This about the risk of getting sued by parties with deep pockets. Antrophic is close to an IPO so that is definitely not the kind of attention they want.
This about the risk of getting sued by parties with deep pockets. Antrophic is close to an IPO so that is definitely not the kind of attention they want.
> This about the risk of getting sued by parties with deep pockets.
They are also probably intentionally trying to create differentiation between their models and open models to strengthen the regulatory capture case of having the government ban open model use.
Can't put the cat back in the tube
OK for monetization: We may have created yet another AI of DoOooOM this year!
Not OK for monetization: Someone vibecoded a clumsy clone of Alley Cat to the C64!
There are no content owners that have close to as deep of pockets as the big AI companies
The money we are talking about.. A lot of these rights holders have more than enough cash on hand to bring a suite and potentially destroy Anthropic/OpenAI with the right case.
Who? Netflix and Disney are the largest media rights holders, and they have market caps of ~$250 billion and ~$190 billion, respectively. OpenAI and Anthropic are both privately held, but currently have valuations of somewhere in the $1-2 trillion range.
That is not a fair fight.
While a good rule of thumb for the US court system is that someone with more money can screw over a smaller party. That's only up until a point. The most expensive lawsuit in history by legal fees was (adjusted for inflation) $1.15 billion. That was the 1998 Tobacco masters settlement (involving years of litigation by law firms across 46 states). So any award in the billions makes a case arguably justifiable (even more so when the highest litigation cost cases are often that expensive because the litigation fee includes a percentage of winnings).
Companies like autodesk with a ttm revenue of $7.8 billion would probably have fiscally compelling cases (if not legally compelling) to pursue if reverse engineered tools cut into their revenue. That's without getting into class action cases.
> While a good rule of thumb for the US court system is that someone with more money can screw over a smaller party. That's only up until a point.
Exactly.
Adobe had a FY2025 operating income of 8.7b on 23.77bn revenue. They employ over 33k people..
So Adobe alone has the money for a law suite that defends themselves from an existential threat, but I would imagine a class action.. It is, IMHO, just a matter of time before these companies put it together and take their shot.
Compared to the sums they bleed, sure, the 3+ billion that Pokémon alone sells every year is peanuts.