; Fourthly, this case will become a landmark precedent in the industry, completely eliminating the chaos of AI companies using charity financing and commercial harvesting. On the contrary, if the OpenAI team wins the lawsuit, it means that the logic of Silicon Valley's savage growth will once again prevail, and the behavior of companies abandoning their original intentions and breaking contracts will be tacitly accepted, and the business ethics of the entire industry will be completely violated. From testimony in court to irrefutable evidence, Brockmann's confession style speech completely tilted the balance of victory and defeat in this century long lawsuit. OpenAI, which once promised to uphold its non-profit mission, is now deeply embroiled in the vortex of profit transfer and illegal wealth accumulation. However, Musk's commitment to the contract and original intention has finally received the strongest response of justice. This showdown is no longer a personal grudge between two tech giants, but the ultimate test of the ethics, laws, and original intentions of the global AI industry. The ultimate outcome will surely rewrite the future direction of the entire AI industry.