"Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government." Well.. we live in Orwellian times.
I am completely unfamiliar with anything like that happening in 1984. I am familiar with Orwell writing about the decline of logical reasoning in favor of vague and politically charged platitudes--like calling a political administration "Orwellian" when you're supposed to be discussing a legal decision.
Being marked an enemy of the state for disagreeing with the state to me sounds like thoughtcrime, plain and simple. How much more Orwellian can you get?
I remember neither that happening in 1984, nor is that a description of what is happening to Anthropic. Or is this is an Animal Farm reference instead?
I remember Winston having a private conversation about political beliefs, and then being literally tortured into submission. And I remember Anthropic refusing a government order (albeit a stupid government order), and then being labeled a "supply chain risk." You can twist reality however you'd like though.
There's no need to read it that literally, we're not making Borges' map here. 1984 is both about the visceral horror of the authoritarian state and the existential horror of being unable to fight an opponent who controls the very language you speak and the concept of truth. The former grounds the latter, turning an interesting philosophical treatise that might otherwise not land with readers into an approachable work of fiction.
Agreed! And shout-out to the people at CourtListener (the site hosting this PDF), who make millions of US court documents freely available to the public.
(not a lawyer) I _think_ this is a result of Trump v CASA, where the Supreme Court determined that preliminary injunctions and TROs without a bond of some sort (which until then were fairly common) were invalid and unenforceable.
I understand why Anthropic used the name “Department of War” in their public communication. They want to be friendly to the people who like that name. But what the heck is it doing in an official court document? That’s not the entity’s legal name. It would be like if I sued IBM and named them “Big Blue” in my suit.
Here’s the Preliminary Injunction Order. Essentially a total victory for Anthropic, but SCOTUS will certainly have the final say.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...
great! this is the accompanying opinion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...
"Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government." Well.. we live in Orwellian times.
i would call tjis administration many things, fascistic, shitty, corrupt, but it's not particularly orwellian.
I am completely unfamiliar with anything like that happening in 1984. I am familiar with Orwell writing about the decline of logical reasoning in favor of vague and politically charged platitudes--like calling a political administration "Orwellian" when you're supposed to be discussing a legal decision.
Being marked an enemy of the state for disagreeing with the state to me sounds like thoughtcrime, plain and simple. How much more Orwellian can you get?
I remember neither that happening in 1984, nor is that a description of what is happening to Anthropic. Or is this is an Animal Farm reference instead?
I remember Winston having a private conversation about political beliefs, and then being literally tortured into submission. And I remember Anthropic refusing a government order (albeit a stupid government order), and then being labeled a "supply chain risk." You can twist reality however you'd like though.
There's no need to read it that literally, we're not making Borges' map here. 1984 is both about the visceral horror of the authoritarian state and the existential horror of being unable to fight an opponent who controls the very language you speak and the concept of truth. The former grounds the latter, turning an interesting philosophical treatise that might otherwise not land with readers into an approachable work of fiction.
And so can you.
Yes, more of this. (Direct, timely links to court dockets and documents on US Article III court cases.)
Agreed! And shout-out to the people at CourtListener (the site hosting this PDF), who make millions of US court documents freely available to the public.
> In light of Anthropic’s showing on the merits, and the lack of evidence of harm to Defendants, the Court sets a nominal bond of $100.
That must have been a bit of a goofy check to write.
(not a lawyer) I _think_ this is a result of Trump v CASA, where the Supreme Court determined that preliminary injunctions and TROs without a bond of some sort (which until then were fairly common) were invalid and unenforceable.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47537228
I understand why Anthropic used the name “Department of War” in their public communication. They want to be friendly to the people who like that name. But what the heck is it doing in an official court document? That’s not the entity’s legal name. It would be like if I sued IBM and named them “Big Blue” in my suit.
I can't wait for them to ignore the order because they weren't legally named in it. "What order? We are the DOD. No idea who the DOW is."
Their desire to screw with people is going to be in serious conflict with their desire to convince everyone their new name is real.
maybe Judge Lin is showing that she does get where they are coming from..
Maybe Judge Lin thinks the name used is irrelevant and doesn't want to distract from the relevant parts of the judgement.
Or it may be the convention of using the name that the plaintiff or defendant has given themselves.