The music industry allegedly employs a cynical strategy: it tacitly allows tech startups to use its intellectual property without licensing. Once a startup gains traction and value, the industry launches coordinated, expensive lawsuits to force a large settlement for cash or equity.
The NYT's seemingly contradictory AI strategy is a deliberate two-pronged approach. Lawsuits enforce intellectual property rights and prevent unauthorized scraping, while licensing deals demonstrate a clear, sustainable market and fair value exchange for its journalism.
Unlike industries such as biotech, major tech companies and hyperscalers largely avoid suing each other over intellectual property. There is a prevailing ethos to compete on business execution and product offerings rather than through litigation. This cultural norm shapes how innovation spreads and is adopted across the industry, with features often being copied without legal challenge.
Anthropic's $1.5B copyright settlement highlights that massive infringement fines are no longer an existential threat to major AI labs. With the ability to raise vast sums of capital, these companies can absorb such penalties by simply factoring them into their next funding round, treating them as a predictable operational expense.
Oshkosh structures partnerships to own IP developed jointly with a startup, then licenses it back. This approach, outlined in the initial NDA, gives the large corporation control over patent defense while providing the startup with usage rights, often with market-specific limitations.
The OpenAI-Disney partnership establishes a clear commercial value for intellectual property in the AI space. This sets a powerful legal precedent for ongoing lawsuits (like NYT v. OpenAI), compelling all other LLM developers to license content rather than scrape it for free, formalizing the market.
Opponents with deep pockets can initiate lawsuits not necessarily to win, but to drain a target's financial resources and create immense stress. The astronomical cost and duration of the legal battle serve as the true penalty, forcing many to fold regardless of their case's merit.
Disney is simultaneously suing Google for copyright infringement while signing a $1 billion licensing and equity deal with OpenAI for the same activity. This reveals a strategy where litigation is a tool to force AI labs into lucrative partnerships, rewarding the very infringement they are suing over.
Holding a patent provides no inherent protection. Its value is only realized through active, and expensive, legal defense against infringers. Therefore, a startup's focus should be on building a profitable business first to generate the capital needed to enforce its IP.
Spotify's early success stemmed from launching in smaller European countries where record labels had less focus. This allowed them to secure more favorable licensing deals and avoid the costly legal battles and poor margins that strangled their US-based competitors, enabling them to reach critical mass first.
Disney is licensing its IP to OpenAI, avoiding the "Napster trap" where music labels sued file-sharing services into bankruptcy but lost control of the streaming market. By partnering, Disney shapes the use of its IP in AI and benefits financially, rather than fighting a losing legal battle against technology's advance.