News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
Anthropic Downloaded Music From Torrent Sites to Train Claude
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music sued Anthropic on Friday. They say the company used BitTorrent to take songbooks, then fed them to Claude. While Anthropic has already admitted torrenting books, it has never conceded that music sat inside those files, hence the copyright case. Anthropic Music Lawsuit Explained The complaint names two hauls, both from shadow libraries and containing unlicensed copies of published works
Send MT4 MT5 Trades to Telegram and Discord Automatically
Open any public signal channel and scroll back a month. You will find entries. Lots of entries, with confident language and clean formatting. What you will struggle to find is the other half of each trade: where it actually closed, whether the stop got moved, and what the month added up to. That is not usually fraud. It is mostly logistics. Publishing signals by hand is a job, and like every manual job it gets done well when things are going well and quietly skipped when they are not. Nobody feels like typing "closed for a loss" at eleven at night. So the record ends up incomplete, and an incomplete record always flatters the person keeping it. This post is about fixing that properly: what a signal message should actually contain, how the free-tier and premium-tier model really works, the technical requirements that people discover only after their terminal freezes, and how to automate the whole thing so the record is complete whether you feel like it or not. The three ways manual publishing fails Latency. Your entry fills, you switch to Telegram, you type the pair, direction, entry, stop and target, you check it, you send. Ninety seconds have passed on a good day. On a fast instrument that is a different price, and the gap between your fill and your subscriber's fill becomes the thing you get blamed for. Selection bias. This is the serious one. When publishing is manual, it is also optional, and optional means the trades that get posted skew toward the ones you are happy to post. Nobody decides to hide losses. It just turns out that the winner gets posted in real time and the loser gets posted later, or summarised, or not at all. Over months this builds a public record that does not match your account, and you will not even be able to tell how far apart they drifted. No updates. The entry gets published and then the trade lives on without its audience. You move the stop to break-even and nobody knows. You take a partial and nobody knows. The trade closes and the original message still sits there saying "target 1.2850", forever, like a monument to a moment that ended two days ago. What a signal message should actually contain If you are going to publish, publish something a stranger could act on and audit. That means four blocks: * The instruction: instrument, direction, entry, stop loss, take profit. Non-negotiable, and the stop is what separates a signal from a hunch. A "signal" with no stop is not a trade, it is an opinion. * The context: a line on why. Even one clause. It lets your audience learn instead of just copying, and it is the difference between a channel that builds traders and a channel that builds dependents. * The updates: when the stop moves, the audience needs to know, and they need to know on the original message, not in a new post twenty messages down that nobody will scroll to find. * The close: where it ended and what it did. Especially when it lost. A channel that publishes its losers in real time is making a claim about itself that no amount of marketing can fake. That last point is the whole game. Anyone can publish entries. Publishing the complete lifecycle, automatically, in public, is a commitment to being auditable, and it is the only version of a signal channel that survives contact with a sceptical audience in 2026. The free tier and premium tier model, explained honestly If you monetise a channel, the standard structure is two channels: a free one that demonstrates the process and a paid one that gets the signals live. The mechanism that makes it work is a delay on the free tier. Why a delay rather than simply publishing less to the free channel: the free tier still needs to be genuinely useful, or it does not convert anyone. A free subscriber who sees the complete record, including the losses, just later, gets a real basis to judge you. They can see the entries, watch how the trades were managed and check the closes. What they cannot do is act on the entry at the same price you did, which is exactly the thing the paid tier is selling. Two practical notes on choosing the delay. Too short and there is no reason to upgrade. Too long and the free channel becomes a history lesson nobody follows, which kills the funnel that justified having it. The right value depends entirely on your average holding time: a channel of scalps needs a very different delay from a swing channel where trades run for days. Set it against how long your trades actually live, not against a round number. The technical requirements nobody thinks about until it breaks This is the part that separates a tool that works from a script that ruins your week. Sending must not block the terminal. Network calls are slow and sometimes they hang. If publishing happens synchronously on the same thread that manages your trades, then a slow response from a messaging API stalls your terminal, and it stalls it at exactly the busiest moment, because busy moments are when both the trades and the messages happen. Publishing has to be asynchronous. This is not a nice-to-have, it is the difference between a broadcasting tool and a liability attached to your live account. Failures must retry. Networks drop packets. APIs return errors. Without automatic retry, the message you thought went out simply did not, and you find out when a subscriber asks why they missed a trade. Rate limits must be respected. Messaging platforms throttle senders. Publish a burst across several channels without honouring the limits and you get throttled or blocked, usually right when a volatile session is generating the most messages. These three requirements sound like plumbing because they are plumbing. They are also the reason "I will just write a script" turns into a project. The tool DoIt Signal Publisher Pro, for MT5 and MT4, is what I built for this, and it maps onto everything above: * Up to 6 channels in a single operation: three Telegram chats and three Discord webhooks, published together. This is what makes the tiered model practical, because your premium and free channels are the same trade going to different destinations with different timing. * Tiered distribution built in: premium subscribers receive the signal immediately, free-tier channels receive it after a delay you configure. * Automatic message editing: when the stop loss or take profit changes, the original message is edited. The post your audience is looking at stays true instead of becoming a monument. * Closure confirmations: the trade's ending gets published, with the result attached, in the format your audience can audit. * Daily and weekly reports: the summary that turns a stream of messages into a track record. * Chart screenshots attached, so the context travels with the instruction. * Inline buttons for channel engagement. * Asynchronous sending with automatic retry and rate-limit compliance, without freezing the terminal. The plumbing section above, solved. * A TEST function that verifies all six channels at once, so you find out your webhook is wrong during setup rather than during a live trade. Setup is documented in the first input parameter, step by step, and takes about five minutes. There is also a full user guide if you want to read the whole thing before installing anything. Try it before you pay for it There is a free 48-hour trial, self-service. My suggestion for how to spend it: set up both a premium and a free channel, run the TEST function to confirm all six destinations, then take one real trade and watch the entire lifecycle publish itself. Move the stop and watch the original message update. Close it and watch the confirmation land. Forty-eight hours is enough to see the mechanism work end to end, which is the only thing you actually need to evaluate. If you already know you want it, PRO is $129 once on the MT5 and MT4 listings, with rental at $45 per month, $90 for three months or $119 for a year if you would rather not commit. Both listings have a free demo as well. The honest limits * This publishes trades. It does not create them. It broadcasts what your account already did. If the underlying trading is not good, the tool will simply document that faithfully, which is either the most useful or the most uncomfortable thing it does. * Automation removes the excuse, not the responsibility. Once the losses publish themselves, you are running an auditable channel. That is the point, and it is also a commitment you should make deliberately rather than discover. * Messaging platforms have their own rules and limits, and they change them. Rate-limit compliance and retry handle the normal cases, not a platform deciding to restrict your account. * How you present signals to a paying audience may carry regulatory obligations depending on where you and your subscribers are. That is your call to make with proper advice, and it is worth thinking about before the first payment lands rather than after. Want to see the whole lifecycle publish itself before you decide anything? Set up a real channel and run it for 48 hours, free. Start the free Signal Publisher trial. The close The reason to automate publishing is not that it saves you ninety seconds per trade, although it does. It is that automation removes the one degree of freedom that quietly corrupts every manual track record: the choice, made in the moment, about whether this particular trade is one you feel like posting. Take that choice away from yourself and what you publish becomes evidence instead of marketing. In a market this full of screenshots, that is a genuinely scarce position to occupy. I publish breakdowns like this every week. Real numbers, including the ugly ones. Join the newsletter.
Sony Music, Warner Chappell, others sue Anthropic over copyright infringement
Music publishers including Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have sued Anthropic, alleging the AI company illegally used copyrighted songs to train Claude. The publishers are seeking damages of up to $150,000 per work, along with other remedies. Anthropic has rejected the allegations and said it will defend itself in court. Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music, and several other music publishers have filed a lawsuit against Anthropic and cofounders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann, accusing the AI company of what they describe as "one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history."The publishers allege that Anthropic ran a "brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works" to train its
Anthropic announces a 25% increase to Claude Code limits, but there's a 17% catch
The latest platform update for premium Claude accounts is hiding a quiet downgrade. Anthropic is officially ending a massive temporary promotional boost in mid-September, meaning active developers are about to lose a significant chunk of their weekly capacity. Back on May 13, developers using Claude Code received a surprise upgrade when Anthropic rolled out a temporary 50 percent boost to weekly usage limits. Rather than letting the promotion expire as originally planned, the company extended the deadline four separate times over the summer, keeping the inflated capacity active and making it feel like the new normal. Now, that promotional window is officially closing. In a recent update from the ClaudeDevs account on X, the company announced that starting September 14, standard baseline limits will be permanently increased by 25 percent for Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans. Once that new baseline takes effect, the 50 percent summer bonus will be entirely removed.
Polymarket Promo Code COVERS: Get $20 Trading Bonus for Hawai'i vs. Stanford Prediction Markets
New traders can get a $20 trading bonus when they sign up with a Polymarket promo code before Aug. 29. The offer requires the code COVERS at registration and a $10 deposit to unlock your welcome bonus. Start trading on the Hawaii vs. Stanford matchup this Saturday using one of the best prediction market apps available today. Polymarket promo code details How the Polymarket Promo Code Works The Polymarket promo code delivers a straightforward welcome offer for new traders. You'll need to enter COVERS during sign-up, verify your identity with a photo ID and selfie, and deposit a minimum of $10 to activate the bonus. Once claimed, you'll have $20 in trading credit to use on prediction markets, including the Hawaii vs. Stanford game on Saturday. Here are the key terms and conditions for this offer: * Available in all U.S. states except Nevada * Must be physically located in an eligible state * Requires valid photo ID and selfie verification * Minimum $10 deposit required to unlock the bonus * Offer valid through Aug. 29 When you trade on Hawaii vs. Stanford, your $20 bonus can be applied to any prediction market on the game. If your trade wins, your profits are yours to keep. If your trade doesn't go your way, you've used your welcome bonus to explore the platform without additional cost. Comparing best prediction market promos shows that Polymarket's offer stands out for its flexibility and ease of use. Get our Hawaii vs. Stanford picks Betting analyst Brad Powers has released his Hawaii vs. Stanford picks, including a lean on Stanford to cover at home in what he views as a revenge spot for the Cardinal. * Stanford -3.0 * Hawaii +4.5 * Hawaii moneyline * Game total under 48.5 * Davis Warren over 190.5 passing yards * Micah Alejado under 260.5 passing yards * Cam Barfield over 32.5 rushing yards * JonAnthony Hall over 26.5 receiving yards * Audric Harris over 36.5 receiving yards * Audric Harris to score a touchdown Use the correct Polymarket promo code for your state How to Claim Your Polymarket Welcome Offer Follow these steps to sign up and start trading on Hawaii vs. Stanford with your $20 bonus: Pages related to this topic
Anthropic quietly captured over 60% of business AI API spending, leaving OpenAI with roughly 35%
The enterprise AI race has flipped, with Anthropic commanding premium pricing on a fraction of the token volume while OpenAI fights to hold ground. The conventional wisdom that OpenAI dominates the AI market needs an asterisk. When you zoom into where businesses actually swipe their corporate cards for API access, Anthropic is running away with it, capturing north of 60% of spending while OpenAI sits at around 35%. That spending gap looks even more dramatic when you consider how it's being generated. According to Vercel AI Gateway data, Anthropic is pulling in that 61-65% spending share on just 30-32% of total token volume. That means Anthropic is charging roughly 4.4 times the average price per token compared to OpenAI. How the tables turned Rewind to 2023, and Anthropic held a modest 12% of enterprise LLM spend. OpenAI was sitting comfortably at around 50%. Fast forward to December 2025, and a Menlo Ventures survey showed Anthropic had climbed to 40% of enterprise LLM expenditures while OpenAI had slid to 27%. That trajectory only accelerated into 2026. Ramp's sales data from the same period showed Anthropic capturing 34.4-44% of business AI spending versus OpenAI's 32.3-40%. By mid-2026, the Vercel data tells an even starker story, with Anthropic pulling above 60%. The reversal happened fastest in one category: coding. Anthropic now holds approximately 54% of the enterprise coding and agentic applications market. OpenAI managed just 21% in that same segment. Average spending per user tells its own story. Anthropic users spend roughly $420 on average, compared to $310 for OpenAI users. Different strategies, different moats Anthropic's enterprise and API revenue mix stands at approximately 80%, meaning the vast majority of its money comes from businesses integrating Claude into their products and workflows. OpenAI, by contrast, has built a large consumer product in ChatGPT. Its consumer-scale reach gives it a different kind of leverage: volume. OpenAI's broader product ecosystem, from ChatGPT Enterprise to its Azure partnership, gives it distribution channels that pure API metrics don't capture. The multi-model reality One data point complicates any simple narrative about winners and losers: 67% of development teams now use multiple AI providers. Teams route their hardest, most valuable work to Claude -- the complex coding tasks, the multi-step agentic workflows -- while simpler, high-volume tasks get sent to cheaper alternatives. Some Ramp data showed stronger growth for OpenAI in certain business cohorts during Q3 2026, suggesting the company hasn't ceded the enterprise fight entirely.
Anthropic's new AI tool can conduct scientific experiments
The technology enables AI agents to autonomously operate a wide range of devices that can be programmed using computer code. Illustration credit: Reuters Washington: Anthropic has opened a research preview of a system that allows artificial intelligence (AI) assistants such as Claude to control scientific and engineering equipment and conduct experiments, marking the company's first tool designed to operate in the physical world. Called the Model Hardware Standard (MHS), the technology enables AI agents to autonomously operate a wide range of devices that can be programmed using computer code. These include complex microscopes, liquid handlers, lasers and robotic arms. The research preview will initially be available to a first group of scientific research labs and advanced manufacturers, Anthropic said. The development comes as the Claude chatbot maker seeks to expand its enterprise business and boost revenues with new applications. Anthropic said AI agents can reason through individual steps in an experiment, change parameters in real time and, in some cases, recover from hardware errors without intervention. This could allow researchers and engineers to run autonomous experiments and workflows around the clock. The company said Claude can also interact with hardware in an exploratory manner, similar to how a scientist might approach an unfamiliar experiment. Anthropic said scientists have observed AI agents tracking, adjusting and repeating experiments in ways similar to human researchers. In one neuroscience experiment, an Anthropic scientist observed Claude examine live brain tissue and identify the alveus, a specific part of the brain, according to the Financial Times. Anthropic plans to open-source MHS, but said it will first work on safeguards to reduce the risk of errors when AI agents interact with physical equipment. The launch follows Anthropic's introduction in June of Claude Science, its first product dedicated to scientists. The product includes applications such as rendering three-dimensional protein structures and assisting with drug discovery. MHS takes that push a step further by allowing AI agents to move from analysing scientific information and generating hypotheses to interacting with the physical equipment used to test them.
Blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal, judge rules
Unfortunately you've used all of your gifts this month. Your counter will reset on the first day of next month. SAN FRANCISCO -- The Trump administration acted illegally when it labeled Anthropic a security risk and barred the artificial intelligence startup from working with the U.S. government, a federal judge ruled Thursday. Judge Rita Lin of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California wrote in her 59-page ruling that the government had unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic "for constitutionally protected expressive activities" after the AI company spoke out about how its technology should be used.
Judge rules Anthropic supply chain risk designation was 'illegal and baseless'
A Northern California judge found that the AI company's products did not represent a meaningful threat to national security, making the Pentagon's designation "unlawful retaliation." Anthropic secured a legal victory in its case against the Department of Defense for designating the company as a supply chain risk earlier this year, a move that hindered the company's ability to work with government clients and compete economically. In a ruling released Thursday evening, Judge Rita Lin of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California sided with Anthropic following a dispute between the company and the Pentagon over how its technology was used in agency missions, specifically those involving mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry. "Though the Department of War is undisputedly free to select the AI vendor of its choice, the evidence demonstrates that the broad measures imposed on Anthropic were illegal and baseless," Lin's judgment read. A key finding in the ruling was that Anthropic's products did not constitute a meaningful threat to national security, thus, labeling the company a supply chain risk was "unlawful retaliation" and a violation of Anthropic's First Amendment right. Additionally, the ruling found that Anthropic was also denied its pre-deprivation process required under the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The ruling also addressed the public statements made by both parties. Lin found that the Pentagon's statements, specifically those related to the "arrogance" of Anthropic for expressing concern over its products' usage, indicated that the Trump administration's efforts to blacklist Anthropic had less to do with national security and artificial intelligence model concerns than retaliation. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," the judgment continued. "An IT vendor does not become a potential adversary of the United States whenever it asks probing questions or stubbornly insists on particular contracting terms, even if doing so causes DoW to doubt its trustworthiness. Such a breathtakingly broad interpretation of Section 3252 would make its restrictions on the Secretary's discretion meaningless." Following the release of the judgment, Anthropic said it welcomes the court's ruling that found the supply chain risk label illegitimate. "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology," an Anthropic spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW. The Pentagon did not return a request for comment by the time of publication. The ruling in favor of Anthropic will likely bolster confidence within the larger technology vendor ecosystem. In the wake of the initial supply chain risk label and further export controls on newer models, vendors were shaken by the Trump administration's actions, citing uncertainty over the future of new and existing contracts with the government. "Contractors fear their past corporate decisions or public stances are scrutinized through new lenses from the administration, the fear that you can be disqualified for lack of integrity or lack of compliance with those views, not because you've done a poor job," a source in the tech contracting industry told Nextgov/FCW in April. Business advocacy groups like the Information Technology Industry Council addressed this lack of clarity, seeing the ruling as preserving the relationship between the public and private sectors. "Importantly, yesterday's ruling removes uncertainty for businesses across industry seeking to partner with the U.S. government," said ITI President and CEO Jason Oxman in a statement. The future of government tech contracting stands to change following the Anthropic-Pentagon dispute. Defense Under Secretary for Research and Engineering Emil Michael, who was referenced many times in the ruling, said in May that the Pentagon will "never again" be beholden to a single vendor. "We were single-threaded on one vendor, one AI vendor at the Department of War, and to integrate into classified systems is not just putting your software on a public cloud and having it work," Michael said, referring to Anthropic. "But never again will we be single-threaded with any one model."
Anthropic Wins Court Battle as US Judge Blocks Pentagon Blacklisting
A US federal judge blocked the Pentagon from enforcing its decision to blacklist Anthropic, marking a major legal victory for the company behind the Claude chatbot. The order escalated a broader debate over how the US military should use AI. US District Judge Rita F. Lin ruled on Thursday (August 28, 2026) that the Pentagon's decision to designate as a national security supply-chain risk was unlawful. In her 59-page order, Lin found that the government's actions amounted to retaliation against the company and violated constitutional protections. The ruling follows months of tension between Anthropic and the US Defense Department over the military use of Claude. The dispute intensified after Anthropic refused to allow its technology to be used for fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. The company argued that its systems should have safeguards around such uses.
Shelly Palmer: Anthropic beats the blacklist
Think About This: Being model-agnostic is the only viable AI strategy. Greetings from Candlewood Lake. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin ruled that the Trump administration's blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal. The court found the government's actions violated the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The actions in question, taken on February 27 and March 3, designated Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security, ordered every federal agency to permanently stop using Anthropic's products, and banned all defense contractors from doing any business with the company, even business unrelated to the military. The fight began over contract terms. Anthropic publicly refused the Department of War's demands about how its models could be used in military and surveillance contexts; the court called the private negotiations "staid and respectful" and noted Anthropic offered an orderly transition to another vendor. Then came the blacklist. The administrative record the government filed to justify it was, in the court's words, "slim": a four-page memorandum written after two of the three challenged actions. The government abandoned its original theory - that Anthropic held backdoor access to deployed systems - because Anthropic "undisputedly lacks any such access." It also conceded that Anthropic's technology is no riskier than any other black-box AI model. What remained was "trust," grounded in Anthropic's "increasingly hostile manner through the press." Days before the blacklisting, Secretary Hegseth proposed applying the Defense Production Act to Anthropic, which would have treated the company as essential to national security. The Department was still pursuing an Anthropic contract ("we are very close here"), and the government was still discussing deployments of Anthropic's Mythos model in sensitive contexts. Hegseth called Anthropic's public stance "a master class in arrogance." Judge Lin wrote that broadcasting the punishment on social media before the formal process even began "makes little sense except as an attempt to swiftly make a public example of Anthropic for daring to criticize the Administration," and that "the empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics." This fight was a bit of a sideshow. The real issue is that the most capable frontier models are simply not available to the general public (and likely never will be again). Being model-agnostic is the only viable AI strategy. As always, your thoughts and comments are both welcome and encouraged. -s P.S. If you want to talk through what AI vendor concentration risk looks like when procurement becomes policy, consider booking an AI Leadership Workshop. About Shelly Palmer Shelly Palmer is the Professor of Advanced Media in Residence at Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and CEO of The Palmer Group, a consulting practice that helps Fortune 500 companies with technology, media and marketing. Named LinkedIn's "Top Voice in Technology," he covers tech and business for Good Day New York, is a regular commentator on CNN and writes a popular daily business blog. He's a bestselling author, and the creator of the popular, free online course, Generative AI for Execs. Follow @shellypalmer or visit shellypalmer.com.
Recent Indian executive moves at OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta & other tech majors
Indian executives have recently taken on key leadership roles at some of the world's biggest AI and technology companies, highlighting the growing demand for Indian talent. Here are some of the notable appointments. Over the past few months, several Indian executives have taken up senior roles at leading artificial intelligence (AI) and technology companies, as global firms deepen their focus on the country and its diaspora for talent.Here are some of the key appointments.Sandhya DevanathanIn the latest such move, Sandhya Devanathan is leaving Meta after more than 10 years to join OpenAI as vice president for Southeast Asia and Australia. She announced the
Anthropic's CEO Dario Amodei predicts AI could cure most diseases within a decade
In a recent post, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said that AI could help cure most human diseases within the next five to ten years, surpassing conventional clinical studies and treatment. The 43-year-old shared his view in a recent post that advanced AI could expedite biological advancement potentially curing most human diseases in a novel way. He was of the view that AI companies can deliver real results to build trust. However, reactions varied from optimism about even faster timelines to pragmatism concerning legal obstacles and a history of deficits as Anthropic expanded its biology work. The post has been gaining traction on social media with users pouring in with reactions as one user wrote, "The biggest AI breakthrough may not be a better chatbot. It could be discovering treatments humans couldn't find on their own. But there's a difference between AI finding a breakthrough and medicine proving it works. Second remarked, "Zero cures found yet. Zero. Hope it happens, but you'd think they'd have at least one as a sample before throwing these claims out." Third added, "Imagine if AI actually cures most diseases in the next ten years the world would be completely unrecognizable."
Anthropic scores court victory against Pentagon's 'illegal and baseless' actions
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."
Anthropic scores court victory against Pentagon's 'illegal and baseless' actions
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."
Anthropic scores court victory against Pentagon's 'illegal and baseless' actions
In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."
Pentagon's action against Anthropic was 'illegal and baseless,' judge rules
In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."
Pentagon's action against Anthropic was 'illegal and baseless,' judge rules
In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."
Judge Rules Trump Admin Illegally Retaliated Against Anthropic Over AI Red Lines
* Judge Rita Lin granted Anthropic summary judgment on its First Amendment, due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims in a 59-page order. * The government conceded Anthropic has no backdoor access to deployed models and is no riskier than any other AI system. * Anthropic lost on one count, its claim that Trump's directive to federal agencies exceeded presidential power. A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration illegally punished Anthropic for publicly refusing to let the military use its Claude LLM for tasks including mass surveillance of Americans and lethal autonomous warfare. The dispute began when the Pentagon told Anthropic to strip all usage restrictions and accept a clause permitting "all lawful uses." Anthropic dropped most of them and held two red lines. On February 27, Trump ordered every federal agency to stop using the company's technology, calling it a "RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY" on Truth Social. Hegseth followed, accusing Anthropic in a tweet of "a master class in arrogance and betrayal" and barring any military contractor from doing business with it. What the record showed The government has since abandoned its central claim. Its risk assessment rested on Anthropic having backdoor access to deployed models, and it now concedes Anthropic has no such access and that Claude is no riskier than any other "black box" system. That left one factor: trust, forfeited by what a Pentagon memo called Anthropic's "increasingly hostile manner through the press." Lin found the timeline gave that away. Days before the blacklisting, Hegseth had floated invoking the Defense Production Act, which would have made Anthropic essential to national security. The day after the designation, an under secretary emailed the company to say a contract was "very close." The government is still discussing collaboration on Mythos, Anthropic's newest model, across sensitive contexts, Lin added. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Lin wrote, finding the actions retaliatory under the First Amendment, imposed without the pre-deprivation process the Fifth Amendment requires, outside the supply chain statute, and arbitrary and capricious. Anthropic did not win everything. Lin rejected its argument that Trump's directive exceeded presidential authority, and entered judgment for agencies that took no action. She vacated the designation and Hegseth's boycott order, granted a permanent injunction, and denied the government's request for a seven-day administrative stay, noting it had operated under a preliminary injunction since March without identifying any harm.
Anthropic Opens Preview Of New Standard Allowing AI Agents To Control Lab Equipment
Hyderabad: Anthropic has opened a research preview of a new system called the Model Hardware Standard (MHS), designed to let Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents safely operate physical machines in laboratories and factories. The preview is being made available to a first group of scientific research labs and manufacturers, marking an early step towards making the technology more widely available. MHS allows AI agents to control several lab and manufacturing tools at the same time, including microscopes, liquid handling machines and robotic arms. It can support tasks ranging from everyday drug discovery experiments to calibrating lasers on quantum computers. The system was originally developed through a partnership between Anthropic and HHMI Janelia Research Campus. What does MHS solve? Traditionally, setting up a lab or factory equipment to work together normally takes weeks or even months, since most devices cannot communicate with one another without specially built connections. However, MHS is designed to cut this setup time down to hours or even minutes. By adding AI into the process, it allows researchers and engineers to run experiments and workflows automatically, around the clock. The AI agent can work through each step of an experiment, adjust settings as needed, and in some cases fix hardware problems without requiring a person to step in.
