*]:pointer-events-auto [content-visibility:auto] supports-[content-visibility:auto]:[contain-intrinsic-size:auto_100lvh] R6Vx5W_threadScrollVars scroll-mb-[calc(var(--scroll-root-safe-area-inset-bottom,0px)+var(--thread-response-height))] scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" data-turn-id= "request-WEB:99bf82d7-347f-4360-8751-0550f1cd879e-8" data-testid= "conversation-turn-12" data-scroll-anchor="false" data-turn= "assistant">

Day four brings sharp exchanges, headline admissions, and a courtroom locked in, but the real shift is happening beneath the surface. Elon Musk's testimony, including admitting he didn't read key deal terms and acknowledging limited AI distillation, cuts directly against the foundation of his case. Step back, and the focus turns to timing. Evidence points to Musk having suspicions as early as 2017, putting the statute of limitations front and center. With the judge signaling the case could be decided on that issue alone, the trial begins to feel less like a fight and more like a process playing out. This may look like a courtroom battle, but the outcome was likely sealed years ago.

Jack Russo

Managing Partner

[email protected]

www.computerlaw.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso

"Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️