6 ms·

Would something like that hold up in court?

by valtism 1y ago

compootr 1y ago
they can choose who they do & don't want to do business with
- manquer 1y ago
  Law does not work like that. - Contracts can have unenforceable terms that can be declared null and void by a court, any decision not to renew the contract in future would have no bearing on the current one. - there are plenty of restrictions on when/ whether you can turn down business for example FRAND contracts or patents don’t allow you choose to not work with a competitor and so on.
  - ronsor 1y ago
    People always say "this wouldn't hold up in court" and "the law doesn't work like that" when it comes to contract, but in reality, contracts can mostly contain whatever you want. I see no reason why Anthropic can't arbitrarily ban OpenAI, regardless of my opinion on the decision. Anthropic hasn't "patented" access to the Claude API; there are no antitrust concerns that I can see; etc.
    - staticman2 1y ago
      Nobody was asking if Anthropic can ban OpenAI. I believe they were asking if the contract that can ban using the output to train an AI would hold up in court. And no, it isn't clear to me that this contract term would hold up in court as Anthopic doesn't have copyright ownership in the AI output. I don't believe you can enforce copyright related contracts without copyright ownership. I could be wrong of course, but I find it odd this topic comes up from time to time but apparently nobody has a blog post by a lawyer or similar to share on this issue.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > And no, it isn't clear to me that this contract term would hold up in court as Anthopic doesn't have copyright ownership in the AI output They don't need copyright ownership of the AI output to make part of the the conditions for using their software running on their servers (API access) an agreement not to use it training a competing AI model. There would have to be a law prohibiting that term, either in general or for a company in the specific circumstances Anthropic is in. (The “specific circumstances” thing is seen, e.g., when a term is otherwise permitted but used but a firm that is also a monopoly in a relevant market as a way of either defending or leveraging that monopoly, and thus it becomes illegal in that specific case.)
        staticman2 1y ago
        "They don't need copyright ownership of the AI output to make part of the conditions for using their software running on their servers (API access) an agreement not to use it training a competing AI model." You are missing the point. Copyright law and the copyright act, not general contract law, governs whether a contract provision relating to AI output can be enforced by Anthropic, and since copyright law says Anthropic has no copyright in the output, Anthropic will not win in court. It's not different than if Anthropic included a provision saying you won't print out the text of Moby Dick. Anthropic doesn't own copyright on Moby Dick and can't enforce a contract provision related to it. Like I said I can be convinced I'm wrong based on a legal analysis from a neutral party but you seem to be arguing from first principles.
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        > You are missing the point. No, I am disagreeing with the point, because it's completely wrong. > Copyright law and the copyright act, not general contract law, governs whether a contract provision relating to AI output can be enforced by Anthropic No, it doesn't. There is no provision of copyright law that limits terms of contracts covering AI outputs. > It's not different than if Anthropic included a provision saying you won't print out the text of Moby Dick. This is true, but undermines your point. > Anthropic doesn't own copyright on Moby Dick and can't enforce a contract provision related to it. Actually, providing services that allow you to produce output can enforce provisions prohibiting reproducing works they don't own the copyright to (and frequently do adopt and enforce rules prohibiting this for things other people own the copyright to). > Like I said I can be convinced I'm wrong based on a legal analysis from a neutral party but you seem to be arguing from first principles. You seem to be arguing from first principles that are entirely unrelated to the actual principles, statutory content of, or case law of contracts or copyrights, and I have no idea where they come from, but, sure, believe whatever you want, it doesn't cost me anything.
    - AWPAGE 1y ago
      IMO its all well and good for Anthropic to adhere and or justify a ban under it’s TOS. It’s been super annoying when (myself and others) have been arbitrarily banned with very little communication on how to remedy or adhere to ToS for what feels like it’s intended purpose? The biggest lesson I learnt from my law degree is that sure you might be legally entitled to it - but you can still be receiving a raw deal and have very little in the way of remedial action.
- realharo 1y ago
  But who's going to enforce this for them? And would they even find out if the service is otherwise available to the general public?

Would something like that hold up in court?

compootr 1y ago

they can choose who they do & don't want to do business with

manquer 1y ago
Law does not work like that. - Contracts can have unenforceable terms that can be declared null and void by a court, any decision not to renew the contract in future would have no bearing on the current one. - there are plenty of restrictions on when/ whether you can turn down business for example FRAND contracts or patents don’t allow you choose to not work with a competitor and so on.
- ronsor 1y ago
  People always say "this wouldn't hold up in court" and "the law doesn't work like that" when it comes to contract, but in reality, contracts can mostly contain whatever you want. I see no reason why Anthropic can't arbitrarily ban OpenAI, regardless of my opinion on the decision. Anthropic hasn't "patented" access to the Claude API; there are no antitrust concerns that I can see; etc.
  - staticman2 1y ago
    Nobody was asking if Anthropic can ban OpenAI. I believe they were asking if the contract that can ban using the output to train an AI would hold up in court. And no, it isn't clear to me that this contract term would hold up in court as Anthopic doesn't have copyright ownership in the AI output. I don't believe you can enforce copyright related contracts without copyright ownership. I could be wrong of course, but I find it odd this topic comes up from time to time but apparently nobody has a blog post by a lawyer or similar to share on this issue.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > And no, it isn't clear to me that this contract term would hold up in court as Anthopic doesn't have copyright ownership in the AI output They don't need copyright ownership of the AI output to make part of the the conditions for using their software running on their servers (API access) an agreement not to use it training a competing AI model. There would have to be a law prohibiting that term, either in general or for a company in the specific circumstances Anthropic is in. (The “specific circumstances” thing is seen, e.g., when a term is otherwise permitted but used but a firm that is also a monopoly in a relevant market as a way of either defending or leveraging that monopoly, and thus it becomes illegal in that specific case.)
      - staticman2 1y ago
        "They don't need copyright ownership of the AI output to make part of the conditions for using their software running on their servers (API access) an agreement not to use it training a competing AI model." You are missing the point. Copyright law and the copyright act, not general contract law, governs whether a contract provision relating to AI output can be enforced by Anthropic, and since copyright law says Anthropic has no copyright in the output, Anthropic will not win in court. It's not different than if Anthropic included a provision saying you won't print out the text of Moby Dick. Anthropic doesn't own copyright on Moby Dick and can't enforce a contract provision related to it. Like I said I can be convinced I'm wrong based on a legal analysis from a neutral party but you seem to be arguing from first principles.
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        > You are missing the point. No, I am disagreeing with the point, because it's completely wrong. > Copyright law and the copyright act, not general contract law, governs whether a contract provision relating to AI output can be enforced by Anthropic No, it doesn't. There is no provision of copyright law that limits terms of contracts covering AI outputs. > It's not different than if Anthropic included a provision saying you won't print out the text of Moby Dick. This is true, but undermines your point. > Anthropic doesn't own copyright on Moby Dick and can't enforce a contract provision related to it. Actually, providing services that allow you to produce output can enforce provisions prohibiting reproducing works they don't own the copyright to (and frequently do adopt and enforce rules prohibiting this for things other people own the copyright to). > Like I said I can be convinced I'm wrong based on a legal analysis from a neutral party but you seem to be arguing from first principles. You seem to be arguing from first principles that are entirely unrelated to the actual principles, statutory content of, or case law of contracts or copyrights, and I have no idea where they come from, but, sure, believe whatever you want, it doesn't cost me anything.
  - AWPAGE 1y ago
    IMO its all well and good for Anthropic to adhere and or justify a ban under it’s TOS. It’s been super annoying when (myself and others) have been arbitrarily banned with very little communication on how to remedy or adhere to ToS for what feels like it’s intended purpose? The biggest lesson I learnt from my law degree is that sure you might be legally entitled to it - but you can still be receiving a raw deal and have very little in the way of remedial action.
realharo 1y ago
But who's going to enforce this for them? And would they even find out if the service is otherwise available to the general public?