Apple 搞錯了
Apple 是有史以來最傑出的公司之一,並以對最微小的細節都精益求精而聞名。遺憾的是,這起訴訟草率、咄咄逼人且莫名針對個人,辜負了這份聲譽。
Apple 曾聲稱,他們在二月聯絡過 OpenAI,但我們沒有回覆。如今他們承認,外聘律師因混淆了兩個亞洲姓氏,把電子郵件寄給了錯誤的人;而且是在我們提醒後,他們才承認這一點。Apple 還聲稱曾與我們的總法律顧問商談,但如今也承認這場談話從未發生。但他們再次隱瞞了一項事實:當時他們從未提出這起訴訟中的具體指控,實際上還告訴我們,他們正在「解決所有問題」。之後整整五個月,我們都沒再收到任何消息,直到他們提告。Apple 在最新提交的文件中極力扭曲這一連串事件,但你可以直接在此閱讀這些電子郵件,自行判斷。
Apple 指控 Chang Liu 離職後存取 Apple 的機密資訊,但直到現在才承認,是 Apple 員工主動聯絡他,請他協助尋找這些資訊(你可以在此閱讀相關訊息)。Apple 如今試圖將責任推給「殘留存取權限」,卻也沒有披露這是 Apple 常見的問題,原因是他們未能在員工離職時妥善管理系統存取權限。實際情況是,即使離職員工想以正確方式處理離職事宜,他們仍可存取 Apple 的檔案,儘管他們並不想取得這些檔案,甚至不知道這些檔案的存在。
Apple 還指控 Tang Tan 試圖取得並利用其商業機密。然而,Tang 一直明確告訴團隊,我們不想取得、也絕不可使用其他公司的任何機密資訊。Tang 在 Apple 任職超過 24 年,並以公司最具創新精神的領導者之一而廣為人知。
我們希望 Apple 能在提告前向我們提出這些問題;我們原本很樂意向他們澄清一切。我們嚴肅看待訴訟中的指控,也曾提議與 Apple 合作解決此事。但他們反而試圖改寫說法,包括對其他前員工作出含糊指控,而且很可能會繼續重施故技。
Apple 申請初步禁制令,不僅以不實資訊為依據,也完全沒有必要,因為我們既未持有、也不想取得他們的任何商業機密。我們更有興趣打造創新產品與技術,推進前沿發展。
2026 年 8 月 6 日更新:你可以在此(在新視窗中開啟)閱讀我們的駁回訴訟聲請。
2026 年 9 月 1 日更新:你可以在此(在新視窗中開啟)閱讀我們反對 Apple 初步禁制令聲請的文件。
2026 年 9 月 14 日更新:你可以在此(在新視窗中開啟)閱讀我們對 Apple 補充書狀的回應。
訊息
Chang Liu(藍色訊息)與 Apple 員工之間的 iMessage 對話。Chang 在 Apple 的最後工作日是 2026 年 1 月 22 日;他的前同事請他協助尋找檔案與資訊,協助他們完成在 Apple 的工作(時間均為 UTC)。注意:其他個人姓名及 Apple 機密資訊已遮蔽。


電子郵件往來
以下電子郵件往來涉及 Apple 的外聘律師 Gabriel Gross、OpenAI 的總法律顧問 Che Chang,以及 Apple 的內部法律顧問。這些郵件顯示,Gross 誤將郵件寄給 Che,並錯誤聲稱兩人曾經交談。Gross 與 Apple 的內部法律顧問後來都證實這是失誤,而 Gross 表示他們正在「解決所有問題」。郵件中從未提出 Apple 訴訟裡的具體主張;此後也沒有進一步跟進,直到五個月後提起訴訟。
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]


