Discussion

esbranson: Yes, more of this. (Direct, timely links to court dockets and documents on US Article III court cases.)

zmmmmm: An interesting aspect of this is the precedents around safety and supply. Which are that manufacturers have still been held liable for safety issues with their products even when they are disclosed. The only way for them to actually insulate themselves from liability is to formally constrain the user to safe uses of the product by agreement, and then not prosecute the user when they violate that. But when it ends up in court, the liability lands entirely with the other party since there was clear violation of an agreement not to do the unsafe thing.Which is all to say, putting aside the moral and ethics side of this, if Anthropic believes the technology is unsafe to use for these applications it has not just a moral duty to constrain its use, but a legal liability if it doesn't. This is well established in precedent.

ceejayoz: > In light of Anthropic’s showing on the merits, and the lack of evidence of harm to Defendants, the Court sets a nominal bond of $100.That must have been a bit of a goofy check to write.

righthand: By targeting a non-existent org, Dept of War, does that make this case at risk for being dismissed?Or is this just more Anthropic virtual signaling?

theindieman: Here’s the Preliminary Injunction Order. Essentially a total victory for Anthropic, but SCOTUS will certainly have the final say.https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...

mistrial9: great! this is the accompanying opinionhttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...

wat10000: I understand why Anthropic used the name “Department of War” in their public communication. They want to be friendly to the people who like that name. But what the heck is it doing in an official court document? That’s not the entity’s legal name. It would be like if I sued IBM and named them “Big Blue” in my suit.

zrail: (not a lawyer) I _think_ this is a result of Trump v CASA, where the Supreme Court determined that preliminary injunctions and TROs without a bond of some sort (which until then were fairly common) were invalid and unenforceable.

mistrial9: maybe Judge Lin is showing that she does get where they are coming from..

nutjob2: Maybe Judge Lin thinks the name used is irrelevant and doesn't want to distract from the relevant parts of the judgement.Or it may be the convention of using the name that the plaintiff or defendant has given themselves.

droidjj: Agreed! And shout-out to the people at CourtListener (the site hosting this PDF), who make millions of US court documents freely available to the public.