Engadget⁠42%

Apple Calls OpenAI's Hardware Business 'Rotten To Its Core' In Trade Secret Theft Lawsuit ⁠43%

By Karissa Bell⁠21%

7/10/2026, 9:39:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 32.8% saturation with 175 hits. Analysis detected 1,453 faulty-reasoning hits from 533 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠43% (12,537 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.30% of the article peer group.

Apple calls OpenAI's hardware business 'rotten to its core' in trade secret theft lawsuit 
The lawsuit also names io Products, the hardware company led by Jony Ive. 
July 10, 2026 5:39 pm EST 
Apple is suing OpenAI and two of its former employees who currently work at the AI company, for theft of its trade secrets. 
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Friday, Apple alleges extensive misconduct by the company it once partnered with, describing its hardware business as "rotten to its core." 
The lawsuit also names io Products, the Jony Ive-led hardware startup acquired by OpenAI last year, as complicit in the trade secret theft. 
It doesn't mention Ive by name, but described the organization as complicit in "a coordinated pattern of misconduct at an institutional level" within OpenAI. 
The filing also names Chang Liu, a former senior system electrical engineer at Apple, and Tang Yew Tan, a former Apple VP who is now OpenAI's Chief Hardware Officer. 
Apple claims that both Liu and Tan shared trade secrets with OpenAI. 
Liu, according to Apple's lawyers, "surreptitiously accessed and downloaded dozens of Apple's confidential hardware-related files, including voluminous, detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data." 
Apple also claims that Tan "has directed job candidates still working for Apple to bring 'actual parts' from Apple to their interviews for 'show and tell' sessions in which he and his team at OpenAI can elicit still more Apple confidential information." 
In all, Apple says that more than 400 of its former employees have taken jobs at OpenAI and that the company's interview process if structured "to try to solicit additional confidential Apple information." 
OpenAI didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the allegations. 
The company "never responded" when Apple reached out about its concerns, the lawsuit says. 
Drew Pusateri, OpenAI's director of strategic communications, tweeted that the company has "no interest in other companies' trade secrets" in reaction to the suit. 
Our statement in response to this suit: We have no interest in other companies' trade secrets. 
We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere. https://t.co/lIxGW6hyz5 
— Drew Pusateri (@drewpusateri) July 10, 2026 
In the filing, Apple says that it's likely not aware of the full extent of OpenAI's misconduct. 
"This much is clear, however: at every level, from members of its Technical Staff to its Chief Hardware Officer, and in coordination with business partners, OpenAI has been stealing Apple's trade secrets and confidential information," it says. 
"As a natural result, OpenAI's nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets." 
The lawsuit comes as Apple is still partnering with OpenAI for Apple Intelligence. 
In a footnote, Apple says that its existing agreement, which allows the iPhone maker to integrate chatGPT into its devices, "is not at issue here" and that its allegations of trade secret theft have "no connection" to the arrangement. 
Update, July 10, 7:30PM ET: This story was updated after publish to include a public comment from Drew Pusateri, OpenAI's director of strategic communication. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.3%Karissa Bell: 3.2%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.9%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Karissa Bell: 3.6%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 1.4%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Karissa Bell: 2.1%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias3.2%This article: 15.2%Karissa Bell: 3.1%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect15.2%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Karissa Bell: 2.5%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 6.9%Karissa Bell: 0.9%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 27.4%Karissa Bell: 6.8%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias27.4%This article: 7.5%Karissa Bell: 0.5%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 1.4%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.3%Karissa Bell: 0.4%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.4%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.6%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Karissa Bell: 1.9%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 5.3%Karissa Bell: 0.4%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 3.9%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.1%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.6%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.1%Karissa Bell: 6.2%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization13.1%This article: 2.4%Karissa Bell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring2.4%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.8%Karissa Bell: 2.1%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion17.8%This article: 6.9%Karissa Bell: 1.6%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question6.9%This article: 7.5%Karissa Bell: 2.8%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.5%This article: 3.0%Karissa Bell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque3.0%This article: 27.0%Karissa Bell: 2.3%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof27.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.8%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.6%Karissa Bell: 6.0%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal5.6%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 32.8%Karissa Bell: 2.9%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)32.8%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.7%Karissa Bell: 3.9%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote25.7%This article: 15.6%Karissa Bell: 1.8%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection15.6%This article: 25.9%Karissa Bell: 4.1%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice25.9%This article: 2.3%Karissa Bell: 0.1%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination2.3%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karissa Bell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Karissa Bell: 0.7%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.5%

533 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers11%attributed speech474writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDrew Pusateri • 24 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 16 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 12 words • 100.0% coverageDrew Pusateri • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

OpenAI

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words47% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+31.4 ptsWriter: 25.7%OpenAI: 57.1%57.1%Indoctrination+42.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%OpenAI: 42.9%42.9%Unattributed Quote-28.9 ptsWriter: 28.9%OpenAI: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-17.5 ptsWriter: 17.5%OpenAI: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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