Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 414 posts

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#371

Post by Forgeties79 »

asadotzler wrote: post #289
Forgeties79 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The accusations are incredibly clear/defined (and serious!) and have a very simple burden of proof. These things either happened or they didn’t, and they have material evidence or they don’t. It’s incredibly unlikely that they filed such big, concrete accusations without concrete proof to back them up. And while I am far from an Apple fan boy, yes a lot of big corporations file frivolous lawsuits but Apple typically…

Apple doesn't engage in that behavior against other companies? Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain? Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (1988–1994) -- Apple lost its ass on this one, entirely frivolous. Every single major claim failed. Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp. (2010–2012) -- Apple patents wiped out over frivolity Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. (2010–2014) -- Mutual…

10 lawsuits in the last 30 years, at least some of which have to be somewhat valid, is lot of lawsuits for one of the single largest companies ever?

Like let’s be generous and say 7 of those are truly frivolous (doubtful), that’s barely 2 a decade.

> So don't tell us Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that it regularly does so.

Said nothing like that. I was very specific here. Apple does tons of unethical/shady/legally dicey/abusive things for business gain. There’s zero question. I am talking about a very specific tactic that they generally do not resort to. In no way am I saying it is out of the kindness of their hearts, I’m saying that it bolsters the claim that their lawsuit against AI probably has incredibly substantial teeth and will not be going away.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#372

Post by illliillll »

inigyou wrote: post #369
illliillll wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From who should I order the repairable wireless earbuds which are also better than the AirPods Pro 3 in every way? It just doesn’t seem in any way reasonable to assume that “evil” is the simplest explanation here, especially since nobody is repairing the repairable wireless earbuds anyway. If approximately nobody wants to repair their earbuds, why accept any design tradeoffs in the name of repairability? I can’t see…

if nobody wants to run anything besides Candy Crush and Snapchat on their phones then why should Apple be forced to allow installing other apps?

It’s extremely telling that you couldn’t come up with an example based on reality.

But yeah, in that scenario it would be utterly nonsensical to force Apple to enable something which nobody wants.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#373

Post by wat10000 »

retsibsi wrote: post #88
okdood64 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a societal and parenting problem that Apple has nothing to do with.

My first reaction was that it was ridiculous, or at least hysterically framed. But the claim is that the whole point of the bubble colour thing, from Apple's perspective, is to take advantage of status games among (largely) kids. If that's true, then it's probably fair to hold Apple partially responsible for the predictable negative consequences. I'd be surprised if something so silly was actually decisive in the wor…

I suppose companies like Nike are to blame for putting their logo on things as well.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#374

Post by aprilthird2021 »

iAMkenough wrote: post #152
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not enough though. He could have been acting rogue or for some other reason. That alone won't win in court

"acting rogue" but faced no action from OpenAI after this came to light

Because it's part of an investigation. Again this isn't proof of anything. He may have not ever used this information at work yet and so this is an issue between him and his former employer

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#375

Post by aprilthird2021 »

Danox wrote: post #138
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not enough though. He could have been acting rogue or for some other reason. That alone won't win in court

Among 40 ex Apple employees come on at least five or six of them probably crossed the line in their enthusiasm to get the big bucks. If it was a small number, four or five total, maybe, but not 40.

"come on" isn't any kind of proof

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#376

Post by inigyou »

illliillll wrote: post #372
inigyou wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if nobody wants to run anything besides Candy Crush and Snapchat on their phones then why should Apple be forced to allow installing other apps?

It’s extremely telling that you couldn’t come up with an example based on reality. But yeah, in that scenario it would be utterly nonsensical to force Apple to enable something which nobody wants.

It is reality today. You cannot install any app that Apple has not approved of.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#377

Post by blincoln »

tedggh wrote: post #342
groby_b wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Altman doesn’t appear to be a beacon of corporate ethics." Do those exist? I'm usually happy to see a mild candle flicker in the ethics window.

Yes, all corporations have their obscure interests and don’t profit from being ethical. But we can also agree there’s a distinction between companies like Enron, Purdue Pharma, Meta, Lehman Brothers, Flock and Apple, Walmart, Verizon and Ford. They are all unethical to some degree, but the first group actually conspired to commit terrible crimes or are borderline criminal. We don’t know yet where OpenAI belongs to bu…

> Walmart

I'm a little surprised to see the company that locked employees into their buildings during night shifts[1] in your "more ethical" list.

[1] https://archive.is/Fx9S

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#378

Post by throw10920 »

fsflover wrote: post #290
throw10920 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Shallow dismissals like "straight up false" that contradict multiple reputable news outlets aren't "debunking". Calling well-know human right activist NGOs "handful of nerds" is straight up misinformation.

> Shallow dismissals like "straight up false"

If something is false, which the headline is, then calling it false isn't a "dismissal", it's asserting reality.

If you don't understand this, then you may have trouble with actually using logic.

> Calling well-know human right activist NGOs "handful of nerds" is straight up misinformation.

No, it's factually not. It's pejorative and not in good taste, but saying that it is "misinformation" is just a lie. (that's consistent with your previous post though)

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#379

Post by mrkstu »

adrian_b wrote: post #226
joshstrange wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a country where legal bills can climb really fast Honest question: Are there countries where this is not the case? I'd be interested to read more about how that manage that. If it's some sort of "protecting the little guy"-type thing or a general suppression of legal costs. Or maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.

In many countries, the loser pays all the legal bills. So if you have been wrongly accused, that may cost you nothing.

With the caveat that you may end up paying the costs of the other sides high priced legal team.

Re: Apple targets dozens of OpenAI employees with legal letters

#380

Post by samatman »

watwut wrote: post #279
samatman wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, and it absolutely has a chilling effect in countries which don't do things this way. Sue someone who can spend millions of pounds (for the sake of argument) on defence? Better be certain you can win... against someone who can spend millions of pounds, and probably went to the same public school as the judge. In America, legal fees can be awarded as additional damages. We should do it more than we do. But giv…

You are making stuff up. You wont get paid arbitrary large fees, but the amount of fees usually paid for similar case.

I am doing so such thing. You are ignorant and you are being rude, it's a bad combination.

The English Rule has several variations by jurisdiction, you'll find a handy map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney's_fees)

In England (where pounds come from) costs are not always rewarded, but very frequently, they are: and it's actual costs, not some fixed fee. A litigant who spends more on solicitors indemnifies the loser accordingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law#What_can_...?

Perhaps you live somewhere where this is not the usual basis. Perhaps you just felt like being rude online. We'll never know.

Post reply on HN