> Only reason OpenAI would do that would be to create a barrier for smaller entrants

Only? No. Not even main.

The main reason would be to halt discovery and setting a precedent that would fuel not only further litigation but also, potentially, legislation.

That said, OpenAI should spin it as that master-of-the-universe take.

A billion dollar settlement is more than enough to fuel further litigation.

> billion dollar settlement is more than enough to fuel further litigation

The choice isn’t between a settlement and no settlement. It’s between settlement and fighting in court. Binding precedent and a public right increase the risks and costs to OpenAI, particularly if it looks like they’ll lose.

Right, but a billion dollars to a relative small fry in the publishing industry (even online only) like the ny times is chum in the water.

The next six publishers are going to be looking for $100B and probably have the funds for better lawyers.

At some point these are going to hit the courts, an NY Times probably makes sense as the plaintiff as opposed to one of the larger publishing houses.

> ny times is chum in the water

The Times has a lauder litigation team. Their finances are good and their revenue sources diverse. They’re not aching to strike a deal.

> NY Times probably makes sense as the plaintiff as opposed to one of the larger publishing houses

Why? Especially if this goes to a jury.