Jason Lemkin

I think that was dishonest.

You're right.

Actually, you're right in the big question.

It's like, if this is getting in the way of the next financing, and it's been seen as a credible risk, then would you be better off, even if it's extortion, to cough up?

Which again, is why, again, Elon's in an asymmetric win-win situation and OpenAI is not.

The only way it doesn't matter is if every, and I don't know, if every investor looks at this and says, I'm not worried about the risk, in the end, Elon will lose.

So therefore, we can ignore it.

And that's why his aggressive claim is on the facts very contestable.

I mean, it's a real reach.

The claim is a reach to say it's not just my $30 million back.

Basically, what Elon is saying is, it was a for-profit all along.

You guys just didn't tell me.

And if it's a for-profit all along, and I put in, if I was the $30 million seed in what was a for-profit company, then I want what a $30 million seed would get.

It's a stretchy claim.

You're right, Jason.

And OpenAI are going to say, there's simply no way, from a point of law perspective, we're going to concede that.

And even if we lose a jury trial, we'll go in on appeal.

And they're just going to say they're going to litigate it the whole way down.

But you're right.

That's fine.