Elon Musk's historic partnership with OpenAI has soured, leading the tech mogul to file a lawsuit against the AI firm and its CEO, Sam Altman. This legal action, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, accuses the company of deviating from its original mission to disseminate its AI for the common good. Musk alleges that OpenAI has become somewhat of a "closed-source de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft, a move he argues is against the ethos of OpenAI's charter.

The lawsuit, first detailed by Time, hinges on complex legal and technological questions, the most pressing of which happens to be whether or not the current iteration of OpenAI's GPT-4 should be considered Artificial General Intelligence. To boldly litigate on such grounds could influence both OpenAI's operations and its exclusive partnership with Microsoft, which has pumped $13 billion into the AI venture. The complaint also demands OpenAI to make its technology publicly available and to cease its profit-oriented business activities with Microsoft.

Musk's legal standing to bring forward this suit has been questioned due to him no longer being a board member of OpenAI. Legal analysts like Brian Quinn, cited by the San Francisco Chronicle, caution that although Musk presents a strong argument, "he doesn’t have a case" due to his lack of official involvement with the company's governance. On the other hand, Musk's efforts are portrayed as a fight for transparency and ethical alignment in AI development, with significant implications for the sector at large.

The backstory to this lawsuit includes a boardroom drama at OpenAI, where a failed attempt to oust CEO Altman last November led to an upheaval that saw the CEO reinstated and board members reshuffled in what Musk's lawsuit describes as a "coup." Furthermore, the lawsuit paints a picture of Musk as a key founder who not only provided substantial startup capital but also was pivotal in defining the non-profit's vision, as explained by Time magazine. Musk's mission was to create an entity that would proceed to safely develop and deploy AI technology for the benefit of all humanity - a mission he alleges has been corrupted by the for-profit turns that OpenAI has taken.

Moving forward, the legal showdown sets to rigorously challenge OpenAI on its own definition of AGI and the subsequent licensing rights enjoyed by Microsoft. While the lawsuit's outcome remains uncertain, the narrative emerging from both accounts underscores a contentious split between Musk's vision for AI's future and the operational realities steering OpenAI and its partnerships. As quoted by San Francisco Chronicle, AI entrepreneur Gary Marcus articulates the broader issue at stake: "The courts of California must decide what OpenAI must do after straying from its original mission. The court of public opinion must decide what it thinks of Musk."