Apple's reply narrows the io case to a bug and a download, not a phone call

Apple has filed its response to OpenAI's motion to dismiss the trade secret suit it brought against OpenAI, io Products, and two former employees, Chang Liu and Tang Tan, according to a report from 9to5Mac ^[1][2][19]. What is actually being argued is the framing: whether this case reaches into the ordinary mechanics of hiring from a competitor, or whether it is confined to two specific acts by two specific people.

OpenAI's motion, filed days earlier, says Apple sued "without adequate investigation" and rests on three arguments: that Apple has not shown it owns a protectable trade secret, has not alleged conduct plausibly supporting misappropriation, and has not plausibly alleged injury or ongoing harm ^[3][4][5]. The supporting characterisations are the part worth reading closely, because they describe things that happen after almost every senior departure. OpenAI says Liu was consulted by former colleagues after he left rather than accessing Apple information without authorisation, and that Tan kept Apple's offboarding document in order to help new hires comply with security procedures ^[6][7]. It also argues Apple's own practices were partly to blame, claiming employees were encouraged to use personal iCloud accounts for work and that Apple failed to properly cut off access to company data after people left ^[8].

Apple's answer is not to defend a broad theory. It is to say the complaint never alleged the innocent version. Apple writes that the complaint does not allege Liu answered his former manager's questions, or that Apple employees accessed his personal iCloud account ^[14]. What it alleges is that Liu exploited an authentication bug to reach Apple's network storage, a cloud-based file repository holding confidential material, celebrated the discovery ("LOL... so funny"), and then spent weeks downloading dozens of confidential files while developing hardware for OpenAI ^[15]. "A manager's transition question is not authorization to raid Apple's confidential repository," Apple says, adding that the defendants cite nothing suggesting anyone at Apple knew of or approved the conduct ^[16]. OpenAI had published a heavily redacted exchange on its website showing a colleague still at Apple contacting Liu to clarify information about Apple projects, arguing it showed Apple's account was misleading ^[13]. Apple's position is that the exhibit at most explains conduct the complaint does not accuse ^[17].

The rest is standard-of-review discipline. Apple says its complaint sufficiently identifies specific trade secrets and cites prior cases where comparable detail was enough to proceed ^[10]. It says OpenAI relies on attorney argument and extrinsic evidence and asks the court to draw inferences in the defendants' favour, when the only test is whether Apple has alleged "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" ^[12]. It calls OpenAI's inadequate-protection argument "not credible" and says OpenAI trivialises the secrets as mere "supplier relationships" ^[11]. It also defends the allegations against Tan and against OpenAI's "own independent conduct" ^[18]. Apple's framing of its own case: defendants "do not grapple with the shocking allegations at the core of the Complaint" ^[9].

For anyone running a hardware or model team, the practical question is which framing survives. If the court accepts Apple's narrowing, consulting an ex-colleague and holding an offboarding checklist stay outside the misappropriation theory, and the case turns on the bug and the download log. If it does not, the pleading bar for suing over a competitive hire drops.