7 ms·
FT frames this as some aggressive escalation tactic, but document retention letters are extremely standard practice. At this point they're basically a formalit
by deepwoods 2mo ago
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.
- elicash 2mo agoI'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.
- fisf 2mo agoThat'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.
- elicash 2mo agoIt is not overly dramatic to suggest getting a letter like this is INCREDIBLY scary.
- s1artibartfast 2mo agoSeems kinds dramatic. Legal holds are common in my industry, not really a big deal. Most of my senior colleagues have been deposed or testified. Stressful but shouldn't be scary unless you did something criminal
- asadotzler 2mo agoIt's not scary. I received one of these letters for the DOJ vs Microsoft trial while working at Netscape and it was less scary opening it than the email from my cube mate titled "you won't believe it." The lawyers told us ahead of time we'd be getting the letters. They told us what we needed to preserve and what we could comfortably trash. There was never any follow-up or specific requests for what I had on my machines. That was that. The idea that getting a legal request is scary is silly. We were employees getting employee guidance from our employer on what to do at every step of the way. We weren't individuals fending for ourselves, wondering about getting something wrong, being taken in for questioning. We were doing what we always do, work hard and listen to the company lawyers if they have something to say.
- elicash 2mo agoMaybe I’m just too anxious an individual. But also, I imagine the lawyers prepping helped. Interesting to hear your perspective on this as someone who went through it!
- wildzzz 2mo agoYou 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.
- freejazz 2mo agoAnyone is free to demand anything. You can even say no to a judge. You wont like that result, though.
- LatencyKills 2mo agoSomething 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.
- marklar423 2mo agoDid Apple help defend you against those claims during the six months?
- LatencyKills 2mo agoThey 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 2mo ago> 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 2mo agoApple 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.
- ajju 2mo agoThis 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.
- Danox 2mo agoThey’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.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago> 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 2mo agoTypo for ‘now late to the party’ prob.
- staticman2 2mo agoWould 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.
- tiahura 2mo agoI routinely send them in whiplash and slip fall cases re surveillance video, phone records, etc.