|
Ancient Greek sophist Protagoras famously said, "There are two sides to every question." But OpenAI's latest attempt at reality distortion seems determined to narrow this dispute to just one. In its motion to reject Apple's complaint, the company does not meaningfully acknowledge the criticisms levelled against it, preferring instead to recast the case as a grievance over talent retention and product-market failure.
The filing
In case you missed the news, OpenAI filed a motion to the court to dismiss Apple's recent lawsuit against it. In that filing, OpenAI argued that, "Apple should not be permitted to use a baseless and pretextual lawsuit to make up for its shortcomings in the market for talent and retaining its employees, and its failures to integrate AI into its products."
The company's dismissal claims Apple's case was, "plainly filed without adequate investigation and built on selectively excerpted communications and ordinary conduct stripped of context," adding, i
|
RELATED ARTICLES | | |
|
A court has dismissed Google's case against SerpApi over that company's scraping of search results to train AI models.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California found that there was no indication that any copyright had been breached.
Google announced in December that it was suing SerpApI for its alleged web scraping, claiming that it was protecting copyright holders. In February, SerpApI fought back and asked the court to dismiss Google's case. And this week, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with SerpApi that Google's case has no merit.
Google's argument was that SerpApi's actions breached the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). It made two claims: first, that no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, and second that no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, or component protected by the Act.
SerpApi claimed that the URLs and other links that were being served by Google did not in themselves entail copyright and the judge agreed. In h
|
|
