FT frames this as some aggressive escalation tactic, but document retention letters are extremely standard practice. At this point they're basically a formality, as any former Apple employee at OpenAI really ought to know by now that they could get dragged into this. Hold letters can be aggressive if you send them before you've even filed a complaint, but if anything, Apple is late to the party with these.

▲

Danox 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They’re not late to the IPO party, which was postponed by OpenAI, It may turn out that that was a mistake. OpenAI probably should’ve gone ahead, particularly in light of the pending court case.

▲

staticman2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Would they have had to disclose a known Apple lawsuit threat in the IPO disclosures? If so that might explain the delay...

Also Apple could have filed the litigation right before the IPO and after a IPO announcement. OpenAI doesn't get to decide when Apple sues them.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> They’re not late to the IPO party, which was postponed by OpenAI, It may turn out that that was a mistake

Isn’t that precisely what being late to the party means? You should have showed earlier?

	▲	jamiek88 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Typo for ‘now late to the party’ prob.

▲

LatencyKills 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Something similar happened to me when I left Microsoft for Apple (I moved from the Visual Studio team to the Xcode team). MS spent six months trying to prove I'd taken "industry secrets" with me. I hadn't. The entire thing felt like a personal attack and was extremely stressful.

It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

▲

ajju an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This seems like an important post. It looks like these letters are occasionally used to as a tactic, and i can see how such a tactic can really scare employees in a country where legal bills can climb really fast.

▲

nxobject 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

Honestly, the proof is the least surprising part -- Apple's been paranoid about leaks for decades, even when the stakes have been lower.

▲

marklar423 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did Apple help defend you against those claims during the six months?

	▲	LatencyKills 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They did. That said, I don’t know how much “defending” they had to do given that I was never even told what, exactly, I was supposed to have stolen. But, like I said, it was both surprising and anxiety inducing.

▲

bayindirh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It sounds like, in this case, Apple has hard proof that documents were stolen.

I believe some articles mentioned about employees bragging to their former colleagues about accessing documents. Also I believe they lied to Apple about being employed elsewhere so they can continue using their access and hardware, etc.

If these are correct, the whole OpenAI playbook is very dirty, and I won't pity them a bit.

	▲	compiler-guy 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Apple also has server logs that track these former employees downloading confidential docs. It doesn't prove that they shared them over to OpenAI, but Apple has pretty solid proof that the former employees saved them without authorization.

▲

elicash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would also guess they need to "flip" these folks against OpenAI and get them to cooperate in the lawsuit against the actual folks with big pockets. I think they're essentially alleging a conspiracy by OpenAI and they need as many examples as possible to make the case that this was a pattern and standard practice, not just one or two idiots acting on their own.

So if I'm a former Apple employee and I get one of these scary letters, I'm asking my attorney if I could get out of a lawsuit by sharing any information I have about any potential OpenAI shady practices.

	▲	wildzzz 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You shouldn't ever willingly give up information to a plaintiff if it could implicate you. If the information exists, it's going to come out in discovery. Admitting to theft of trade secrets is probably not going to help you, it's not like the cops offering you immunity for turning state's witness. You talk to a lawyer and do what they say, not what Apple demands of you. No one but a judge can demand anything of you.
	▲	fisf 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's overly dramatic. At this point, the assumption would be that they are a non-party witness. So, beyond not destroying any potential evidence, you might as well tell them to shove it.