Dozens of former Apple employees now working at OpenAI have been put on notice after Apple reportedly sent legal letters ordering them to preserve documents and communications relevant to its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI. 

The Financial Times reports that “around 40” employees have been targeted with these letters, which repeat Apple’s claim that its confidential information might have been exfiltrated, alleging “trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.”  The letters also require them to arrange to meet with Apple’s lawyers.

The underlying lawsuit

This comes on the heels of Apple’s explosive lawsuit against OpenAI in which Apple accused the AI company (and former Apple Vice President Tang Tan) of extensive coordinated data theft. Tan was at Apple for 24 years and is now Chief Hardware Officer at OpenAI. 

Apple’s lawsuit is defined by claims OpenAI took a range of steps to pry confidential Apple data from existing Apple employees, including using information such as internal project code names, to gain even more knowledge during interviews. The company says the evidence it has presented so far is only the “tip of the iceberg” concerning OpenAI’s approach.

The lawsuit requests that OpenAI be prevented from using any Apple information during the development of its hardware. Apple is also seeking damages and suing two former employees for breach of contract for violating their employment agreements.

The letters are significant. They represent formal directives that require former Apple staff to preserve documents, messages, emails, and other communications that could be relevant to the case. The demand reflects Apple’s belief that the alleged misuse of confidential information could be more widespread across the competing company. What’s critical is that orders of this kind override any standard data destruction policy and deletion of the requested information becomes a legal offense. 

Why this matters beyond the protagonists

In making its move, Apple shows this is not a dispute about just one or two hires, but an attempt to constrain the movement of intellectual property between the two firms. With AI hardware emerging as the next major battleground in tech, the case could become a defining one; whatever resolution is eventually reached could define the extent to which former employees can carry experience and knowledge between competing firms. The case might also define what the line is between experience and knowledge and the sharing of trade secrets.

This is important, because modern hardware development relies on far more than just finished designs. Product design leans into supplier relationships, manufacturing assumptions, physics, extensive prototyping, and product-roadmap priorities. If courts treat those accumulated insights as protectable secrets, hiring between major technology companies could become far more legally sensitive.

The Jony Ive question

The case comes as Apple prepares to combat OpenAI in hardware. Its competitor is now working with legendary former Apple designer Jony Ive. Ive is not named in the litigation, but Apple will be keen to find out whether confidential product knowledge, design processes, or supply-chain insights have travelled with former staff into OpenAI’s device work.

Ultimately, for Apple, it’s about protecting its many blueprints for whatever hardware the company expects will come after the iPhone.

For its part, OpenAI has refuted Apple’s lawsuit, arguing that it is “not aware of any evidence” that the lawsuit has merit. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” said OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” The company’s lawyers also claim it did respond to Apple’s initial inquiries on the matter.

What’s at stake

The significance of Apple’s newly-shared communication preservation orders is that if discovery uncovers evidence supporting Apple’s claims, the case could complicate OpenAI’s hardware plans and create unwelcome scrutiny ahead of any future public offering.

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

China has created an international organization to set standards and introduce regulation for AI, inviting 28 other countries to join — but the US, a leading AI powerhouse is not part it.

The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) was established by 29 countries, including China, Russia and Brazil, at a ceremony in Shanghai, China, on July 16. Notably absent are the US, the European Union and its member states, the UK, Japan and South Korea.

Chinese AI companies have made a concerted effort to provide an alternative to US dominance. While the US is clearly ahead, Chinese enterprises are looking to narrow the gap in various areas: the open-weight model market, AI cyber protection and open source AI.

WAICO has been some years in development and has been designed to set some universal guidelines in AI. Researchers say WAICO differs in three ways from other initiatives to create global AI organizations: membership open to any sovereign state, there is no regime-type test for entry, and its agenda is built around development and the global capability divide.

The signing ceremony to create WAICO comes just days after Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, called on the US to take a lead in global AI regulation. “The US is well-positioned to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives,” Hassabis wrote.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is pushing for the US AI industry to self-regulate, with the support of government, as a starting point for an international creating shared international standards. In a blog post, he called for a focus on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis proposed that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants be encouraged to adopt best practices such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. 

DeepMind was involved in an earlier US government initiative evaluating AI safety, alongside Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article first appeared on CIO.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on Tuesday reiterated his push for an AI industry self-regulation effort, led by the US government, that is particularly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis said he would propose that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants would be encouraged to adopt best practices, such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. He has already worked on a US government initiative evaluating AI safety, which involved DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

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.