When Apple sued OpenAI last week, the argument it made was that former employees had stolen Apple data and then used it to benefit OpenAI. 

The technical details — an employee used “a rare, previously unknown authentication bug to access Apple’s shared network folders” — are interesting. But the larger story is Apple’s ridiculous attempt to stop its people from using anything they learned at Apple in other jobs.

“Hiring managers don’t mind some files being brought into the org during onboarding, but suddenly take umbrage when that same employee exits with some files later on,” said Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security. “Legal should be equally concerned about both events.”

The lawsuit focused on Chang Liu, an employee who had been recruited to work at OpenAI after working at Apple for eight years as a Senior System Electrical Engineer. The full text of the filing depicts a comedy of errors by Apple, offering the perfect “do not do” list of handling employee resignations — especially when they’re going to a direct competitor. 

“When Apple contacted Mr. Liu to sign Apple’s confidentiality reminder, schedule an exit interview, and confirm that he had returned his devices and complied with other exit procedures, Mr. Liu did not respond.” And “after leaving Apple, Mr. Liu failed to return an Apple-issued work laptop that he had previously authenticated to Apple’s network.”

First, typical procedure for handling departures is to tie the return of all equipment and the signing of documents to any final payments. With Apple, that is likely to be a large amount of money. The lawsuit does not say whether Apple exerted any financial pressure on their employee for compliance. 

But in terms of equipment with high-level access, why weren’t all privileges revoked, both for the employee and any and all company-issued devices? Did they not maintain a remote-wipe capability for these devices? Although remote-wipe is usually used when devices are missing or stolen, it should work as well when a departing employee refuses to return company equipment. 

According to Apple, Liu apparently had help at Apple from Tang Yew Tan, who was supposedly also interviewing with OpenAI. “While employed by OpenAI, [Liu] accessed and used his former colleague’s Apple-issued work computer that was authenticated to Apple’s network, without Apple’s authorization.”

Apple tried to make much of this Liu’s fault. Legally, yes, there might be liability there; still, Apple made itself look as if it couldn’t protect its own data. “Upon discovering that he had this unauthorized access to Apple’s systems, [the former employee] did not report it, return his stolen Apple-issued work laptop or delete the program that allowed the access.” 

Really, Apple? Your data-protection plan relies on ex-employees to “delete the program that allowed the access”? I’m not so sure you didn’t bring some of this data-leakage on yourselves. 

This gets worse: “Over several weeks, while developing hardware for OpenAI, Mr. Liu surreptitiously accessed and downloaded dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files, including voluminous, detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data.”

Setting aside the issue of privileges, access, and unreturned equipment that apparently had its own privileges, that statement points to massive data exfiltration from Apple systems. Even if it is coming from a current employee, why didn’t that raise any red flags? 

Let’s get back to the broader implications. When professionals move from one company to another, they — of course — are bringing their experience and knowledge with them. Can Apple reasonably tell them that they can’t do so? Isn’t that experience and knowledge exactly why another company would want to hire them?

Now, to be sure, stealing diagrams and product spec sheets is a clear violation. Let’s say Apple spent a lot of money on some hardware research projects. A member of that technical team would learn an awful lot, all on Apple’s dime. 

But is it fair and reasonable for Apple to say that the former employee can’t leverage that knowledge at his or her next job? 

This brings us back to the point Wilkes made: If Apple is going to try to prevent any former employee from leveraging on-the-job experience, then it should instruct all new employees not to use anything they learned in a previous job. 

That would be ridiculous. Companies pay for experienced talent because of that experience. Why pay for expertise if you insist employees not leverage any of it?

Then there’s the amorphous nature of knowledge. So, it’s wrong to take detailed diagrams and spec details and hand them over to a new employer. But what if that worker heading out the door memorizes the documents (photographic memory) a day before resigning? Is a person prohibited from using something from memory?

There’s also the fruit-of-the-poisonous tree legal argument. Even if a former employee doesn’t directly use stolen data, what if their knowledge leads to other money-saving insights for the new employer? 

Given that Apple hires as many specialists as it loses to rivals, wouldn’t it make sense to leverage everything your workforce knows and then let new employers do the same? But before you do that, Apple, tighten your exiting employee tech controls. 

Then maybe you wont’t have to file lawsuits like this down the road.

OpenAI’s first device will be a screenless home AI system that can play music, control appliances, and respond to messages and questions, according to Bloomberg. I can’t help but ask what makes this device different from Apple’s HomePod with SiriAI?

The OpenAI product is intended to be the first of a family of solutions and is expected to use the recently-introduced GPT-Live large language model (LLM). The latter is an advanced model capable of processing information swiftly and of providing natural responses to conversations. 

A potential gold mine for hackers

This expertise might help it deliver more accurate responses to requests, though the information could also become a gold mine for data brokers, hackers, and advertisers if there turns out to be any way they can get their hands on it. It’s not yet known how — or even if — OpenAI proposes protecting user privacy within its systems. 

The device, which is still under development, is explained as being a home companion that also includes a built-in camera and sensors so it can gather contextual information about where you are, becoming an expert on you and your needs. It also features autonomous mechanical elements that physically shift on their own, intended to give the product a “personality,” rather than being a boring black box.

Can we live without this?

While OpenAI’s development is not yet complete and things could change before it reaches market, based on Bloomberg’s report I’m not terribly clear how unique it is going to be. After all, as LLM support is introduced in existing smart speaker systems from Apple, or even Amazon, what unique features does this device bring that consumers can’t live without? More particularly, what problems does it solve and why does it exist?

Manufacturing economics

What’s also unclear is how far along OpenAI is on the road to mass manufacturing the device. Apple’s recent lawsuit against OpenAI confirmed the challenger is speaking with Apple’s own manufacturing partners as well as hiring hundreds of Apple engineers. Despite the talent war, I consider it unlikely OpenAI will be able to lock in the kinds of manufacturing deals it needs to bring the product to market at an acceptable price. 

That suggests either that its inaugural “home companion” will seem incredibly expensive (as so many of the products Jony Ive has designed since leaving Apple seem to be), or that OpenAI will sell these things at a subsidy. 

Bloomberg suggests the systems will cost $200 to $300. That seems low given the current component market, expected design quality and the technology used if the plan is to make something good. And it leaves me wondering how deeply investors will underwrite hardware sales, given the eye-watering losses the company is already making.

Apple’s trade secrets case

Given ongoing speculation that Apple plans something similar in the form of a hybrid HomePod/iPad equipped with AI and limited mobility, the recent lawsuit strongly suggests Apple feels some of OpenAI’s plans cross the line into using proprietary technologies and ideas Cupertino has spent years pursuing. Apple’s lawsuit seems to bring much more meaningful evidence than just an argument concerning product design. 

Betting the farm on Ive

We also don’t know the extent to which consumers will be open to semi-sentient AI devices lurking in their lives. While Apple can lean into its loyal customer base and broaden its offering with rock-solid promises concerning user privacy, OpenAI has less to bring to the launch party.

That means it is attempting to pivot millions who use its services into investing in its hardware. It presumably hopes that it will be able to drive that transition by using the design involvement of acclaimed Apple designer Jony Ive as a form of magic talisman. 

The challenge is that while Ive is a big name in Apple history, Apple users are extremely loyal and may react against the involvement of their favorite designer. It’s like finding out someone you thought was on your team actually supported someone else. 

It will be different outside Apple, where less loyal cohorts might see the product introduction as a chance to put a design from Ive through its paces without signing up to a Mac, iPhone, iPad, or HomePod. 

For the rest of us, the question will be whether OpenAI’s Ive-designed product channels the successful design ethic of the iMac, or that of the far less successful hockey puck mouse. Like (timely World Cup klaxon) France against Spain, OpenAI’s investors have to hope the best version of Ive’s design principles show up, because their risked fortunes potentially depend on it. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.