Why OpenAI Is at War With an Obscure Idea Man (bloomberg.com)
- Reference: 0175255195
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/24/10/15/1314227/why-openai-is-at-war-with-an-obscure-idea-man
- Source link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-14/why-openai-is-at-war-with-a-guy-named-guy?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyODkxMTEyNSwiZXhwIjoxNzI5NTE1OTI1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTTEM5MFVEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJBQjc4QTNBMDc1N0U0OTI0ODFCRUU5RDRCRjBDNERDNSJ9.mpWXrXYbOWqoPDB5c-FKwDK6V_Q9UyyhU5kIPKkwhDc
The similarity was uncanny -- a non-profit aimed at developing AGI for the public good. "What the f---?" Ravine recalls thinking. He claims his idea was stolen, while OpenAI dismisses him as an opportunistic "troll" and a "fraud." The ensuing legal battle has consumed Ravine's life, Bloomberg Businessweek covers in great detail, and has raised thorny questions about idea ownership in Silicon Valley. It also casts a shadow over OpenAI's origin story as the company, now valued at $157 billion, shifts from its non-profit roots to a for-profit juggernaut. "It's humanity's asset," Ravine insists. "It's not his [Altman's] asset." For now, a judge has barred Ravine from using "Open AI" while the suit proceeds, but the inventor has vowed to fight on against what he calls "the most feared law firm in the world." An amusing excerpt from the story:
> But Ravine had poked the bear, and as he packed up his house on Aug. 11, 2023, he opened an email from a lawyer at the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, informing him that OpenAI was suing him in federal court over the domain and trademark. "I'm like, what the f---?" Ravine recalls. Altman, he says, "could have had it for free" -- or at least for the cost of a donation. "Instead, he decided to donate millions of dollars to literally the most feared law firm in the world, to sue me."
>
> Again and again in our conversations, he returns to that phrase: "the most feared law firm in the world." Finally, I ask him how he knows this. He turns his laptop toward me and pulls up the email. The signature reads "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP: Most Feared Law Firm in the World."
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-14/why-openai-is-at-war-with-a-guy-named-guy?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyODkxMTEyNSwiZXhwIjoxNzI5NTE1OTI1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTTEM5MFVEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJBQjc4QTNBMDc1N0U0OTI0ODFCRUU5RDRCRjBDNERDNSJ9.mpWXrXYbOWqoPDB5c-FKwDK6V_Q9UyyhU5kIPKkwhDc
most feared 'O' (Score:2)
They were called "most feared" by market research firm [1]BTI [linkedin.com]. Looking through their cases they seem like a rather boring large law firm.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-bti-consulting-group/
Gradiente's IPHONE (Score:2)
It makes me remember Gradiente's iphone. Gradiente, a Brazilian company, registered the brand iphone years prior to Apple's launch of the iPhone. I don't think that the similarity goes beyond that, as Gradiente's iphone was just a name until after iPhone had been already released. According to [1]Brazil's Supreme Court Rules Over IPhone's Trade Mark [europa.eu], both companies can use the iphone brand, with the restriction that Gradiente's iphone cannot be just called "iPhone".
[1] https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/brazils-supreme-court-rules-over-iphones-trade-mark-2023-11-20_en
Related? (Score:2)
Recently OpenAI became less of a non-profit and more of a for-profit entity:
[1]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/n... [pbs.org]
Would they even bother suing this guy had they remained a non-profit entity from top to bottom?
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/openai-looks-to-convert-from-nonprofit-roots-and-become-for-profit-company
OpenAI was already a dubious idea (Score:2)
The claims of "innovation" coming from reading the state of the literature on machine learning in 2016 and then selling it is already a dubious statement.
To then go and say "I thought of doing that too" like it entitles you to anything seems batshit to me. You can do that. Every single tech company did do that.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, he seems to have a legitimate grievance with respect to the fact that they sued him with respect to his using the (let's face it rather generic or at least plainly descriptive) term Open AI which he had been using before they started. That far goes to him. But any idea that you can 'own' the general idea of 'let's set up a foundation to do AI stuff for the public good" is pretty silly.
Re: (Score:2)
People who themselves have no implementation skills tend to overvalue ideas. It's not that having a suitable idea at an opportune time isn't *important*; it's just that at any given time there are more ideas out there that could work than there are people who can get them to work.
Some people who found tech startups want to be Tony Stark, but in reality there's a reason there are no people in the world like that. There would be implementation details in an Iron Man suit that would take many man years of h
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Anybody can think of the obvious. If it's a good idea: a product or service people actually WANT, then a thousand, a million people will have also thought of it. By the time you get to me with your stupid napkin, I'll have a list together of all the other people who got to it first.
Back when I was a startup tech consultant, I wouldn't even meet with anyone who didn't have a proper written business plan. I didn't necessarily care to read it, but if you couldn't make the effort to understand your own p
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks do need to be defended, and OpenAI (the foundation) has been active and in the public spotlight for quite a while now. If he did nothing to defend that trademark, isn't his case rather weak?
Re: (Score:3)
The only part that matters:
> Ravine then appeared to have moved beyond domain squatting, filing for a trademark on the name “Open AI” (with a space) on the very evening Altman and Brockman made their announcement.
Waiting until a billionaire-backed organization is already using it is exactly the time when filing for a trademark won't work. It doesn't matter much who used it first in that case. You can't be very serious if you didn't even file a provisional trademark application before that point.
There are lots of obvious/generic names that get trademark protection...if they file. A retail store called "Best Buy" comes to mind. What a boring name that just describes what any retail store