Apple 對這件事的理解有誤
Apple 是有史以來最出色的公司之一,憑藉對最微小細節的執着,建立了卓越聲譽。遺憾的是,這宗草率、咄咄逼人且帶有莫名針對個人意味的訴訟,實在有負這份聲譽。
Apple 曾聲稱於二月聯絡 OpenAI,而我們沒有回覆。直至我們指出此事後,他們才承認,其外聘律師混淆了兩個亞洲姓氏,把電郵寄了給錯的人。Apple 亦聲稱曾與我們的總法律顧問討論,但如今承認這場討論從未發生。然而,他們再次隱瞞一項事實:當時從未提出這宗訴訟中的具體指控,實際上更告訴我們,他們正在「解決任何問題」。此後五個月,我們再沒有收到任何消息,直至他們提出訴訟。Apple 在最新提交的文件中極力重新詮釋這連串事件,但你可以在這裏親自查看相關電郵。
Apple 指控 Chang Liu 離職後取用 Apple 的機密資料,但直至現在才承認,是 Apple 員工主動聯絡他,請他協助尋找這些資料(你可以在這裏查看相關訊息)。Apple 如今試圖把責任歸咎於「殘留存取權限」,卻沒有披露這是 Apple 的常見問題,成因是員工離職時,他們未有妥善管理系統存取權限。實際上,這意味着即使前員工離職時力求妥善處理一切,他們仍可存取 Apple 的檔案:儘管他們並不想要這些檔案,甚至不知道這些檔案的存在。
Apple 亦指控 Tang Tan 試圖取得並使用其商業秘密。然而,Tang 一直向團隊清楚表明,我們不希望取得、也絕不能使用任何其他公司的機密資料。Tang 在 Apple 服務逾 24 年,廣受認同為公司最具創新精神的領袖之一。
我們希望 Apple 當初在提出訴訟前,先向我們提出這些問題;我們本來很樂意向他們澄清一切。我們一直認真看待訴訟中的指控,亦曾提出與 Apple 合作解決問題。然而,他們卻試圖改變說法,包括對其他前員工作出含糊指控,而且很可能會繼續採取這種做法。
Apple 申請初步禁制令,不但建基於失實資料,而且完全沒有必要,因為我們既沒有、也不希望取得其任何商業秘密。我們更有興趣開發創新產品和技術,推進科技前沿。
2026 年 8 月 6 日更新:你可以在這裏(在新視窗中開啟)閱覽我們的駁回訴訟動議。
2026 年 9 月 1 日更新:你可以在這裏(在新視窗中開啟)閱覽我們就 Apple 初步禁制令動議提交的反對書。
2026 年 9 月 14 日更新:我們就 Apple 補充陳詞書提交的回應可於這裏(在新視窗中開啟)閱覽。
訊息
Chang Liu(藍色訊息)與 Apple 員工之間的 iMessage 對話。Chang 在 Apple 的最後工作日為 2026 年 1 月 22 日;其前同事在對話中請他協助尋找檔案和資料,以便他們處理 Apple 的工作(所有時間均為 UTC)。註:其他人士的姓名及 Apple 機密資料已被遮蓋。


電郵往來
以下是 Apple 的外聘法律顧問 Gabriel Gross、OpenAI 的總法律顧問 Che Chang,以及 Apple 的內部法律顧問之間的電郵往來。這些電郵顯示,Gross 誤把電郵寄給 Che,同時不準確地聲稱二人曾經交談。Gross 與 Apple 的內部法律顧問其後均確認這是錯誤,而 Gross 亦表示他們正在「解決任何問題」。Apple 訴訟中的具體指控從未被提出;此後亦再無跟進,直至五個月後提出訴訟。
Dear Mr. Chang:
Please see the attached letter and let me know when you are free to discuss it.
Yours,
Gabriel Gross Partner Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> Direct <redacted> Mobile
The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, <redacted> and destroy the original message. Thank you.
Attachments:
- image001.jpg (6K)
- 2026.02.23 G. Gross letter to <redacted> Wang(101156327.1).pdf (225K)
- Ex. A.pdf (491K)
- Ex. B.pdf (91K)
- Ex. C.pdf (1646K)
Dear Mr. Chang:
Thank you for your phone call just now and for offering your cooperation so quickly. I will be back in touch after speaking with Apple. I realize I neglected to include the three attachments when I sent you my letter, so I am re-sending it with the attachments for your records.
Yours,
Gabe
Hi [Apple in-house legal counsel] and [Apple in-house legal counsel],
This guy from Weil claims to be representing you. For some reason, he is lying about speaking with me on the phone. I don't know who he is and we have never spoken.
I don't know what the point of his lie is, but could you please confirm if he is actually representing you, and if so, whether you have other counsel you can use. I don’t think interacting through him is appropriate given this behavior.
If this isn’t the right Apple team, could you let me know who might be? Thank you.
Che
Dear Mr. Chang:
I write to follow up on my email and letter from yesterday. After I emailed you around 5:53 p.m. yesterday, I inadvertently also sent you another email around 6:07 p.m. that was intended for <redacted> Wang, one of the former Apple employees at issue. After we had emailed Mr. Wang yesterday about retaining Apple information, he promptly called me and offered to cooperate with Apple in resolving any issues. I then intended to email him again, but accidentally replied to my email chain with you instead. I apologize for the confusion that likely caused.
Yours,
Gabriel Gross Partner Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> Direct <redacted> Mobile
Gabe
Hi Che,
Wanted to make sure to get back to you. Weil is our counsel on this matter, and I believe they should have contacted you explaining the miscommunication. Please feel free to direct any additional questions their way.
Thanks,
[Apple in-house legal counsel]


