If you can argue that the action was baseless harassment, then do so. Frivolous lawsuits have their own penalties. But you can’t argue with the subpoena process on its face.
Subpoena + publicity = uninsurable. And when you work for a low-profit endeavor, your “damages” are limited to the money you might have made were you insurable, at least that’s how the courts measure it and the lawyers decide to take the case or not. OpenAI would probably gladly lose a case and pay whatever income The Midas Project lost as a result of OpenAI’s actions - profit isn’t the point of The Midas Project, reporting what is happening in the industry is, and that mission has been effectively thwarted with the uninsurable status.
Odd, I just kinda did do that. The process here is very clearly being used to try put a cooling effect on criticism, and the anti-SLAP rules only work if someone can afford to pay for litigation (another example of a flawed system).
If you can argue that the action was baseless harassment, then do so. Frivolous lawsuits have their own penalties. But you can’t argue with the subpoena process on its face.
Subpoena + publicity = uninsurable. And when you work for a low-profit endeavor, your “damages” are limited to the money you might have made were you insurable, at least that’s how the courts measure it and the lawyers decide to take the case or not. OpenAI would probably gladly lose a case and pay whatever income The Midas Project lost as a result of OpenAI’s actions - profit isn’t the point of The Midas Project, reporting what is happening in the industry is, and that mission has been effectively thwarted with the uninsurable status.
Subpoena + publicity = uninsurable.
The parties publicizing this are the guy who received the subpoena and a ridiculously biased source, both of which supposedly opposite it.
Odd, I just kinda did do that. The process here is very clearly being used to try put a cooling effect on criticism, and the anti-SLAP rules only work if someone can afford to pay for litigation (another example of a flawed system).
That’s convenient for your argument isn’t it? What you’re saying is that OpenAI is not allowed to use the justice system as it exists.
If OpenAI had their documents subpoenaed, you’d have the exact opposite reaction.
You didn’t argue it at all, you just asserted it, and now you’re just asserting the motivation.
Yes, and to expand on my argument may I point out my functioning eyes.
Well your eyes must suck then because they’re causing you to make unfounded, ignorant and truly embarrassing statements.