9to5Mac58%

Apple’s trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI reassigned to new judge 5%

By Marcus Mendes29%

7/24/2026, 12:33:42 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Recency Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 14.3% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 240 faulty-reasoning hits from 384 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,873 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.40% of the article peer group.

Apple’s trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI has been reassigned to U.S. 
District Judge Edward Davila, replacing the magistrate judge initially assigned to the case. 
Here are the details. 
New judge assigned, October hearing vacated 
When a civil lawsuit is filed in the Northern District of California, it is randomly assigned to either a district judge or a magistrate judge. 
If the case is assigned to a magistrate judge, each party must then indicate whether it agrees to let that judge oversee the entire case. 
That is because district judges have the authority to oversee federal civil cases from start to finish, while magistrate judges can do so only with the consent of every party involved. 
On the day Apple filed its trade secrets lawsuit against two former employees, OpenAI, and Jony Ive’s io Products, the case was randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. 
DeMarchi. 
This meant that all parties involved in the lawsuit would need to submit forms indicating whether they consented to DeMarchi overseeing the case in full. 
Apple, for its part, appears to have declined. 
Yesterday, the company submitted a consent-or-declination form, which has yet to be made public, that appears to have triggered the process of reassigning the case to a district judge. 
There do not appear to be any other filings that would explain the reassignment, which strongly suggests that Apple checked the box declining magistrate judge jurisdiction. 
As a result, the case has now been reassigned to U.S. 
District Judge Edward Davila, with Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins assigned to handle discovery matters. 
With the reassignment, the initial case management conference previously scheduled before Judge DeMarchi for October 13 has been vacated and will need to be rescheduled before Judge Davila. 
However, two other sets of deadlines remain in place: the parties must discuss settlement options and plans for exchanging evidence by September 22, then make their initial disclosures and file a joint case management statement by October 6. 
Worth checking out on Amazon 
* Geoffrey Cain  ‘Steve Jobs in Exile’ 
* David Pogue  ’Apple: The First 50 Years’ 
* MacBook Neo 
* Logitech MX Master 4 
* AirPods Pro 3 
* AirTag (2nd Generation)  4 Pack 
* Apple Watch Series 11 
* Wireless CarPlay adapter 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.9%Marcus Mendes: 2.3%9to5Mac: 2.7%Confirmation Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.6%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Marcus Mendes: 0.8%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 5.2%9to5Mac: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.7%9to5Mac: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.1%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 3.3%9to5Mac: 4.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 3.7%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Marcus Mendes: 1.8%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 3.0%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.0%9to5Mac: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.7%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.8%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 4.8%Hasty Generalization6.8%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.6%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.3%Marcus Mendes: 1.8%9to5Mac: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.3%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.1%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.1%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Marcus Mendes: 1.7%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.6%9to5Mac: 2.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 4.0%9to5Mac: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.5%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Marcus Mendes: 11.5%9to5Mac: 15.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.6%

384 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.