Hey! It was a lot of work stealing everything from you, of course you have to pay me a premium to get access to it!

Seems like another donation to python is coming to mitigate this pr scandal

They cannot actually do this as long as they keep Claude code open source. It is always going to be trivial to replicate how it sends requests in a third party tool.

CC isn’t open sourced.

Neither was 99.99999% of the content they stole.

Any source for this claim?

all the scrapped data on internet?? are you that naive lol

Scraped != stolen.

LOL No if you didn't have explicit permision to use it for Training, you didn't have permission this is called stealing.

Nonsense. Copying is not theft, this debate was solved 25+ years ago!

Have you seen the "you wouldn't steal a car" ads? Or this video? https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4?si=utZ5KjmK-C2-fFdP

I meant "source available" I guess. Or am I missing something?

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code

Yes, there is no source code in here. This is their scripts / tooling / prompts repo. The actual code that powers their CC terminal CLI does not exist anywhere on their public GitHub

It is available on npm but it’s a wasm file last I checked. You also don’t need it to find their endpoints, people are just seeing what networks calls are made when they use Claude Code and then try to get other agents to call those endpoints.

The hard part is that they have an Anthropic-compatible API that’s different than completion/responses.

> protect their investment

Viewed another way, the preferential pricing they're giving to Claude Code (and only Claude Code) is anticompetitive behavior that may be illegal.

This is a misunderstanding of the regulations.

They’re not obligated to give other companies access to their services at a discounted rate.

They may however be obligated to not give customers access to their services at a discounted rate either - predatory pricing is at least some of the time and in some jurisdictions illegal.

Predatory pricing? They have a public API that anyone can use for a public rate. There is no predatory pricing here.

The Claude Code endpoint is a private API. They’re free to control usage of their private API.

Predatory pricing is selling something below cost to acquire/maintain market dominance.

The Claude subscription used for Claude Code is to all appearances being sold substantially below the cost to run it, and it certainly seems that this is being done to maintain Claude Code's market dominance and force out competitors who cannot afford to subsidize LLM inference in the same way such as OpenCode.

It's not a matter of there being a public API, I don't believe they are obligated to offer one at all, it's a matter of the Claude Subscription being priced fairly so that OpenCode (on top of, say, gemini) can be competitive.

The modern consumer benefit doctrine means predatory pricing is impossible to prosecute in 99% of cases. I’m not saying it’s right, but legally it is toothless.

This is true... in the US (though there is still that 1%). Anthropic operates globally and the US isn't the only country who ever realized it might be an issue.

> Predatory pricing is selling something below cost to acquire/maintain market dominance.

Yet they have to acquire market dominance in a meaningful market first if you want to prosecute, otherwise it's just a failed business strategy. Like that company selling movie tickets bellow cost.

Claude code is so successful that they could silence the api to protect the moat.

I’m surprised they didn’t go with the option of offering opus 4.6 to Claude code only.

The API is really expensive compared to a Max subscription! So they're probably making a lot of money (or at least losing much less) via the API. I don't think it's going anywhere. Worst case scenario they could raise the price even more.

That’s what OpenAI is doing with GPT-5.2-Codex

What makes it predatory?

The Claude subscription (i.e. the pro and max plans, not the API) is sold at what appears to be well below cost in what appears to be a blatant attempt to preserve/create market dominance for claude code, destroying competitors by making it impossible to compete without also having a war chest of money to give away.

You’re making a big assumption. LLM providers aren’t necessarily taking a loss on the marginal cost of inference. It’s when you include R&D and training costs that it requires the capital inputs. They’ve come out and said as much.

The Claude Code plans may not be operating at a loss either. Most people don’t use up 100% of their plan. Few people do. A lot of it goes idle.

If you check the actual tokens consumption and compare it to the API you will find a factor 10.

Training models cost tens of millions, their revenues from sub + api are well above hundreds of millions.

If you look at minimax IPO data, you can see that they spent 3x their revenue on "cloud bills".

So yes, it's probable that they do subsidize inference through subscriptions in order to capture market.

No inferrence provider is profitable, and most run on VC money to serve customers.

Now dig into copilot plus and how they price the premium requests. The math is not mathing, they are aggressively trying to capture the market.

Are you suggesting Anthropic has a “duty to deal” with anyone who is trying to build competitive products to Claude Code, beyond access to their priced API? I don’t think so. Especially not to a product that’s been breaking ToS.

No, but I think they should. Or anti-trust was enforced through some other means. Or at all really.

Citing the ToS is circular logic. They set the terms and can change them whenever they want!

A regulatory duty to deal is the opposite of setting your own terms. Yes, citing a ToS is acceptable in this scenario. We can throw ToS out if we all believed in duty to deal.

Do other companies have a similar "duty to deal" - for example, if Microsoft or Apple ToS forbid use of open source software with their software? Or if VS Code ToS forbid people from using VS Code to work on a competitor?

They’re not literally blocking OpenCode. You can use OpenCode with their API like any other tool.

They’ve blocked the workaround OpenCode was using to access a private API that was metered differently.

Any tool that used that private endpoint would be blocked. They’re not pushing an agenda. They’re just enforcing their API terms like they would for any use.

after they exploited us by training without any limits on code without licensing it (including GPLed code) they now scramble to ban and restrict when we want to do the same to them. that's the schadenfreude...