I don't understand your point here. Looks like what you suggest is exactly what is happening. US government did not ban Anthropic from conducting business in the US. They just don't want them to influence their own supply chain, 100% legal as you say.

▲

SatvikBeri 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the government just banned all government agencies from working with Anthropic, that would be reasonable. But they didn't. They're banning any company that works with the military from working with Anthropic in any way, using a law that has never been invoked against an American company.

▲

tgma 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, great! Sounds like this is exactly what Anthropic wants and hopes for; for their technology to minimally benefit warfighting. Otherwise, are you suggesting they are so evil that they were just advertising those the terms to fool us and virtue signal?

> has never been invoked against an American company.

There's always a first. I am assuming it is not illegal to do that. It's a completely reasonable business decision to ensure your supply chain does not depend on things that may change against your goals. For example, you don't want to build or depend on an open source platform that you know is gonna rug pull, if you count on it remaining open source, do you? American or otherwise.

	▲	nullocator 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Anthropic was not anticipated injured party with standing in American courts, until today, now they are very much injured and do have standing to bring a whole slew of lawsuits against the administration who is operating illegally and unconstitutionally against an american company. This seems like the start of the battle for anthropic not the end. The government signed contracts they don't get to just reneg whenever they fucking please because cheeto bantito in chief and his unhinged alcoholic secretary of defense are unreliable liars

▲

techblueberry 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The governments supply chain is like 80% of the US

	▲	tgma 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And the point is? They made a voluntary business decision not to sell to them, whatever that number is. Possibly more than offset by marketing gains and loyalty from other segments; or not.

▲

pron 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The US government is applying severe sanctions against a US company that does not "influence their supply chain". Donald Trump believes the economy is great and at the same time declares economic emergencies to justify doing certain things. It could be true that Anthropic's products are useless for the DoD because of the products' safeguards, but that doesn't mean they're a risk to the US government.

As to this being 100% legal, I'm not so sure (not a lawyer). It might not be a criminal offese, but there's a whole category of abuse of power that this may fall under if Anthropic is put under a certain status without real justification. Many powers given to the executive branch are not absolute and can't be applied arbitrarily, but require justification. Anthropic might be able to sue the government for declaring them a "supply-chain risk" without sufficient justification. E.g. they could claim that not being sufficiently patriotic in the eyes of the administration does not constitute a risk, and that since their not the sole supplier of the tech, they were not trying to strong arm the government to do anything.

	▲	tgma 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with your second paragraph; we will have to see to what degree the "viral" effect of Supply Chain Risk designation goes (perhaps you contract the DoD under an LLC that has a supply chain firewall from your company) and also look forward to seeing how this would be handled in court, but I would not automatically be dismissive of this being totally legal. > does not "influence their supply chain" I would be wary of making this conclusion. Obviously it could conceivably influence the supply chain when you build on top of their model. If you look at the type of risks enumerated in DoD guidelines, it is not just "oh this software has vulnerability" which is what started the discussion in this subthread in the first place. There are many kinds of risks DoD needs to address, none are particularly new; including Sustainment Risk. The closest thing I remember to this case was Sun Java "no use in nuclear facility" EULA term, which LLM suggests was ignored by DoE/D because that was interpreted as a "limitation on warranty" not a "restriction of use."