6 ms·

Presumably this is going to lead to anthropic getting a big payday from the US gov for all the time their flagship product was banned and all the users they los

Presumably this is going to lead to anthropic getting a big payday from the US gov for all the time their flagship product was banned and all the users they lost due to it

ReptileMan 1mo ago
The case is not about that though
- harimau777 1mo ago
  I thought that the blacklisting was what led to them losing the business? Didn't the blacklisting effectively mean that contractors couldn't use Anthropic because it was supposedly a supply chain risk?
  - simonw 1mo ago
    That was a different issue from the US government preventing Anthropic from selling general access to their Fable 5 model for a few weeks.
peri-cl 1mo ago
This is about the DoD supply chain risk designation—*not* the export controls.
- derektank 1mo ago
  [flagged]
dgellow 1mo ago
The government would just not pay, similar to what trump tried with his rape verdict
- criley2 1mo ago
  The government will pay because it's not his money, it's our money. He loves spending our money...
jimt1234 1mo ago
I think the reverse is true. Anthropic gave a generous donation to the 'Trump fund' to make it go away, and so the government intentionally fumbled the case. Now Anthropic can continue to do business without this stench following them around.
- senderista 1mo ago
  Did they? Source?
- solenoid0937 1mo ago
  They did not, you are confusing them with OpenAI which donated millions to Trump's inauguration fund.
to11mtm 1mo ago
I don't think there's a law or precedent for that. The Tucker Act allows for a company to claim damages related to the seizure of property. That is not the same as having a product being stopped from 'shipping'[0]. Also, despite the US Concept of 'Corporate Personhood', Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood'. i.e. While they were ruled to have had their First Amendment Rights Violated, there was no financial compensation to be had. The bar for waiving sovereign immunity for an individual/bureau/branch is very high and AFAICT requires specific action from congress. [0] - The Tucker Act was written in the late 1800s, long before even the concept of Nuclear tech 'Born Secret' doctrine became a thing.
- z3c0 1mo ago
  > Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood' I'm almost upset at the notion only being invoked. Let's hope we don't see such a precedence emerge, especially around a company touting to be selling "intelligence".

Presumably this is going to lead to anthropic getting a big payday from the US gov for all the time their flagship product was banned and all the users they lost due to it

ReptileMan 1mo ago

The case is not about that though

harimau777 1mo ago
I thought that the blacklisting was what led to them losing the business? Didn't the blacklisting effectively mean that contractors couldn't use Anthropic because it was supposedly a supply chain risk?
- simonw 1mo ago
  That was a different issue from the US government preventing Anthropic from selling general access to their Fable 5 model for a few weeks.

peri-cl 1mo ago

This is about the DoD supply chain risk designation—*not* the export controls.

derektank 1mo ago
[flagged]

dgellow 1mo ago

The government would just not pay, similar to what trump tried with his rape verdict

criley2 1mo ago
The government will pay because it's not his money, it's our money. He loves spending our money...

jimt1234 1mo ago

I think the reverse is true. Anthropic gave a generous donation to the 'Trump fund' to make it go away, and so the government intentionally fumbled the case. Now Anthropic can continue to do business without this stench following them around.

senderista 1mo ago
Did they? Source?
solenoid0937 1mo ago
They did not, you are confusing them with OpenAI which donated millions to Trump's inauguration fund.

to11mtm 1mo ago

I don't think there's a law or precedent for that. The Tucker Act allows for a company to claim damages related to the seizure of property. That is not the same as having a product being stopped from 'shipping'[0]. Also, despite the US Concept of 'Corporate Personhood', Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood'. i.e. While they were ruled to have had their First Amendment Rights Violated, there was no financial compensation to be had. The bar for waiving sovereign immunity for an individual/bureau/branch is very high and AFAICT requires specific action from congress. [0] - The Tucker Act was written in the late 1800s, long before even the concept of Nuclear tech 'Born Secret' doctrine became a thing.

z3c0 1mo ago
> Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood' I'm almost upset at the notion only being invoked. Let's hope we don't see such a precedence emerge, especially around a company touting to be selling "intelligence".