Apple has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging the ChatGPT maker poached its employees and coaxed them into handing over confidential designs and tightly held trade secrets to build a rival hardware device, a dramatic rupture between two firms that were partners barely two years ago.

“Recently, significant evidence has emerged suggesting individuals employed by OpenAI wrongfully took Apple’s secret and confidential information regarding our unreleased technologies, processes and products,” an Apple spokesperson said in an email.

The complaint, filed on Friday, pulls no punches. “OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets,” Apple wrote.

Among those named is Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI’s chief hardware officer and a former Apple vice-president, who is accused of taking information about Apple suppliers with him and encouraging interviewees to divulge confidential material.

“He has directed job candidates still working for Apple to bring ‘actual parts’ from Apple to their interviews for ‘show and tell’ sessions in which he and his team at OpenAI can elicit still more Apple confidential information,” reads the complaint.

Another former Apple employee, Chang Liu, is accused of leaving with an Apple laptop and using an authentication bug to breach the company’s internal network, downloading “dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files”.

Drew Pusateri, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said the company was reviewing the court filing. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” he added. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.”

From partners to plaintiffs

The lawsuit is a sharp turnaround for two companies that announced a major partnership in 2024, when Apple agreed to integrate ChatGPT into the operating systems of iPhones, iPads and Macs. When Apple showcased its revamped Siri voice assistant last month, however, its AI component was built on Google’s Gemini model instead.

Tensions began to simmer when OpenAI spent $6.4bn acquiring io Products, the hardware startup founded by former Apple design guru Jony Ive, which is also named in the suit. The litigation lands at an awkward moment for OpenAI, which is preparing one of the largest stock market flotations the technology sector has ever seen.

Apple is seeking damages and a court order blocking OpenAI from possessing or using its trade secrets.

The lesson for UK business owners

If a company with Apple’s security apparatus and legal firepower can allegedly watch its secrets walk out of the door with departing staff, smaller firms should pay attention. Loss of intellectual property remains one of the biggest threats to any business, and in most SMEs the crown jewels sit in far fewer heads, with far fewer safeguards.

In the UK, trade secrets are protected under the common law of confidence and the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018, but only where a business can show it took reasonable steps to keep the information secret. The Intellectual Property Office advises limiting access to those who need it, setting clear expectations and using non-disclosure agreements.

For owner-managers, the practical basics are cheaper than any courtroom: watertight confidentiality clauses in employment contracts, exit procedures that revoke system access on day one, and a clear record of who can see what. The do’s and don’ts of protecting intellectual property are well established, and almost all of them work best before a dispute rather than during one.

Apple v OpenAI will be fought by armies of Californian lawyers. For everyone else, the smarter money is on making sure the show and tell never happens.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, says the new arrangements, which are due to be provisionally implemented with their approval by the UK and European Parliaments still pending, represent “a huge change” for the territory.

“One of the key things which has defined the past eight generations of Gibraltarians is the restrictions at the frontier,” he told the BBC in the Gibraltarian government’s headquarters.

Picardo describes the agreement as introducing “complete and utter fluidity of people and goods” between Gibraltar, on the one hand, and Spain and the EU on the other.

The most obvious economic benefit for Gibraltar, Picardo says, will be an increase in arrivals.

“Business will now be able, in Gibraltar, to see a footfall increase which is not going to be restrained by a potential queue on the way in or frontier queue on the way out.”

With Spain contesting the UK’s sovereignty of Gibraltar, it is an issue that occasionally flares up in the political arena. In the most notorious episode of bilateral tensions in recent times, Spain’s dictator, Francisco Franco, introduced a blockade of the Rock in 1969, which was only lifted in 1982, well after his death.

The chief minister casts the new arrangement as the opposite of the blockade – a logical, mutually beneficial opening up of a border.

“This will be huge for human relations, it will be huge for business, it will be huge for frontier workers, it will be a new dawn” for Gibraltar’s relationship with Spain and the EU, says Picardo.

Spain’s foreign minister, José Manuel Albares, has cast it in a similar light, speaking of “a new era” for the Rock.

However, the deal also means that goods sold in Gibraltar must comply with EU regulations, something that had not been the case until now.

One of the biggest financial decisions many people face is this: Should you buy a house first or start a business? There is no universal answer because every person’s financial situation, career goals, family responsibilities, and risk tolerance are different.

Some people believe that owning a home provides security and stability before taking entrepreneurial risks. Others argue that building a successful business first creates income that can later make buying a dream home much easier.

If you’re asking yourself, “Should I prioritize a house or a business?”, this guide will help you evaluate both options, understand their advantages and disadvantages, and make a smarter financial decision.

Why This Decision Matters

Both buying a house and starting a business require a significant financial commitment. In many cases, you may not have enough capital to do both at the same time.

Your choice today can influence your financial future for years, even decades. That’s why understanding the long-term impact is more important than simply following what friends or relatives recommend.

When Buying a House First Makes Sense

Purchasing a home is often viewed as a major life milestone. It provides stability and can become a valuable long-term asset.

Advantages of Buying a House First

• Stable Living Situation
  You no longer worry about rising rental costs or frequent moves.
• Build Home Equity
  Instead of paying rent every month, your payments help build ownership in your property.
• Potential Property Appreciation
  Real estate often increases in value over time, especially in growing cities and developing communities.
• Greater Family Security
  A permanent home offers emotional stability, especially for families with children.
• Easier Financial Planning
  Fixed mortgage payments can be easier to budget than fluctuating rental expenses.

Disadvantages

• Large down payment requirements
• Monthly mortgage obligations
• Property taxes and maintenance costs
• Less available capital for investments
• Reduced financial flexibility

If most of your savings go toward buying a home, you may have little remaining capital to invest in business opportunities.

When Starting a Business First Makes Sense

A successful business can generate income that far exceeds what traditional employment offers. Many entrepreneurs choose to invest in their businesses first before purchasing real estate.

Advantages of Starting a Business First

• Higher Income Potential
  A profitable business may generate significantly more income than your regular salary.
• Creates Multiple Income Streams
  Business profits can later fund investments, retirement savings, and property purchases.
• Greater Financial Growth
  Businesses have the potential to scale, increasing profits over time.
• Tax Advantages
  Depending on your country’s tax regulations, business owners may qualify for deductible business expenses.
• Future Home Purchase Becomes Easier
  A thriving business may allow you to purchase a home with less financial stress.

Disadvantages

• Higher financial risk
• Income may not be stable during the early years
• Long working hours
• Possible business losses
• No guarantee of success

Unlike real estate, businesses can fail if they are poorly managed or if market conditions change dramatically.

Consider Your Personal Financial Situation

Before deciding, honestly evaluate your finances.

Ask Yourself These Questions

• Do I have emergency savings?
• How stable is my current income?
• Do I have existing debts?
• Can I handle financial risks?
• Do I have dependents?
• How much capital do I have?
• Do I have entrepreneurial experience?

Your answers can reveal which option better aligns with your current financial position.

Business First: Who Is It Best For?

Starting a business before buying a house may be a good choice if you:

• Are young and have fewer financial obligations
• Already have a validated business idea
• Possess industry knowledge or experience
• Can tolerate financial uncertainty
• Want to build wealth faster
• Already have affordable housing arrangements

Many successful entrepreneurs rented modest homes while investing heavily in growing their businesses.

House First: Who Is It Best For?

Buying a house first may be more appropriate if you:

• Have a growing family
• Need housing stability
• Prefer lower financial risk
• Have a steady long-term career
• Already have sufficient savings
• Do not yet have a proven business concept

Can You Do Both?

Yes—but it requires careful planning.

Instead of making an all-or-nothing decision, many financially successful individuals gradually build both assets.

For example:

1. Build an emergency fund.
2. Start a small side business.
3. Grow business profits.
4. Save for a house down payment.
5. Purchase a home when business income becomes stable.

This balanced approach reduces financial stress while allowing both goals to progress.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Buying an Expensive House Too Early

A large mortgage can limit your ability to invest in opportunities that could grow your wealth.

2. Starting a Business Without Research

Never invest simply because others are doing it. Conduct market research and prepare a business plan.

3. Ignoring Emergency Savings

Unexpected expenses happen. Maintain at least three to six months of living expenses before making major financial commitments.

4. Depending on Debt

Borrow responsibly. Excessive debt can create financial pressure whether you buy a home or start a business.

Questions to Help You Decide

Consider these practical questions:

• Will this investment generate income?
• Can I comfortably afford the monthly payments?
• What happens if my income decreases?
• Am I financially prepared for unexpected emergencies?
• Will this decision improve my financial future?

The Best Strategy for Long-Term Wealth

For many people, the smartest strategy isn’t choosing one forever—it is choosing the right priority at the right stage of life.

If you have a profitable business opportunity with strong potential, investing in that business first could create the income needed to buy a better home later.

If your family urgently needs stability and your finances are secure, purchasing a home first may provide peace of mind while you slowly build a business on the side.

The key is avoiding decisions based solely on emotion or social pressure. Your financial goals should reflect your own circumstances—not someone else’s timeline.

So, should you buy a house first or start a business?

The answer depends on your income, financial stability, family responsibilities, risk tolerance, and long-term goals.

If your objective is maximizing wealth, many financial experts encourage investing in income-producing assets before acquiring lifestyle assets. A successful business can eventually pay for the home you truly want.

However, if stability, security, and family needs are your highest priorities, buying a home first may be the better decision.

Ultimately, the best investment is the one that moves you closer to financial freedom while allowing you to sleep peacefully at night.

Take time to evaluate your options, create a realistic financial plan, and remember that building wealth is a marathon—not a sprint.

Business News Philippines was launched in October 2015 as a portal for readers to learn more about operating a business in the Philippines.

Latest posts by BN Philippines (see all)

The sat-nav maker written off when Google made navigation free in 2009 is now the location technology inside Microsoft, Uber and Huawei, and its comeback offers one of the sharpest survival lessons any UK business owner will read this year.

TomTom’s rise had been extraordinary: revenue grew from €40 million to €1.8 billion in five years, and almost 10 million people owned one of its devices. Then Google launched free turn-by-turn navigation and the £499 gadget on the dashboard looked obsolete overnight.

The share price collapsed 97 per cent. Worse, months earlier the company had paid €2.9 billion, at 28 times EBITDA and largely funded with debt, for map maker Tele Atlas. Recovery looked impossible.

Yet that seemingly reckless acquisition turned out to be the one asset Google could not copy: one of only two digital maps of the world. TomTom stopped selling navigation devices and started licensing location technology instead. Nearly two decades on, its full year 2025 results show revenue of €555 million, gross margins of 88 per cent against roughly 50 per cent in the hardware era, its first operating profit since 2020 and €263 million of net cash with zero debt.

For smaller firms facing their own giant-shaped problem, the playbook breaks down into three moves.

Protect the capability, not the product.

TomTom’s founders bet that their maps, continuously improved by billions of GPS observations from those 10 million sat-navs, were the real business. They kept Tele Atlas chief executive Alain De Taeye, who led mapmaking for the next 18 years. And when revenue fell 60 per cent, they did not retrench: the founders put in €169 million of their own money and increased annual R&D almost tenfold to €347 million. They invested through the crisis, not after it. It is a lesson in conviction for any owner tempted to slash spending at the first sign of trouble, and a reminder that the most innovative firms treat technology investment as a route to survival, not a luxury.

Win by partnering with your rival’s enemies.

Uber, Microsoft and Huawei all chose TomTom precisely because it was not Google. Chief executive Harold Goddijn called TomTom the “Switzerland of navigation”, and neutrality became the advantage. Google even kept recruiting customers for its rival: developers defected after a 14x API price rise, Huawei arrived after the US ban. Google built the consumer market; TomTom became the infrastructure underneath everyone who did not want to depend on it. Plenty of British firms have found the same, which is why specialist businesses continue to outperform larger competitors in markets the giants supposedly own.

Change the economics before you restructure.

Revenue fell 60 per cent but gross margins nearly doubled to 88 per cent. The Orbis platform replaced quarterly map releases with a continuously updated AI system. Only then came the cuts, with 800 roles removed. Technology first, cost base second. Mike Schoofs sold off the sat-nav business, built the maps business, and in 2026 the architect of the commercial pivot became chief executive. As other firms embracing a strategic pivot have discovered, sequencing matters as much as the destination.

When Google made navigation free, TomTom made maps indispensable. The company everyone thought was finished is quietly showing everyone else the way.

Paul Jones

Harvard alumni and former New York Times journalist. Editor of Business Matters for over 15 years, the UKs largest business magazine. I am also head of Capital Business Media’s automotive division working for clients such as Red Bull Racing, Honda, Aston Martin and Infiniti.