Suggested respondent: Samuelson, with Lemley as an alternative. A useful answer should identify decisive facts rather than predict that every training use will win or lose. The recent Reuters v. ROSS opinion makes the competing product and specific editorial material especially relevant context.
Ask: “For this specialist archive and proposed product, which facts would you need before distinguishing training, retrieval and evaluation risks?”
A strong answer should cover: acquisition method, protected expression versus underlying information, copies made, user-facing output and the existing or plausible market. It should distinguish legal doctrine, an unresolved factual issue and a commercial preference. Request one example where changing a single fact changes the assessment.
Follow-up: “Which claim in our supplier's proposal is unsupported by the facts you would require?”
Approved expert quote: [Not yet collected.]