The Intro to OpenAI's Reply to the Amended Complaint: A Peek Into the Court Case

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs’ Opposition fails to demonstrate how the First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” Dkt. No. 97-3) cures the many defects found in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint.

The postComplaint “exemplary demonstrations” from Copilot (that Plaintiffs point to in an effort to allege standing) all required Plaintiffs to input substantial portions of their own code, showing that it is still not plausible that anyone other than Plaintiffs caused Copilot to output Plaintiffs’ code prior to the filing of the FAC.

Plaintiffs therefore have shown that they cannot plausibly allege standing for monetary damages. Plaintiffs also cannot avoid preemption of their state law claims by recharacterizing their claims as “wrongful use” of their code as training data, when Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their rights to prepare derivative works of their code.

Plaintiffs’ newly pled examples of outputs also confirm the implausibility of Plaintiffs’ DMCA claim. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they must provide the majority of Plaintiffs’ works as inputs in order to manufacture non-identical outputs from Copilot.

In addition, Plaintiffs’ Opposition confirms that dismissal is appropriate for Plaintiffs’ state law claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and negligence. These claims in the FAC should therefore be dismissed.