6 ms·

The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Ju

• inigyou 20d ago
  The law is normally supposed to repay whatever damage you suffered while the law was running.
  • MBCook 20d ago
    What would that even be in a case like this?
    • valleyer 20d ago
      Anthropic would estimate (and provide justification of) how much lost income (and perhaps brand equity, opportunity cost, etc.) it suffered as a result of the government's actions, and the judge would consider it and decide.
      • MBCook 19d ago
        I know that’s how it works. How could they possibly estimate that in this specific case.
        • vkou 19d ago
          Generally, one side would come up with their idea of the number and state their reasoning, the other side would do the same, and the judge looks at their reasoning and decides what makes sense. This requires a lot of work to estimate and reason and argue and adjudicate, you're not going to get a napkin math answer on an internet forum.
        • robotresearcher 19d ago
          Courts do this stuff all the time. Meta was just fined $18B for making their services addictive, and failing on purpose to keep kids away. That number is entirely made up. How it works is that the complainant makes an argument with an amount attached, the argument is reviewed and discussed by all parties, and the judge decides. The law system is amazingly free-form in some respects, which is why precedent is so important: there's not much else constraining things.
• deleted 20d ago
  [deleted]
• colechristensen 20d ago
  >Why can't they expedite for special cases? They can, the preliminary injunction is a thing that can be invoked very quickly to stop actions before the law decides. Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm and they're free to seek damages if they wish, but they won't because it doesn't really matter to them. This whole mess has just been advertising that has kept them in the headlines and very likely has been more beneficial than harmful.
  • 3eb7988a1663 20d ago
    Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm This is a fast paced business environment where one company being explicitly disallowed by the government could create long-lasting damage. How many institutions might have gone with the safer OpenAI and will not revisit the decision?
    • colechristensen 19d ago
      I'm pretty convinced Anthropic was intentionally antagonizing the government in order to get high level attention, media coverage, and government contacts to hep "fix" the problem. Far from irreparable harm it was a marketing stunt.
  • bulbar 20d ago
    You sure they didn't lose governmental contracts because of it? Also, the current administration doesn't care much about the law but what Trump and his people like and dislike. They made it very clear that they don't like Anthropic, so they won't get any contracts now, this ruling doesn't really matter until Trump is out of office. None of this provable, of course. They even fired people for investigating the storm on the Capitol. The message was pretty clear: we don't care about the law or what your job is, if you do something we dislike we retaliate, so you better become corrupt and stop caring as well or quit now on your own terms.
    • colechristensen 19d ago
      >You sure they didn't lose governmental contracts because of it? I'm sure they got MORE government contracts because of it by turning themselves into headline news for weeks.
• physicalecon 20d ago
  Law was not in effect yet, and now it’s repealed. Cest la vie.
• throw0101a 20d ago
  > Why can't they expedite for special cases? To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers… > The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive briefing and public oral argument, and result in lengthy written opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and of any concurring and dissenting justices. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket
  • bpodgursky 20d ago
    [flagged]
    • fny 20d ago
      Bush and Obama filed 8 emergency applications across their presidencies (16 years.) The first Trump admin filed 41. Biden filed 19. The second Trump admin filed 32 in 2025 alone.
      • jimmaswell 20d ago
        Ok? This is a total non-sequitur.
        • exe34 20d ago
          It indicates one of two things: either the orange fuhrer is being sabotaged and having to defend himself, or that he's doing blatantly illegal things and even a court stacked in his favour by him is trying to reign him in.
        • fny 19d ago
          I was trying to avoid editorializing by just stating facts that demonstrate the process is beyond some issue of reigning in lower courts and is instead leveraged by politicians to achieve their goals. I can also editorialize. In my view, Trump is leveraging the shadow docket to get decisions over turned by members of his own party who don't need to provide detailed (or any) explanations as to why or information about who voted for what.
• frog42 20d ago
  I thought I hated Web 2.0/3.0, but "age of twitter" made me actually feel ill.
  • mceachen 20d ago
    age of xitter won't make you feel better.
  • wavewrangler 20d ago
    From recalled beef, to contaminated greens, to the cancer that is twitter, you will forever remember this period of your life as the dreaded... "age of shitter"
• avaer 20d ago
  That's why the exploit of a social media savvy government is to overflow the system with so much slop (literally and figuratively) the law can never catch up. Your bug is their feature.
  • inigyou 20d ago
    They call it "flooding the zone", it's an explicit strategy
    • theshrike79 20d ago
      And Gish Gallop. Basically lie so much and so fast that the fact checkers can't keep up. It also helps when their voter base literally couldn't care less about "truth".
      • inigyou 19d ago
        Gish gallop is a name that came from an opponent of the strategy, and refers to a localized usage of the strategy within one argument. Flooding the zone is what the people who are doing the strategy call it when they do it globally.
• deleted 20d ago
  [deleted]
• jstummbillig 20d ago
  Mostly, the law is not creating the right incentives. In this case in particular, I don't think it's so much a matter of speed: I suspect the current US admin would still sow the chaos they do to the same degree if it was ruled illegal within a week instead of within months.
  • mrandish 20d ago
    Agreed. There's little doubt the admin knew they'd lose in court before they did it but they also knew it would still hurt Anthropic and make an example showing what happens to "any vendor who tries to put restrictions on the DoW's use of their product."
  • ElProlactin 20d ago
    You're right: the current administration would find a way because they don't care what the law says. The law, to them, is a system to be hacked when necessary. Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system. You can have a strong legal system by design (good oversight, various checks and balances, etc.) but in practice, any system is only as good as the most powerful people are decent and respectful of it. If you have someone in the most powerful position (the executive) who doesn't respect the law and who isn't willing to, with wisdom in his or her heart, exercise restraint with the understanding that protecting the integrity of the system is ultimately more important than getting your way, the law stands no chance.
    • bobthepanda 20d ago
      An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over. Presidents are not historically all powerful within their own parties and the nature of the big tent systems means usually it is fairly difficult to get agreement on everything within a party without some compromise. Trump has managed to defang everybody else in the GOP.
      • klik99 20d ago
• ImJamal 20d ago
  Doesn't every company and person consider their case special?
• smuhakg 20d ago
  They do. It's called a preliminary injunction, which Anthropic obtained back in March. And this current decision is "summary judgement" which is another way to expedite a court case. injunction in question: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYKRX7EU4j5U/v0 https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYKRX7EU... Such an injunction is granted when a party can show they have "irreparable harm" if not for the injunction and would likely succeed on the merits of the case. > Anthropic has submitted concrete, non-speculative evidence of the ongoing harms to its liberty interests. Within days, many large enterprise customers signaled that publicly doing business with Anthropic over competitors was not worth it. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶ 16.) Three government contractor customers terminated their contracts with Anthropic, or were instructed to do so by Defendants; three deals valued at over $180 million fell apart despite being on the verge of closing; potential partners demanded additional protective contractual provisions such as unilateral termination; customers asked to cut short their contracts or reduced their amount, in some instances specifically mentioning the Challenged Actions; and others switched from Claude to competing generative AI tools. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶¶ 11–19; Dkt. No. 6-3 ¶ 33.) Anthropic’s Chief Financial Officer, Krishna Rao, projects that, depending on how broadly Anthropic’s customers interpret the Challenged Actions, Anthropic could lose between hundreds of millions and multiple billions of dollars in 2026 revenue. (Dkt. No. 6-5 ¶ 6.) Moreover, Defendants do not contest that Anthropic will be unable to obtain compensatory relief from the government, making its economic harm likely irreparable. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 677 (9th Cir. 2021); California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2018). The current decision discussed in the article was also expedited since it is Anthropic winning a motion for summary judgement. That is, before a trial even happens to assess who is correct about a factual dispute, parties are allowed to try to win entirely on legal grounds. The judge assumes everything the United States alleges is true, then sees if Anthropic would win anyways. From the current decision: > Under the APA, an agency action must be set aside and held unlawful if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D). Anthropic has shown that the Hegseth Directive and the Supply Chain Designation were in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.
• 0xbadcafebee 20d ago
  It's less slow in countries that aren't extremely litigious and backed up with frivolous cases, underfunded in staff, with excessive penalties and racial profiling causing overflows of cases and convictions for minor offenses, resulting in the world's largest prison population and the world's most backed up legal system.
• SwtCyber 20d ago
  [dead]
• penguin_booze 20d ago
  "The wheels of justice turns slowly but grinds finely". Oof!
• kaon_2 20d ago
  You are right and yet I continue to be impressed by a court system that can deliver judgment in 3 months whereas in the Netherlands nothing happens in under a year and complex cases always last more than five.
• rzz3 19d ago
  In the age of "Twitter"? Why Twitter specifically, not the internet or social media? I honestly feel like Twitter is losing relevance. I learned about it from TikTok for what its worth, and then read more about it here on HN. I've never understood why people put Twitter on a pedestal that I feel it doesn't deserve. Though aside from that your point stands and I totally agree with you. In reality people's/companies' constitutional rights can be infringed easily and the courts take months or even years to stop said infringement.