Anthropic takes legal action against OpenCode

Post by aray07 » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:23 PM UTC

impulser_ wrote: post #144

827a wrote: post #98

I'm really struggling to understand how Anthropic is benefited by not allowing this. Its bad PR for no good reason. The only thing I can figure is that Claude Code is hemorrhaging money, they're too afraid to actually enforce reasonable token limits, and the only thing that's keeping it from totally bankrupting the company tomorrow is: controlling the harness and having the harness dynamically route toward Haiku or S…

This is my theory. They don't want other harnesses to use this because it costs them more. I don't know exactly how OpenCode works, but I'm assuming when people are using this plugin they are mostly using Opus for everything while Claude Code really only uses Opus for writing the actual code. It uses Haiku and Sonnet for almost all of the tasks outside of writing code. So it hard for them to control and understand th…

Post by g947o » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:26 PM UTC

ipsum2 wrote: post #34

extr wrote: post #18

The OpenCode guys have really surprised me in the way they've reacted to Anthropic shutting down the side-loaded auth scheme. Very petty and bitter. It's clearly just a business decision from Anthropic and a rational one at that, usage subsidization to keep people on the first party product surface is practically the oldest business move in the book and is completely valid.

This seems like pure misinformation. The code lines that are actually changed: hint: { opencode: "recommended", -anthropic: "API key", openai: "ChatGPT Plus/Pro or API key", }[x.id], They're removing the ability to use OpenCode via Anthropic API key

Post by segmondy » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:28 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #59

mellosouls wrote: post #2

This and threatening OpenClaw (now at OpenAI), Anthropic really on a roll making friends in Open Source. Previously discussed I think: Anthropic Explicitly Blocking OpenCode (173 points, 157 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46625918

> threatening OpenClaw IIRC it was called Clawdbot when Anthropic complained. IANAL but I believe the holder of a trademark is obligated to defend it against infringement. Hard to say that Clawdbot was not potentially infringing, given its purpose. It's not clear how much leeway Anthropic had given his initial choice of name.

Post by darkwater » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:31 PM UTC

terhechte wrote: post #131

strictnein wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use OpenCode programmatically, thus turning that $200/mo Claude Code account into a very cheap Opus 4.6 API service. I don't think there's anything really to it past that.

you can also use Claude Code programmatically with the `prompt` parameter in the cli.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 19, 2026, 9:36 PM UTC

siva7 wrote: post #157

Analemma_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This argument has been decapitated countless times already on HN. No it hasn't, because the argument is completely correct, and the people mad about it are mad they can't have unlimited usage instead of paying the token API prices. > This move is anti-competitive and Anthropic knows it. No it isn't, that's not what "anti-competitive" means, and no court in the world would label it as such. You can't go flailing aro…

API is intended for massive scaled operations (companies) and has no hard usage limits, a subscription is intended only for individual usage (solo dev) and has therefore hard usage limits. Is it that difficult to grasp the difference between API and subscription models?