4 ms·

> But it's not clear from the article how critical this guy is in the upcoming lawsuits If he was the key piece to the lawsuit the lawsuit wouldn't really have

> But it's not clear from the article how critical this guy is in the upcoming lawsuits If he was the key piece to the lawsuit the lawsuit wouldn't really have legs. To get the ball rolling someone like him would have to be critical but after they're able to get the ball rolling and get discovery if after all that all you have is one guy saying there is copyright infringement you've not found anything. And realistically, the lawsuit is, while important, rather minor in scope and damage it could do to OpenAI. It's not like folk will go to jail, and it's not like OpenAI would have to close its doors, they would pay at most a few hundred million?

mu53 2y ago
each missing piece weakens the case
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  His testimony via depositions would still be allowed and he wouldn't be able to be crossed. So in theory, wouldn't it benefit the lawsuit?
chefandy 2y ago
Do all lawsuits that are damaged by losing key witnesses lack legs, counselor?
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs. But realistically was it damaged? He would have been deposed, no? That deposition can be entered into evidence. And because he is dead the defence can't cross so his word is basically untested. My understanding being able to bring in witness testimony and that the witness not being able to be crossed on the stand is beneficial to the side entering the witness testimony. So really, was the lawsuit actually damaged or is this just a bunch of people on the internet shouting conspiracy thinking a company worth 157b and invested into by companies worth trillions are going to kill someone over a copyright lawsuit? Did he have special information no one else had? Or was he a rank-and-file researcher? My understanding is he was a rank-and-file researcher, so that would mean anything he knew others knew.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person? b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question. c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing competing facts: they're adversarial pursuits of persuasion.
    - that_guy_iain 2y ago
      > a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person? Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe. > b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question. It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject. You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all. > c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing competing facts: they're adversarial pursuits of persuasion. So the other side can cross.
      - chefandy 2y ago
        > Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe. > I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs. ... so you're referring to instances where discovery didn't yield anything useful but the attorney keeps litigating against a company with a ton of resources based on unsupported assertions made by one person. Ok, sure. That sounds like a great point that's germane to this situation. > It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject. Ok, Perry Mason. Re-read the single sentence question I asked and then tell me how that implies I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist. > You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all. What? > So the other side can cross. Are you seriously implying testimony does not influence the outcome of a trial without cross-examination. You should see how much thought attorneys put into what they wear because it influences outcome. I'm done here.

mu53 2y ago

each missing piece weakens the case

that_guy_iain 2y ago
His testimony via depositions would still be allowed and he wouldn't be able to be crossed. So in theory, wouldn't it benefit the lawsuit?

chefandy 2y ago

Do all lawsuits that are damaged by losing key witnesses lack legs, counselor?

that_guy_iain 2y ago
I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs. But realistically was it damaged? He would have been deposed, no? That deposition can be entered into evidence. And because he is dead the defence can't cross so his word is basically untested. My understanding being able to bring in witness testimony and that the witness not being able to be crossed on the stand is beneficial to the side entering the witness testimony. So really, was the lawsuit actually damaged or is this just a bunch of people on the internet shouting conspiracy thinking a company worth 157b and invested into by companies worth trillions are going to kill someone over a copyright lawsuit? Did he have special information no one else had? Or was he a rank-and-file researcher? My understanding is he was a rank-and-file researcher, so that would mean anything he knew others knew.
- chefandy 2y ago
  a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person? b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question. c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing competing facts: they're adversarial pursuits of persuasion.
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    > a) In what universe would any attorney take up a lawsuit against a moneyed company with nothing but testimony from one person? Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe. > b) I made none of those other arguments and they're irrelevant to my single-sentence question. It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject. You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all. > c) If testimony doesn't impact trials and it's all a matter of competing paperwork, why do we have testimony at all? Well, juries for one. Court cases aren't merely about dispassionately weighing competing facts: they're adversarial pursuits of persuasion. So the other side can cross.
    - chefandy 2y ago
      > Well, you take up the lawsuit with not much. You get most of the evidence during discovery. And this is quite a common thing someone says "This happened to me" they sue and get discovery. So this universe. > I said if _ALL_ they have is him it lacks legs. ... so you're referring to instances where discovery didn't yield anything useful but the attorney keeps litigating against a company with a ton of resources based on unsupported assertions made by one person. Ok, sure. That sounds like a great point that's germane to this situation. > It was all relevant, you just seem to be extremely ignorant of the subject. Ok, Perry Mason. Re-read the single sentence question I asked and then tell me how that implies I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist. > You said the case was damaged, however, it appears you're starting to realise it may not be damaged at all. What? > So the other side can cross. Are you seriously implying testimony does not influence the outcome of a trial without cross-examination. You should see how much thought attorneys put into what they wear because it influences outcome. I'm done here.