So there's a very long section about Microsoft involvement that alleges that Microsoft took defacto Control of the board after Altman was ousted and then reinstated circa November 2023. This seems to be the crux of his claim and is repeated in various forms throughout the remainder of the complaint ad nauseum.

What I find bizarre is that Musk alleges that Microsoft is the party benefiting, not open AI, but he hasn't named Microsoft as a party, when the claim seems to be that Open AI is an alter ego of Microsoft.

And he hasn't alleged, for example, that Microsoft paid Altman himself a sum of money to get Open AI's IP, which is typically what's required to show a beach of the non-profit status. Non-profits can partner with for profit businesses as long as there's arms length and the parties running the non-profit aren't personally benefiting beyond reason (officers can get big salaries if they're bringing in big money, just not direct payments from the outside associations, or corporate equity or bonds in the non-profit).

That there's very few players in this industry doesn't it make it that strange that they'd have to choose one and only one to partner with.