It tells me that you don't understand the law, or words. As learnI said, since you are unwilling to get an education there is no sense in me trying to help you. If I were you, I'd start by learning what the word synonym means. Bye Felicia!

There is no point in trying to even try to educate you further. The model trainer is the model trainer. The company is the company. As I said before, if you ever do get on a witness stand and try to argue that words mean what you want them to mean, not what they actually mean, you will get scorched and quickly shown up by an even slightly skilled defense attorney. You really need to take a 6th grade English class. Off you go now little uneducated troll ...

"There is. The plaintiff subpoenas the model trainer."

The fact that you then said Anthropic later is immaterial since you shifted gears midstream. Since you already said the plaintiff would subpoena an individual, to wit the trainer, one could only reasonable assume that you were implying the Anthropic employee would be subpoenaed, and that means testimony you pathetically ignorant buffoon. You already proved that you have no idea what you are talking about. The company is not the model trainer. The model trainer is the human in the company responsible for selecting the data set. My example specifically stated "I'm sorry your honor. I deal with trillions of data points every day. I don't recall." so you can't say that you didn't know that I was referring to a person testifying in court, based on the obvious implication that that would be the scenario. If you understood the law and what the terms are you would have said "The plaintiff subpoenas the company that created the model for the training records." You went on to use a specific elaboratation claiming that you have been subpoenaed. You didn't say "My company has received subpoenas for records and I have handled them." You are an incompetent dipshit who doesn't know how to use words properly, and you aren't going to try to claim that you got one thing somewhat right, but everything else wrong, and that somehow exonerates you for your blatant incompetence and stupidity. Now seriously, FOAD. You would do the world a great service to learn to STFU until you learn the law and how it works, as well as the correct language actual lawyers use, but no doubt that will never happen you mentally deficient pathetically ignorant and incompetent reject.

The following is from one of the comments made by you previously:

"Further, you don't understand how a subpoena works. I do, because I receive them regularly. I have never had to go to court for one. They issue a subpoena asking for data, and I either give it to them, or say I don't have it."

This is the proof that you have no idea what you are talking about, or at the very least don't know how to use words as I said earlier, and should definately hope you never actually receive a subpoena:
 
" Subpoenaing the Company (Standard Procedure): The subpoena is addressed to the business entity and served to its Registered Agent or Custodian of Records. Under federal rule 30(b)(6) and similar state rules, this legally binds the company to designate the correct person to gather the files or testify about them.
  Why not the employee? Corporate records belong to the corporation, not the individual worker. If an employee leaves, changes roles, or goes on vacation, a subpoena addressed to them personally can cause delays, be legally defective, or fail to compel the business to turn over the data.

  When an employee is subpoenaed: An individual employee is usually subpoenaed only if the requesting party needs their personal testimony about actions they took, or if they possess personal records separate from the company's official systems."
 
Now, let's just agree that you are so unoriginal that you stole my insult and repackaged it, and that you are an idiot who doesn't know the law or how words work and we can both move on with life.

You are the guy who trained this disagreement dipshit. Oh wait ...

Why the fsck would I refute my own reply. Herp Derp. Seriously, I'm surprised you can make it through the day without drowning in your own drool:

"If I accuse you of being a poopy-pants, and your only defense is something you would have to prove (self defense, etc), and you fail to prove it, then I already won."

That is hilarious, and is probaby the most stupid comment I've seen today, which is a phenomenal "accomplishment". If you accuse me of being a poopy pants then you better be able to prove I have shit in my pants or you are guilty of defamation you idiot. That would be completely different from if you said "I think he is a poopy pants", which would be an opinion, and an opinion can't be challenged in court. You are a fool if you don't think I understand the law better than you.

The company is the model creator you idiot. Wow ... you really are a moron.

They don't subpoena "the trainer" for the records you idiot. They don't even know who "the trainer" is ... the subpoena is to the company. If they subpoena "the trainer" is is for purposes of testimony, not for records. I'm starting to feel like I am beating up a mentally retarded child.

Now you are doing it again. The plaintiff doesn't subpoena the "model creator", or more accurately they do but you have know idea what the words "model creator" mean. I literally never said that anyone would lie in court. I said that if they subpoena the trainer (as if there is one) that person wouldn't recall, but as you (almost) rightly point out the evidence in the discovery would be presented, not testimony from "the trainer." Seriously, you are too stupid to even understand what you are saying. Make sure you keep to the policy of never showing up in court and taking the stand, because you don't have a chance of coming out of that without getting scorched.

"There is. The plaintiff subpoenas the model trainer."

The plaintiff doesn't subpoena the trainer, they subpoena the company you clueless buffoon. If they subpoena the trainer then it is to testify, for a deposition or in the trial. You don't know how to use words, so you should definitely stop trying.

I just wasted my time looking at the link you provided, and holy fucking shot are you stupid.

Don't quit your day job, because you obviously have no place in an actual court of law. Off you go now ... seriously.

(Obviously I missed a closing slash-b ... oops.)

Great. Now prove the LLM was trained on the data. Team one and the judge LLM can access (not have access, actually access - two different things / words matter in court) the data. The judge LLM makes sure that the second team LLM doesn't appear to have accessed the data. The judge LLM addresses the "substantial similarity" in its entirety. Yes, the litigants will have to show such similarity exists ... a task they cannot do because they judge LLM has already guaranteed no such similarity exists. I already pointed out that, in the astronomically unlikely event that the implementing LLM was trained on the repo then there is zero need to do anything but let a different LLM that was not trained on it loose on the generated spec. You truly are slow on the uptake.

It is ironic that you claim to understand the legal system despite clearly having no experience with it. They wouldn't ask a witness on the stand to try to recall anything ... they would present proof from the discovery package that tied the dataset to the training. If they did call someone to testify then the person they called wouldn't remember. They would be answering honestly. Furthermore "I don't recall" is never perjury because you can't prove that they do recall. I literally couldn't be "completely wrong" "where it is public code", especially since you aren't articulating what part of my statement is supposed to be incorrect. It's pretty obvious that you have never been a lawyer and I promise you that you would get eaten alive in court, especially if I was lawyer for the defense.