Apple's recent trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI is more than a legal dispute. It is a fight over who will define the next era of computing after the smartphone.
On the latest episode of The Verge's Decoder podcast, editor-in-chief Nilay Patel spoke with senior AI reporter Hayden Field about the case and what it means for OpenAI's future. The lawsuit alleges that former Apple employees now at OpenAI targeted Apple's trade secrets during job interviews and even downloaded files from Apple's servers related to hardware manufacturing. OpenAI denies the claims.
The lawsuit and its allegations
Field described the situation as "crazy" and noted that Apple's claims are egregious. One former Apple employee allegedly solicited trade secrets during interviews, asking candidates to bring hardware outside Apple's offices for "show and tell" sessions. Another allegedly accessed confidential information on a device and said, "LOL! So funny that I can access this."
When Field interviewed intellectual property lawyers about the case, they said they had seen similar behavior before, but not all in one case involving two such prominent companies. The experts noted that while the allegations are serious, the real shock is that they are all bundled together in a single lawsuit between Apple and OpenAI.
Apple's history of aggressive litigation
Patel drew parallels to Apple's past legal battles. In the 1990s, Apple pushed copyright law to its limits by suing Microsoft over the look and feel of the Mac operating system. Windows survived, and Microsoft remained fine. In the 2000s and early 2010s, Apple pushed patent law to its limits by suing Samsung over alleged patent violations in Android and Galaxy phones. Samsung eventually paid about $1 billion in damages, but Android and Samsung both survived.
Now Apple is using trade secrets law, the third major area of intellectual property, against OpenAI. Patel questioned whether OpenAI can afford to pay the way Microsoft and Samsung did. Samsung's $1 billion penalty was arguably one of the best investments the company ever made, as it allowed it to become a major competitor in mobile. But OpenAI is not in the same position.
OpenAI's financial and strategic challenges
OpenAI spent $6.5 billion to acquire legendary Apple designer Jony Ive's AI hardware startup, io Products, in 2025. The company is still burning cash and struggling to find its strategic footing as it tries to compete in both enterprise and consumer markets. It is also preparing for an initial public offering, which means investors are closely watching its bottom line.
Field noted that Apple is a notoriously tenacious litigant with deep pockets and a willingness to take things far. The outcome will depend on how angry Apple is and whether OpenAI can afford to settle. Many lawyers expect the case to go to trial and drag on for years.
Stay ahead of the AI curve
The most important updates, news, and content — delivered weekly.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The role of Tang Tan and Jony Ive
Tang Tan, OpenAI's chief hardware officer, is a central figure in the lawsuit. He worked at Apple for 24 years, serving as VP of the Apple Watch, before leaving in 2024 to join Ive's io Products. After OpenAI acquired that company, Tan became its chief hardware officer. According to Apple's lawsuit, Tan was the mastermind behind much of the trade secrets gathering. He allegedly conducted interviews where he asked about secret code-named projects, making candidates feel comfortable sharing information because they assumed he was already involved. He also allegedly asked candidates to bring batteries and other hardware outside Apple's offices for show and tell.
Jony Ive, Apple's most famous designer, is notably absent from the lawsuit. Ive has a testy relationship with Apple and has made it clear in interviews that he considers the phone and laptop "legacy devices." He made a video with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman that was described as a "romantic coffee date" and was widely memed. Patel speculated that Ive's absence from the lawsuit might be because he is too famous, too powerful, or still friends with Laurene Powell Jobs. Field suggested it might be because Ive knows how to cover his tracks and has others doing his dirty work.
The hardware challenge
Patel and Field discussed the difficulty of making AI hardware. Field noted that many AI hardware devices have failed, and OpenAI is trying to avoid becoming the next Humane AI Pin. Hardware is hard, and getting it right requires the best people. OpenAI has reportedly been working on five hardware devices, with a screenless smart speaker as the first. Patel questioned whether the company can successfully launch even one device, let alone five.
Patel pointed out that Jony Ive's approach to hardware has always focused on new input methods. The iPod had the click wheel, the iPhone had the multitouch screen, and the Apple Watch had the scroll wheel. For AI, the natural input method is natural language. But Patel argued that AI is not yet reliable enough for high-stakes tasks. Field agreed, noting that even simple tasks like looking up addresses can result in 60 percent error rates.
Consumer trust and data privacy
Field raised concerns about consumer trust. Many people are worried about ads appearing in AI responses, and OpenAI has faced backlash over its advertising plans. Anthropic capitalized on this with Super Bowl ads that were anti-AI. Field said that even if ads do not influence answers, they remind users that someone is always trying to sell them something. This loss of trust, combined with the rise of AI populism and death threats against AI CEOs, makes it a strange time to release a consumer-facing AI hardware device.
The unauthorized taking problem
Patel connected the lawsuit to a broader issue in the AI industry: the unauthorized taking of data. AI companies have built their models by scraping the internet, books, and music without permission. Suno recently admitted to scraping music from YouTube illegally. Now Apple is alleging that OpenAI took its hardware designs and manufacturing know-how without permission. Patel said this pattern of unauthorized taking is a trillion-dollar question that the industry has been studiously ignoring. If any of the many lawsuits against AI companies succeed, the entire cost structure of the industry could collapse.