Open AI reply to amended complaint Court Filing Kandis A. Westmore, November 3, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 3 of 13. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs Cannot Allege Any Injury-in-Fact to Establish Article III Standing 2. Does 3 and 4 also lack standing. Plaintiffs also concede that Does 3 and 4 lack standing by failing to identify any specific instances in which their code was output by Copilot. They instead insist that any pleading deficiencies can be cured “after the Parties have had adequate discovery.” (Opp. at 10.) But standing must “exist at the time the complaint was filed.” ACLU v. Heller, 471 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up); see also Trump v. N.Y., 141 S. Ct. 530, 534-35 (2020) (“A foundational principle of Article III is that an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation.”) (cleaned up). After Plaintiffs failed to allege any specific facts regarding their code in the original Complaint, the Court gave Plaintiffs another chance to investigate further and amend their pleadings. (See MTD Order.) After a month of additional investigation, they have failed to provide any examples where Copilot outputted code allegedly owned by Does 3 and 4. This failure suggests they have tried—and have been unable—to prompt Copilot to generate Does 3 and 4’s code. They therefore cannot establish standing. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 3:22-cv-06823-KAW retrieved on September 2, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Storage.Courtlistener

OpenAI: A Hunch Does Not Justify Jurisdictional Discovery

OpenAI's Reply to the Amended Complaint: What Their Argument Is

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

OpenAI: Their Argument Against the Plaintiffs in the Doe v GitHub Case

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

A Majority of Aussies Not Motivated to Pursue Content Further After Facing Blocked Pirate Sites

A Third Example of GitHub Copilot (Allegedly) Reproducing the Code of Others

Adult Site Furious Over Popping Delisting Cherry

AI-Generated Code and Copyright Infringement: Codex’s Attribution Problem

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

A Majority of Aussies Not Motivated to Pursue Content Further After Facing Blocked Pirate Sites

A Third Example of GitHub Copilot (Allegedly) Reproducing the Code of Others

Adult Site Furious Over Popping Delisting Cherry

AI-Generated Code and Copyright Infringement: Codex’s Attribution Problem

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps