Musk's court case has failed to alter the course of the tech giant ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

It was billed as the biggest legal battle in AI history, but ended with more of a puff than a bang as a jury in the United States took less than 2 hours to dismiss Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its chief executive Sam Altman.

The jury did not rule on whether OpenAI strayed from its founding mission. Nor whether Altman and other executives enriched themselves at the expense of a charitable purpose. It decided only that Musk had waited too long to sue in relation to these claims.

This leaves the key question at the core of the case unanswered: is OpenAI a nonprofit dedicated to humanity or a corporation dedicated to its shareholders? As tech law experts Alexandra Andhov and Ian Murray explain, OpenAI’s victory means it now has a clear path to take its next big step in the AI race.

P.S. We launched our annual fundraising campaign on Monday and we hope you can help. If you value our work, please make a donation of whatever you can afford.

Drew Rooke

Deputy Science + Technology Editor

 

Elon Musk sued OpenAI and lost. But the core question of the case remains unanswered

Alexandra Andhov, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Ian Murray, The University of Western Australia

OpenAI now has a clear path to take its next big step in the AI race.

Are this budget’s tax changes really an ‘assault on aspiration’?

Tamara Wilkinson, Monash University

Despite concerns, for many young Australians the broader opportunities to earn, save, start businesses and build wealth over time are likely to remain available.

Hantavirus quarantine has started. Two infection control experts explain what to expect

Philip Russo, Monash University; Brett Mitchell, University of Newcastle

Six passengers from the hantavirus-struck cruise ship are in quarantine in Australia. So how do we actually design buildings to keep a virus from spreading?

The government has blocked funding to 13 research projects for security reasons. What happens now?

Brendan Walker-Munro, Southern Cross University

Federal Education Minister Jason Clare vetoed research funding to 13 projects ‘for reasons relevant to the security, defence or international relations’.

‘We need more staff!’: regional employers are hiring, but we are closing the door to skilled migrant workers

Claire Higgins, UNSW Sydney; Louise Olliff, UNSW Sydney

This pilot has made it easier for employers to hire skilled refugees from overseas, delivering benefits for local communities. But it is due to end on June 30.

129,000 years of crocodiles: what we know about Australasia’s ancient apex predators

Jorgo Ristevski, The University of Queensland; Julien Louys, Griffith University; Nicole Boivin, The University of Queensland

A host of unique crocodylian species ruled the roost in Australia and surrounds for millions of years – until humans came along.

From ancient kings to Trump and Xi Jinping: when did humans start shaking hands? And why?

Louise Pryke, University of Sydney

The handshake is one of the most ancient and familiar gestures. It has carried many meanings – signalling trust and alliance, but also grief and deception.

Famesick: Lena Dunham makes us laugh about a dream job turned brutal nightmare

Liz Evans, University of Tasmania

Lena Dunham’s searingly funny, shockingly honest memoir reveals how Hollywood culture allows pretty much anything, except human frailty.

Politics + Society

Health + Medicine

Business + Economy

Environment + Energy

Science + Technology

Arts + Culture

For the greater good
“An interesting commentary this morning about reactions to the budget and the rarity of people thinking about the greater good. My previous local Federal MP was Michael Suukar who was also Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer. I wrote to him several times pleading for action on the CGT discount and negative gearing. None was forthcoming. Despite being a 71-year-old boomer, with the benefit of previous investments in residential property, I’m very pleased to see Jim Chalmers take a bold step in the right direction. It’s not the only action necessary, and there may be some unexpected reactions/outcomes, but I certainly believe the changes are in the interest of greater public good and should assist the younger generation who have been hard-done-by for a long time.”
David Hubbard

Who pays the price?
“The government has not looked at how the young are saving their money to get into home ownership. A bank saving account won’t give you a decent return to increase your deposit. Many are putting their savings into shares or buying an investment property to make significant capital gains to increase the deposit. Do they not think the negative gearing or capital gains tax will not affect them? Certainly not helping those trying to save for a deposit. They just think they are hurting the rich or those that are self-funded. There are a lot of low income earners trying to get ahead by savvy investing for capital gains to get that deposit.”
Robyn Clarke

Can’t find a tradie?
“There is no doubt an issue with trade training and bringing young tradies through the system but we overlook another labour pool which are aspiring homeowners themselves. My father built his first house and helped me build my second. Neither of us are/were builders. It doesn’t take a lot of training to be able to build a large part of a house by yourself if it’s designed with the owner-builder's capabilities in mind and thought is given to the materials used. If more people built their own homes they would save money. Better still, use some of the savings to employ an architect and join the 1-2% of the population who have a house that could be called environmentally sustainable.”
David Oliver, Oxley ACT

We'd love to hear from you. You can email us with your thoughts on our stories and each day we'll publish an edited selection.