Lutz Finger

Senior visiting lecturer

Lutz Finger, visiting senior lecturer, has more than 20 years of experience in building AI-driven products at companies such as Google, LinkedIn, and SNAP Inc. 

Finger says: 

"Overall this is Musk's attempt to hurt OpenAI's conversion into a non-profit to slow them down. I doubt Musk’s business rationale for the bid will play out in his favor. However, the bid itself could signal an issue with the Microsoft-OpenAI partnership.

"OpenAI is shifting toward a consumer-oriented strategy, now that they are trying to get Google's market — there's real value but only if they execute successfully. Quality alone won’t be enough, as we saw with DeepSeek. The key differentiator is access to data and customers. For that they will need cash. For that they will need to become a for-profit organization.

"If there is a business reason for this bid then it is about leapfrogging Musk’s own AI ambition. Musk now has significantly greater access to government resources that will require AI. If the U.S. continues tightening AI access to maintain control, his move makes strategic sense.

"However, I don’t see this playing out in his favor. Controlling AI is not like controlling nuclear energy; thus, trade barriers will not help. In that sense, owning OpenAI could end up being an even bigger disaster for Musk than it was for Microsoft."

Erik Hovenkamp

Professor of Law

Erik Hovenkamp is an economist and legal scholar focusing on antitrust, IP and innovation policy.

Hovenkamp says: 

“I think the acquisition would be unlikely to raise antitrust concerns. Antitrust is concerned mainly about mergers between powerful competitors. Elon Musk's large companies, such as Tesla and X, don't compete with OpenAI. 

"Musk does own a small AI outfit called xAI, but it does not seem to be a significant player in the AI market. I don't think an antitrust challenge is likely here.”