Speaker 1: All Media. Hello and welcome to this week's Better Offline monologue.
Speaker 1: I am, of course, said Zitron. Last week, Open Ai
Speaker 1: abruptly pulled the promotional materials around, along with any mention
Speaker 1: of it's six point four billion dollar all stock acquisition
Speaker 1: of Jony Ive's Ioproducts, an AI startup that is allegedly
Speaker 1: making some sort of screenless AI device with open Ai
Speaker 1: that will allegedly launch next year. Said device will not
Speaker 1: be according to the Wall Street Journal, it won't be
Speaker 1: a phone, and I have an Aortmand's intent is to
Speaker 1: help ween user some screens. I love my screen. I
Speaker 1: don't know why people keep thinking that's a bad thing,
Speaker 1: but anyway, it turns out the reason that they did
Speaker 1: this is that a company called Io sued Ioproducts Open
Speaker 1: Ai Sam Altman and I quote Sir Jonathan Paul Ive
Speaker 1: Johnny Ive, I just want a name on June ninth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unfair
Speaker 1: business practices. Io also makes the case that these violations
Speaker 1: weren't a simply unhappy coincidence, but rather a deliberate action.
Speaker 1: A judge granted the temporary restraining order on June twenty
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty five that stops Ioproducts and open Ai
Speaker 1: from using its name, which has obviously put the brakes
Speaker 1: on Aortman's attempt to hype this acquisition, which he had
Speaker 1: previously leaked to The Wall Street Journal, could add a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars to the company's valuation, which is of course bullshit.
Speaker 1: At this point, I'm going to start calling Ioproducts, by
Speaker 1: which I mean open Ai is soon to be maybe
Speaker 1: acquired hardware wing the defendants because Io, by which I
Speaker 1: mean the starthub in question, sounds literally the same. Io
Speaker 1: has been referring to a device that they're making as
Speaker 1: a computer without a screen since according to an archive
Speaker 1: version of their website I found at least April second,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. The defendants argued in their response to
Speaker 1: Io's complaint that they made changes only after seeing Ioproducts.
Speaker 1: So Jony ivesting Johnny, I fucking don't care and their
Speaker 1: thing when they launched, and this is before they filed
Speaker 1: the complaint, which is actually true anyway, Who are these people? So?
Speaker 1: Io was founded in March twenty eighteen, is part of
Speaker 1: Google X, which is effectively Google's internal skunk Works R
Speaker 1: and D division, and was spun out as an independent
Speaker 1: company in August twenty twenty one, raising a further thirty
Speaker 1: seven point two million dollars on top of the twenty
Speaker 1: five million dollars Google had already provided. I always been
Speaker 1: preparing for launch ever since. They've had an audiologist to
Speaker 1: prove thing. I think that's come out since. But the
Speaker 1: Io one device, the thing that's really the thing that
Speaker 1: we're talking about here, which is an ear worn screenless
Speaker 1: computer that's meant to have launched already take a run,
Speaker 1: said it with launching Winter twenty twenty four in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, and of course it hasn't, and the current
Speaker 1: store page says it will launch in August twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: But bugger me, I don't know how they possibly raise money.
Speaker 1: Now there is a company, possibly owned by open Ai,
Speaker 1: that has the same name that might do the same thing.
Speaker 1: It's not great, and it doesn't get better for the
Speaker 1: defendants because Io also owns a trademark one that covers
Speaker 1: ever everything from audio head phones, microcomputers, downloadable mobile operating
Speaker 1: system software a bunch of other things that would make
Speaker 1: it very easy to mistake the defendant's announcement. Well for
Speaker 1: Io and the Io one, I mean they have the
Speaker 1: same fucking name. They have the same name. They have
Speaker 1: the same name. Now, one might think this is all
Speaker 1: a weird coincidence, except it very well might not be.
Speaker 1: According to Io's complaint, representatives from Sam Moltman's Apollo Projects,
Speaker 1: one of his many venture capital firms, met with the
Speaker 1: company multiple times, receiving technical information and the vision for
Speaker 1: the product, along with demonstrations of whatever they had at
Speaker 1: the time. Weirdly enough, in April twenty twenty two, Io
Speaker 1: was also introduced to Johnny Ive's design firm love From
Speaker 1: to talk about a potential partnership, one that loved From
Speaker 1: eventually declined. Important detail love From also works with open Ai.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they'd started at that point. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Io also attempted to hire Evans Hanky
Speaker 1: as their head of design. Great name there, and basically
Speaker 1: the air apparent to Johnny. I've at Apple and I've left,
Speaker 1: except Hanky left to join. I've on a product sounds
Speaker 1: the same. I just fucking hate these people, Hanky declined,
Speaker 1: and in the defendant's reply, framed the conversation as Hanky
Speaker 1: taking a favor for a friend, just talking to someone. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: Hanky went on to co found the defendant's version of
Speaker 1: Ioproducts in twenty twenty three. Also, a lot of the
Speaker 1: defendant's arguments are yeah, I was just being nice. I
Speaker 1: was just meeting with them because they were nice, because
Speaker 1: Altman himself said on Twitter, Oh, I meet with founders
Speaker 1: all the time. Do you do they have the same
Speaker 1: fucking name as the companies you're buying? Jesus Christ. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, Io chose to reach out to Sam
Speaker 1: Mortman to invest and got the response that Aortman was
Speaker 1: and I quote working on something competitive and that he
Speaker 1: would and I quote again respectfully pass, before adding that
Speaker 1: the company was called Io Products and that Johnny I've
Speaker 1: was driving this, which is also a quote. Otherwise, multiple
Speaker 1: people that work for the defendants identically named company went
Speaker 1: on to try Io's current product, as well as received
Speaker 1: demonstrations of the upcoming Io one device as screen this
Speaker 1: computer that you control with your voice. I also that
Speaker 1: there were multiple meetings of Open Ai representatives and Altman
Speaker 1: himself about an acquisition, though emails that Altman has publicly
Speaker 1: shared make it seem more like a friendly gesture this time,
Speaker 1: and I would buy that to an extent. On the
Speaker 1: announcement of the deal to acquire Ives Company in May,
Speaker 1: Io CEO Jason Rugolo, Rugolo reached out to Waltman again
Speaker 1: to see you about partnering or maybe an acquisition, eventually
Speaker 1: bringing up that there was an obvious similarity between the names.
Speaker 1: He used the words rut Row, which if I was
Speaker 1: in a high stakes corporate negotiation, I would not speak
Speaker 1: like Scooby Doo. Now. The defendants frame Rugolo and Io's
Speaker 1: meetings as a generosity in their part, and their generosity
Speaker 1: was so profound that they chose to meet with Io
Speaker 1: at least five times over the course of three years.
Speaker 1: For whatever reason, both Altman and Rugolo are choosing to
Speaker 1: post about this publicly, and both of them seem like
Speaker 1: huge assholes. Rgalo also posted I have not, nor have
Speaker 1: I ever been suicidal on Twitter, and I must add
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer, but some legal don't post that
Speaker 1: or anything. Don't ever if you're in a lawsuit, don't
Speaker 1: go fucking posting about the lawsuit. I don't care if
Speaker 1: you're some guy or your Sam Altman you shouldn't be
Speaker 1: doing that. It's just very frustrating to watch as talking
Speaker 1: to a friend of the show case of Kagawa about this,
Speaker 1: and I think it gave him madness, which is good
Speaker 1: because I like to share it with people. Nevertheless, the
Speaker 1: judge order that the defendant sees using the name Ioproducts
Speaker 1: until a hearing is held in October, and in general
Speaker 1: judges are hesitant to make this kind of ruling with
Speaker 1: that sincere belief that the case says merit. But in summary,
Speaker 1: this suit alligious that representatives of Sam Altman, Johnny Ive
Speaker 1: and their respective firms Ioproducts, Love From Apollo Projects and
Speaker 1: Open Ai repeatedly met with io as in Jason Roguolo's
Speaker 1: company as a means of learning more about the intellectual
Speaker 1: property and design of its products, going as far as
Speaker 1: to suggest that they may partner with invest in or
Speaker 1: consider acquiring the company. Keep thinking of like a Jason
Speaker 1: Derulo bit with Rugulo, but I don't know how to
Speaker 1: say his name proper. At this point, I'm several minutes
Speaker 1: into recording them. Mogue, someone else do the funny. But
Speaker 1: to me, something about this whole thing feels fishy on
Speaker 1: both counts. The defendant's argument is that these meetings were
Speaker 1: harmless roaming Rogulo and Iowa's desperate counterparties with the device
Speaker 1: stuck in development hell begging open Ai and Sam Mormon
Speaker 1: to invest in or acquire them, which is compelling. Ish
Speaker 1: the emails that Sam Worman shared publicly, and I'll have
Speaker 1: these in the notes, they don't make mister Jason look
Speaker 1: particularly good. They make him look a little desperate. But
Speaker 1: the same time, and I know this from talking to
Speaker 1: various founders about like money is, you generally don't go
Speaker 1: in heart and the bigger they are, they get it
Speaker 1: kind of glad handle them a little bit because you
Speaker 1: don't want to piss them off. It's basic business. So
Speaker 1: he could have just been being nice. I would actually
Speaker 1: buy this. I would also buy the defendant's argument, and
Speaker 1: I think it would have a lot more weight if
Speaker 1: it wasn't for the fact that they'd met with IO
Speaker 1: so many fucking times and their goddamn name is identical.
Speaker 1: In fact, what makes this entire thing so ridiculous is
Speaker 1: that Altman and I could have named their startup literally
Speaker 1: anything else, and none of this would have happened. They
Speaker 1: could have named it Burger Inc. And it would have
Speaker 1: been fine. IO would never have sued them if they
Speaker 1: were called but Burger Inc. I don't know what they're doing.
Speaker 1: But I guess the creator of the world's biggest plagiarism
Speaker 1: machine couldn't fucking help himself. Well, the emails that Altman
Speaker 1: has shared publicly do make Rigolo's sound a bit cloying
Speaker 1: and don't feel like things you'd send somebody you have
Speaker 1: a deep relationship with, like they feel like new conversations
Speaker 1: and very generic. Io claims that there have been multiple
Speaker 1: other calls and emails, and I imagine those will come
Speaker 1: out and discovery, which is the part of the lawsuit
Speaker 1: where everybody has to share emails and communications. Yet, for me,
Speaker 1: the most damning part is the involvement of Johnny Ive's
Speaker 1: love from in twenty twenty two. Almand's absolutely a gadfly,
Speaker 1: and I would buy the idea that he'd meet with
Speaker 1: random people doing an AI star up. There is a
Speaker 1: history there of him randomly responding to people and meeting
Speaker 1: up with them. Sure, whatever, but why was Johnny Ive's
Speaker 1: design for meeting with Io in twenty twenty two, a
Speaker 1: year before he'd found a company with the same name
Speaker 1: that does something really similar sounding in roughly the same
Speaker 1: timeframe that Sam Altan was meeting with them. I mean,
Speaker 1: Sam Ortman's represented. This isn't that a weird I mean
Speaker 1: it is. It's extremely weird. Why you just this friendly?
Speaker 1: You just love hanging out This Jason guy doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like he's doing well. Is he really charming? Is he
Speaker 1: fun to hang out with? Jason? Hit me up, baby,
Speaker 1: let's hang out. Actually, don't do that. You're at a
Speaker 1: really big lawsuit. I don't want to fucking talk to you.
Speaker 1: Stop posting. In any case, this fascal situation will ground
Speaker 1: open AI's hardware efforts to a halt for a little bit,
Speaker 1: at least until at least for a month. But they
Speaker 1: could just rebrand. It's like but Burger, Inc. Maybe, but
Speaker 1: just throwing that out there, call me Sam and if
Speaker 1: you use that name, I'm suing you too. And while
Speaker 1: they could come up with a new name such as
Speaker 1: butt Burger, any details of the product that leg or
Speaker 1: announced will now face unbelievable scrutiny, if not by the
Speaker 1: tech press, but by me and Io's lawyers, because that's
Speaker 1: the thing. They chose this name, and changing the name
Speaker 1: will not hide the fact that they knew some stuff
Speaker 1: about Io's products, me and the plaintiff in this lawsuit.
Speaker 1: That's the other thing. The name is so similar, man,
Speaker 1: you couldn't have come up with any and their claiming,
Speaker 1: by the way, oh Io refers to input output, which
Speaker 1: is true. But fuck mate, could you not have come
Speaker 1: up with anything else? Any other name? But Burger? I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm going to say that at least one
Speaker 1: more time before the end of the episode in but Burger.
Speaker 1: There you go. Anyway, this whole thing is fucking stupid.
Speaker 1: I find both sides of the situation very annoying. And
Speaker 1: it's also important to note that Open Eye is yet
Speaker 1: to buy io products, you know, the Johnny I've startup,
Speaker 1: and it's currently in the process of trying to convince
Speaker 1: Microsoft to let them become a for profit company, which
Speaker 1: I will get to probably in next week's monologue. Until then,
Speaker 1: I just want to say that everybody in this situation
Speaker 1: kind of fucking sucks.