zlacker

He would have the opposite of a standing, right? It seems he wants to slow down OpenAI so that his competing company can catch up.

>>breadw+(OP)
I mean, if I run a fridge company and another fridge company is doing something nefarious, I'd have more of a claim for damages than someone that runs a blender company, right? That's at least my layperson's interpretation. Since Musk is suing for "unfair business practices".

I also found this: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

>Representative of its remedial objectives, the [Unfair Competition Law] originally granted standing to "any person" suing on behalf of "itself, its members, or on behalf of the general public." This prompted a public outcry over perceived abuses of the UCL because the UCL granted standing to plaintiffs without requiring them to show any actual injury. In response, California voters approved Proposition to amend the UCL to require that the plaintiff prove injury from the unfair practice. Despite this stricter standing requirement, both business competitors and consumers may still sue under the UCL.

>>breadw+(OP)
Or, looking at it the other way, he is complaining that a non-profit organization he donated funds to has allocated those funds to engage in for-profit business that directly competes with his own. Viewed that way, he ought to have extra standing.

>>breadw+(OP)
No, you can reasonably expect an open source company to open their source. Allowing you and everyone else to benefit from the work. The lawsuit is because all of the competing companies should not need to be wasting money catching up, when the goal was for everyone to be building from OpenAI's work.