paint-brush
OpenAI's Reply to the Amended Complaint: What They Have to Sayby@legalpdf

OpenAI's Reply to the Amended Complaint: What They Have to Say

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesSeptember 4th, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Open AI reply to amended complaint Court Filing Kandis A. Westmore, November 3, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - OpenAI's Reply to the Amended Complaint: What They Have to Say
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Open AI reply to amended complaint Court Filing Kandis A. Westmore, November 3, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts.


Case Number: 3:22-cv-06823-KAW

Plaintiff: J. DOE 1 and J. DOE 2

Defendant: GITHUB, INC., a Delaware corporation; MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; OPENAI, INC., a Delaware nonprofit corporation; OPENAI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Filing Date: December 9, 2022

Location: United States District Court

Northern District of California San Francisco Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs Cannot Allege Any Injury-in-Fact to Establish Article III Standing

  1. Does 1, 2, and 5 cannot establish standing by showing their own postcomplaint acts harmed them.
  2. Does 3 and 4 also lack standing.
  3. Plaintiffs’ hunch that their code has been output does not justify jurisdictional discovery.

B. The Copyright Act Preempts Plaintiffs’ State Law Causes of Action

C. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a DMCA Claim Under Section 1202(b)

1. Plaintiffs have not pled removal of CMI.

2. Plaintiffs fail to allege removal from identical copies.

D. Plaintiffs’ Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claims Fail

E. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

F. Plaintiffs Fail to State an Unfair Competition Claim

G. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Negligence

III. CONCLUSION


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 Storage.Courtlistener 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.