Programming

17672 readers

328 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

204

Judge dismisses majority of GitHub Copilot copyright claims (www.developer-tech.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A judge has dismissed the majority of claims in a copyright lawsuit filed by developers against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI.

The lawsuit was initiated by a group of developers in 2022 and originally made 22 claims against the companies, alleging copyright violations related to the AI-powered GitHub Copilot coding assistant.

Judge Jon Tigar’s ruling, unsealed last week, leaves only two claims standing: one accusing the companies of an open-source license violation and another alleging breach of contract. This decision marks a substantial setback for the developers who argued that GitHub Copilot, which uses OpenAI’s technology and is owned by Microsoft, unlawfully trained on their work.

...

Despite this significant ruling, the legal battle is not over. The remaining claims regarding breach of contract and open-source license violations are likely to continue through litigation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean sure you can cherry pick examples that are outstanding justices in that regard. But that’s never going to hold a candle to implementing a systemic norm that essentially says “a judge ruling on a case primarily concerned with can tap a pool of certified experts on to make the most informed decision possible”. An enhancement to that would be “the pool of experts may also flag decisions made by justices that the a majority of said experts deem inappropriate”.

I’m not saying this hypothetical system would be perfect, or that it wouldn’t need further tweaking and iteration, but specifically including feedback mechanisms like that would probably (hopefully) steer things towards a reasonably decent trajectory.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

...

I think you misread the tone of my comment. I can name one. And point out one more potential candidate. I'd say that supports your position.

Also, I'm not sure how that constitutes cherry-picking, as for me that particular word choice implies a lack of good-faith reasoning. Regardless, I greatly appreciate your tone and consideration as well as your thoughtful points. Good discussion!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Fair point. Didn’t mean to come off stabby, or to imply bad faith. I appreciate the discussion as well! Cheers, friend! 🍻