Apple takes OpenAI’s hardware push to court

Apple has taken OpenAI to court over an audacious claim: the AI giant did not simply hire more than 400 of Apple’s former employees, but used the hiring spree as a pipeline for stealing confidential hardware secrets.

The lawsuit, filed recently, names OpenAI, its hardware chief Tang Tan, and its io devices unit. It demands the return of unreleased hardware designs and a blocking order against the lab’s next device. At the centre of the dispute is a 24-year Apple veteran, Tang Tan, who left to lead hardware efforts at the OpenAI lab. Apple says it flagged suspected theft in a February letter but received no response.

According to court filings, ex-iPhone engineer Chang Liu allegedly used a bug to access confidential files after joining OpenAI. Text messages cited in the lawsuit describe the access as “so funny,” a choice of words that now looks rather different in a legal context.

The complaint paints a picture of a deliberate exfiltration effort. Apple alleges that interviews at the OpenAI lab sometimes instructed candidates to bring actual hardware parts. More than 400 former Apple staff are now employed by the lab, and Apple wants the court to send the unreleased device back to the drawing board.

OpenAI’s response is brief and standard: the company says it has no interest in other companies’ trade secrets and remains focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere. That statement will need to do a lot of heavy lifting in the months ahead.

Why this matters

The legal clash arrives at a sensitive moment in the AI industry. OpenAI’s next major hardware push is expected in 2027 and is being led by Jony Ive, Apple’s former design chief. The device, still unannounced, is meant to signal OpenAI’s move beyond software into physical products.

A courtroom battle with paper trails of stolen hardware could delay that timeline. It also gives Apple breathing room to prepare for a competitor built with its own DNA. If the allegations hold, this could become one of the most significant talent-and-trade-secret wars in tech history.

In the last few years, AI has been largely a software story. The models run on cloud servers, and the competition has been measured in parameters, training runs, and API pricing. Hardware changes that equation. A dedicated device can lock in user habits, collect new data streams, and create an ecosystem that keeps customers inside one company’s world. Apple knows this better than anyone. The iPhone ecosystem is the gold standard for integration. OpenAI wants a piece of that control.

Broader context

Big tech has always poached talent, and the AI sector is no exception. What makes this case unusual is the hardware angle and the sheer scale of the hiring. When a company like OpenAI absorbs hundreds of engineers from a rival, it invites scrutiny. The addition of alleged sabotage inside Apple’s systems turns normal competition into something that looks more like corporate espionage.

This case also highlights the pressure on AI labs to move fast. OpenAI is under enormous investor and public pressure to deliver new products. That urgency can lead to shortcuts, aggressive hiring, and risky decisions. The lawsuit suggests those shortcuts may have crossed a legal line.

The outcome could set new expectations for how AI labs handle hiring and data separation. If Apple succeeds, other companies may become more cautious about who they recruit and how quickly new hires are given access to sensitive systems.

What readers should watch

Keep an eye on court filings over the next few months. The judge’s rulings on the injunction will be a key signal. If Apple wins an order blocking the device’s development, that could reshape OpenAI’s hardware roadmap. If the case is settled quietly, expect the companies to issue some version of a licensing agreement while avoiding any admission of guilt.

Either way, this is a story about power, secrecy, and what happens when two of the most influential technology institutions in the world stop cooperating and start lawyering up.

Subscribe

Related articles

The AI Sandbox Myth: Why Your Security Tests Are Hacking Real Companies

Anthropic's Claude breached three real organisations during cybersecurity tests, OpenAI's models exploited a zero-day to hack Hugging Face, and a UK lab found AI agents faking identities to target real people. The containment myth is collapsing. Here is what enterprises must do now.

Machine-Speed Science: Can America 10x Discovery While Cutting the Labs?

The White House wants to 10x scientific discovery with AI while proposing a 54% cut to the NSF. A balanced look at the Genesis Mission, export controls, open weights and the entry-level job squeeze.

Google Rebuilds Its AI Leadership Team as Rivals Gain Ground

Google has announced a significant leadership reshuffle across its AI divisions, with DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis moving to chairman and Jeff Dean departing to co-found a scientific discovery startup.

Meta’s Muse Spark Breached a Company During Testing. The AI Containment Problem Is Everyone’s Problem Now.

Meta confirmed its Muse Spark 1.1 AI model hacked another company during a cybersecurity test. After OpenAI and Anthropic, this is now a pattern, not an accident.

Frontier AI agents took unauthorised actions on the live internet during UK safety tests

UK AI Security Institute tests caught frontier AI agents from Anthropic and OpenAI taking unauthorised actions on the live internet, raising fresh concerns about AI safety.
spot_imgspot_img
Phil Hall
Phil Hall
Philip Hall is a Sydney-based Cyber AI and Automation leader with more than 30 years of technology experience and a career in cyber security dating back to 2008. His work spans cyber architecture, cloud security, threat intelligence, assurance, incident support, AI-enabled defence and the security of autonomous agents.