Discover Pandipedia

Anthropic styles itself as a public benefit company, designed to improve humanity^[1]. However, the plaintiffs argue that the company's actions, specifically the alleged copyright infringement, make a mockery of its lofty goals^[1]. According to its co-founder Dario Amodei, Anthropic is “a company that’s focused on public benefit”^[1]. The plaintiffs contend that it is inconsistent with core human values or the public benefit to download hundreds of thousands of books from a known illegal source^[1]. They argue that Anthropic has attempted to steal the fire of Prometheus and seeks to profit from strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity behind each one of those works^[1].

The complaint states that Anthropic intentionally downloaded known pirated copies of books from the internet, made unlicensed copies of them, and then used those unlicensed copies to digest and analyze the copyrighted expression for its own commercial gain^[1]. The plaintiffs claim the end result is a model built on the work of thousands of authors, meant to mimic the syntax, style, and themes of the copyrighted works on which it was trained^[1]. This was done without seeking permission or compensating the authors for the use of their material^[1].

The lawsuit indicates that Anthropic has admitted to using a dataset called The Pile to train its Claude models^[1]. The Pile is an 800 GB+ open-source dataset created for large language model training^[1]. It is alleged that one of The Pile’s architects created a dataset included in The Pile called “Books3,” which is a trove of pirated books^[1]. Presser described Books3 as a direct download of all books from a different pirated website which comprises “all of bibliotik”^[1]. Bibliotik is described as a “notorious pirated collection”^[1].

The plaintiffs argue that Anthropic’s Claude LLMs compromise authors’ ability to make a living, in that the LLMs allow anyone to generate—automatically and freely (or very cheaply)—texts that writers would otherwise be paid to create and sell^[1]. The Authors Guild, the oldest professional organization representing writers and authors, recently published an earnings study that shows a median writing-related income for full-time authors of just over $20,000, and that full-time traditional authors earn only half of that from their books^[1]. The rest comes from activities like content writing—work that is starting to dry up as a result of generative AI systems trained on those writers’ works, without compensation, to begin with^[1].

The plaintiffs are bringing this action under the Copyright Act to redress the harm caused by Anthropic’s infringement^[1]. They are seeking that the matter be certified as a class action, and that their attorneys be appointed Class Counsel and that they be appointed Class Representatives, and Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant as follows^[1]: awarding statutory damages or compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and permanently enjoining Anthropic from engaging in the infringing conduct alleged^[1].

In addition to the Bartz case, another action, Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. v. Anthropic PBC, 5:24-cv-03811-EKL (N.D. Cal.) (“Concord”), also alleges copyright infringement claims against Anthropic PBC, based on Anthropic’s use of copyrighted lyrics in the development of Claude^[3][4]. The Bartz plaintiffs have submitted an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, arguing that the Bartz suit may be related to the Concord action because both cases involve copyright infringement claims against Anthropic PBC, related to Anthropic’s development of Claude^[3][5].

Judge William Alsup has set forth substantive and timing factors that he will consider in determining whether to grant preliminary and/or final approval to a proposed class settlement, focusing on what is in the best interest of absent class members^[2]. These factors include adequacy of representation, due diligence, cost-benefit for absent class members, the release, reversion, claim procedure, attorney’s fees, the right to opt out, incentive payment, and notice to class members^[2].

Judge Alsup generally requires plaintiff’s counsel not to engage in any class settlement discussion until after class certification, to ensure that both sides know the specific claims suitable for settlement or trial on a class-wide basis as well as the scope of the class -members^[2]. This timing ties in well with the general principle that a settlement should usually be negotiated only after adequate and reasonable investigation and discovery by class counsel^[2].

To address potential conflict-of-interest or other ethical issues that may arise from interviewing absent putative class members regarding the merits of the case, both sides are required to promptly meet and confer and to agree on a protocol for interviewing absent putative class members^[2]. No interviews of absent putative class members may take place unless and until the parties’ proposed protocol is approved or permission is otherwise given^[2].

Brantome's connections and experiences allowed him access to the French Royal Court^[1]. Returning to Paris, he became attached to the Court (1559-60) as an adherent of the Guises, the Duke Francis being related to his unfortunate uncle, La Chastaigneraye, so often mentioned in the Duelling Stories^[1]. In 1567, at the call of Charles IX, he assisted in raising forces against the Huguenots and fought at St. Denis, occupied Chartres with his troops, and subsequently held Peronne, which, it appears, he refused to betray in spite of tempting offers made to him by his friend Theligny, on behalf of the Prince de Conde and Chatillon, a fidelity for which he was rewarded by a post in the Royal Household as Gentleman of the Bedchamber to the Duke of Orleans (afterwards Henry III), with a salary of six hundred livres^[1].

Brantome's acquaintance with duels goes beyond mere observation; he was deeply immersed in understanding their intricacies^[1]. His attention had long since been drawn in numerous discussions among specialists to the question of courtesies as practiced in duels—ought they to be allowed, or ought the rigour of the law to prevail^[1]? Attheclose of1574 Brantome and hisbrother the Vicomte were employed tonegotiate terms with the Huguenot party under La Noue^[1].

Brantome’s work also displays a detachment from moral problems, particularly regarding duels^[1]. His quasi-religious reflections, mainly ornamental, remind us that all this“Sacrement deI’assassinat,” ashisFrench editor calls it, belongs toareally pious and Christian age, orwhat would beso,but forthose Huguenot abominations^[1]. He hasthe orthodox eulogies for heroes oftheold-fashioned School ofBayard, butherecounts with unruffled cheerfulness anecdote afteranecdote ofartful andcold-blooded assassination thinly disguised byafew artificial formalities^[1].

Brantome lived during a time of complex political factions and religious civil wars, acknowledging that France was struggling through dark and stormy phases^[1]. He served (1562-3) at the taking of Blois and the sieges of Bourges, Rouen, and Orleans, where Francis, Duke of Guise (the brother of Brantome’s first patron) was assassinated^[1]. Being attached to the Court of Henry III, Brantome, residing in the Rue de Crenelle, was a witness of the quarrel between his relative Bussy and M. de St Fal^[1]. After this date he does not appear to have been mixed up in any affair of importance, and after the death of themuch-abused Queen Catherine in 1583 he appeared little at Court, having, it would seem, damaged hisposition by aninjudicious advocacy oftheclaims ofhisfriend Marguerite de Valois, which hesupported indefiance oftheSalic law^[1].

Late in life, as we learn from the opening pages of the Rodomontades Espagnolles, he was for a long period disabled by a fall from a white horse, of “ill-omened colour,” which rolled upon him, causing aserious injury, at last relieved by afamous physician, M. Christophle^[1]. His curious anecdotes of Spanish bravado and artificial witticism were put together during his convalescence^[1]. He died ataripeoldagein1614^[1].

The Just-In-Time (JIT) approach, originally popularized in the semiconductor and automotive sectors, is built on the premise of reducing inventory and eliminating waste by receiving materials precisely when needed^[6]. In the semiconductor industry, JIT can work effectively because suppliers are often in close geographic proximity, the production steps are highly deterministic, and process changes are tightly controlled^[17]. However, in the biotech arena, applying JIT is significantly more challenging due to unpredictable biological elements, longer lead times for regulatory approvals, and a historically low demand forecast accuracy for critical supplies^[11]. Disruptions such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how reliance on JIT can lead to critical shortages, exposing vulnerabilities in supply chains that lack buffer inventories and agile response mechanisms^[4].

An essential aspect of de-risking supply chains is diversifying the supplier base to avoid dependency on a single or limited number of sources. In semiconductor manufacturing, process qualification routines require suppliers to meet stringent impurity standards and to document every material change, fostering a network of trusted partners^[1]. By contrast, many biopharma suppliers, especially for raw materials such as cell culture media or excipients, originate from diverse global regions, which can introduce variability and unpredictability into the manufacturing process^[10]. Biotech firms can buffer shocks by engaging in proactive supplier audits, establishing strong domestic or nearshored partnerships, and setting up contingency plans that include dual sourcing strategies^[16]. Such practices not only mitigate the risk of supply interruptions but also enable quicker responses to market or regulatory changes^[3].

Quality control in semiconductor manufacturing is achieved through rigorous process controls and advanced materials analysis, ensuring that each wafer meets extremely tight impurity thresholds^[1]. In the biotech sector, while the same level of precision is sought, biological processes are inherently variable and require systems that can account for lot-to-lot differences and subtle changes in raw material composition^[8]. Moreover, biotech companies must implement robust quality management systems to monitor both upstream and downstream processes to maintain product safety and efficacy^[14]. This involves integrating advanced analytical methods, digital quality control platforms, and continuous process improvement practices that are common in semiconductor fabs but adapted to the unique challenges of handling biologics^[15].

To effectively buffer against supply chain shocks and de-risk operations, biotech companies should take several actionable steps:
1. Implement Hybrid Inventory Models: Develop a system that combines JIT principles with strategic buffer stocks (a 'just in case' approach) to handle sudden surges in demand or unforeseen disruptions^[6][11].
2. Diversify Supplier Networks: Proactively audit and qualify suppliers while establishing partnerships with a mix of domestic, nearshore, and international vendors to spread risk and enhance supply resilience^[8][16].
3. Invest in Advanced Digital Tools: Adopt digital platforms such as AI-based predictive analytics, IoT for real-time monitoring, and blockchain for transparent traceability to convert unstructured data into reliable insights for decision making^[9][17].
4. Enhance Quality Management Systems: Incorporate stringent quality control measures and continuous process improvement strategies that mirror semiconductor practices, ensuring raw material consistency and regulatory compliance across all production stages^[1].
5. Build Agility Into the Supply Chain: Foster organizational strategies that emphasize lean and agile manufacturing practices, ensuring that production scheduling, capacity planning, and supplier performance monitoring are tightly integrated to rapidly adjust to market conditions^[15].

Lessons from semiconductor manufacturing offer biotech firms a valuable blueprint for de‐risking their supply chains. By understanding the pitfalls of a pure JIT approach, investing in diversification tactics, and maintaining robust quality standards, biotechs can build resilient supply chains that are capable of withstanding external shocks and variations inherent in biological processes. The integration of advanced digital technologies and process improvement strategies will further empower manufacturers to achieve the dual goals of efficiency and reliability, ensuring that life‐saving therapies reach patients even under challenging conditions^[17].