FTC Wants Microsoft's Relationship With OpenAI Under the Microscope (theregister.com) 13
The FTC is considering an investigation into Microsoft's investment in OpenAI to determine if the company broke any antitrust laws. The Register reports: Despite the money poured into it over the years, OpenAI was founded as a non-profit in 2015, and Microsoft's investment does not amount to control of the company. Microsoft chief communications officer Frank X Shaw underlined attempts to dampen down industry talk of a probe: "While details of our agreement remain confidential, it is important to note that Microsoft does not own any portion of OpenAI and is simply entitled to share of profit distributions."
At the end of last week, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a consultation to ask interested parties to comment on Microsoft's relationship with ChatGPT developer, and if it could be construed as a merger that potentially skews competition. If so, the CMA will itself launch an official inspection.
At the end of last week, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a consultation to ask interested parties to comment on Microsoft's relationship with ChatGPT developer, and if it could be construed as a merger that potentially skews competition. If so, the CMA will itself launch an official inspection.
Ow, really? (Score:5, Informative)
it is important to note that Microsoft does not own any portion of OpenAI and is simply entitled to share of profit distributions
We saw this aspect duly demonstrated two weeks ago, when M$ returned the fired CEO and fired the board, which fired the CEO. Practically no influence over Open AI, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Money talks, even if you don't have an ownership stake.
History (Score:3)
Microsoft just happened to be desperate and lucky. Google has their in house model. Facebook (Meta) has their own model. Microsoft has nothing. So they invested in OpenAI, in return for access to their APIs. Or preferred access. And they would be hosting them on Azure, so they won't be actually spending much cash.
Anyway, if OpenAI board have not decided to do a very clumsy coup attempt, none of the things FTC or CMA complained about would happen. Microsoft would be just another (but the biggest) customer of the "storefront" of OpenAI, and the non-profit board would be in charge.
And, like it or not Satya has shown his skills as a "negotiator", or I should probably use another word here. They came for the king, but lost their own head instead. The problem was, the board could have handled this in their favor, if they did not act like 10 years olds in charge of a 10 billion dollar company.
Re:History (Score:5, Informative)
When the board fires a CEO, it is not a "coup". It is the intended purpose for a board of directors existing.
The use of the word "coup" by allies of Altman is intended to taint the boards actions as illicit or nefarious.
Re: History (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When the board fires a CEO, it is not a "coup". It is the intended purpose for a board of directors existing. The use of the word "coup" by allies of Altman is intended to taint the boards actions as illicit or nefarious.
Right to work laws aside, you usually have to come up with not just a reason to fire a beloved Chief Executive, but a good reason. Otherwise, the "coup" against the board happens by employees and investors, as was threatened in this case.
Firing a CEO that results in that kind of pushback? Tends to question the boards intent again. Just because nefarious is legal doesn't mean its acceptable.
Nefarious? (Score:3)
What's nefarious about getting rid of a narcissist as the CEO of a supposed nonprofit? He paying you or something?
Re:History (Score:4, Insightful)
The board can fire a CEO for whatever reason it wants to, possibly subject to the terms of the CEO's contract. It doesn't have to strike *you* as a *good* reason, because the board gets to decide what reasons it thinks are good.
The characterization of Altman's firing as a "coup" are pure PR spin; it was an unusual but entirely legitimate exercise of board authority. Likewise it might not be so wise to put so much stock in the characterization of Altman as "beloved". He was fired for, among other things, playing Machiavellian mind games with employees, and there have been reports of coercion regarding the famous mass resignation letter.
Just read the Subject, and... (Score:2)
Good.