9to5Mac75%

Apple moves for preliminary injunction in OpenAI trade secrets lawsuit 39%

By Chance Miller47%

8/4/2026, 5:47:36 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Loss Aversion, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 28% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 765 faulty-reasoning hits from 389 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.9% and a BS Rank of 39% (17,615 of 28,846 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

Apple has filed a request for a preliminary injunction in its ongoing trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI. 
Without a preliminary injunction, Apple says it will be “irreparably harmed” by the theft of its trade secrets. 
In the filing, Apple explains that it sent OpenAI a letter after filing the initial lawsuit last month, saying it “intended to move for preliminary injunctive relief.” 
However, Apple said this could be avoided if OpenAI would agree to the following five things: 
1. 
Stop accessing or using Apple’s confidential information 
2. 
Halt any ongoing use or disclosure 
3. 
Preserve all evidence 
4. 
Allow forensic inspections of devices, cloud storage, email, Slack, Teams, and other repositories 
5. 
Search OpenAI’s systems for any Apple confidential information 
According to Apple, OpenAI agreed to the first three items, but the two sides could not reach an agreement about the last two requests. 
As a result, Apple is asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction. 
Apple is asking the judge to immediately stop OpenAI from using or obtaining any Apple trade secrets, preserve all evidence, let Apple conduct forensic inspections of OpenAI’s devices and accounts, and recover any Apple confidential information still in OpenAI’s possession. 
Apple says: 
“The harm is happening now—every day that passes without an injunction allows OpenAI to embed their knowledge of Apple’s stolen information into its hardware development efforts, further damaging Apple and making it increasingly more difficult to unwind the harm.” 
Apple also filed a separate motion asking the court to expedite discovery, including early document production and depositions of key OpenAI employees and executives. 
Apple’s filings coincide with OpenAI publishing its longest public response yet to Apple’s lawsuit. 
In an overnight blog post, OpenAI said that the “careless, aggressive and oddly personal lawsuit” doesn’t live up to Apple’s reputation as “one of the greatest companies of all time.” 
The hearing on the injunction is set for Oct. 
1, 2026. 
You can view the full filing below. 
My favorite iPhone accessories: 
* Anker Nano USB-C wall charger with built-in screen 
* AirPods Pro 3: Check the current sale price 
* Charge all your Apple gear at the same time 
* Bring wireless CarPlay to any car 
* USB-C cable that shows how fast you’re charging 
Follow Chance: Threads, Bluesky, Instagram, and Mastodon. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Chance Miller: 1.8%9to5Mac: 3.0%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Chance Miller: 1.6%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 2.8%9to5Mac: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 3.2%9to5Mac: 4.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 14.7%Chance Miller: 0.9%9to5Mac: 1.1%Loss Aversion14.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Chance Miller: 3.1%9to5Mac: 3.1%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 24.9%Chance Miller: 1.5%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias24.9%This article: 17.7%Chance Miller: 1.7%9to5Mac: 3.8%Negativity Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.8%9to5Mac: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.6%Chance Miller: 0.9%9to5Mac: 1.5%Recency Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.2%Ad Hominem7.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.7%9to5Mac: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.1%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.2%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 10.0%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.5%Slippery Slope10.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.8%Chance Miller: 3.7%9to5Mac: 4.4%Hasty Generalization1.8%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.2%9to5Mac: 1.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.3%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.5%Begging the Question3.3%This article: 13.6%Chance Miller: 1.3%9to5Mac: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.6%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.9%Chance Miller: 1.9%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal6.9%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Chance Miller: 1.1%9to5Mac: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 28.0%Chance Miller: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.2%Unattributed Quote28.0%This article: 10.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection10.0%This article: 10.0%Chance Miller: 4.3%9to5Mac: 5.1%Biased Writer Voice10.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 2.3%9to5Mac: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Chance Miller: 9.7%9to5Mac: 13.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.3%

389 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech278writer words
Selected voice

Apple

98%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words73% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+97.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Apple: 97.5%97.5%Quote-first Misdirection+48.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Apple: 48.1%48.1%Biased Writer Voice+48.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Apple: 48.1%48.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -17.3 ptsWriter: 17.3%Apple: 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.