, ,

The dilemma over whether Anthropic is raising an advice of counsel defense, and if Anthropic must reveal attorney-client communications to support its innocent infringement defense to try to reduce statutory award to $200 per work

It looks like Anthropic is stuck again between a rock and a hard place. Parties typically are reluctant to waive attorney-client privilege in any context. But, asserting a defense of reliance on advice of counsel would waive the privilege to the relevant advice.

But Judge Alsup goes even further and instructs Anthropic to show cause why attorney-client communications should not be produced for its affirmative defense of innocent infringement (which, if established, would allow Judge Alsup, in his discretion, to reduce lowest range of statutory damages to as low as $200 per work infringed).

The entire line of inquiry relates to what Anthropic’s attorneys advised regarding the use of pirated copies from shadow libraries. As far as I can tell, Anthropic has maintained the attorney-client privilege and hasn’t revealed anything related to that. But we do know, at some point, Anthropic switched from using the shadow library copies to doing its own scanning of used books like the process for building Google Books (Anthropic even hired a former Google employee who worked on Google Books). We can only speculate but it’s hard to imagine that legal counsel wasn’t involved in that major switch in some way.

I doubt Anthropic will be asserting any defense that waives its attorney-client privilege. It will be most interesting to hear its response to Judge Alsup’s show cause.

Leave a Reply


Discover more from Chat GPT Is Eating the World

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading