iFixit details Apple’s copyright lawsuit against Corellium:
Despite a lack of apparent interest in enforcing their copyright to iOS software, in this specific case Apple has decided to exert control over iOS. And they’ve crossed a red line by invoking the most notorious statute in the US copyright act, section 1201. This is the very law that made it illegal for farmers to work on their tractors and for you to fix your refrigerator. It’s the same law that we’ve been whacking away at for years, getting exemptions from the US Copyright Office for fixing, jailbreaking, and performing security research on everything from smartwatches to automobiles.
Enter Apple with the latest terrible, awful, no-good application of 1201. Apple claims that in making virtual iPhones for security and development use, Corellium is engaged in “unlawful trafficking of a product used to circumvent security measures in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201.”
In other words: Corellium sells a way to use iOS that works around the way Apple intended it to work. Apple knows that you can’t use Corellium’s software to create your own knock-off iPhone. But they can claim that Corellium’s software is illegal, and they might technically be right. That’s terrifying.
I hope the lawsuit ends with a loss for Apple, but I wouldn’t bet on it,
Corellium are selling Apple’s iOS (virtualized) and not paying any royalties for that IP. Sorry, but that isn’t ok, even if the aim is lauded as “nobel”. Apple owns that software and copyright and deserves to be able to protect that effort (as any company should).
I work for a software company that sells software. If someone else took that same software and sold it, without our consent or even paying a licence fee, we would surely take them to court. Apple are doing no different.
“Corellium are selling Apple’s iOS (virtualized) and not paying any royalties for that IP.”
No they’re not and you are wrong. You should browse the article through first. Apple isn’t even claiming this sort of activity, they’re claiming that Corellium is providing a means to jailbreak the iOS.
I agree with this, that Corellium isn’t selling iOS,
I can understand why Apple want people to think that Corellium is selling iOS. In a capitalistic system not paying royalites will be seen as theft, even if the accusation has no basis it forms and embeds an opinion in the readers mind. After that the debate is framed in theft and not freedom.
If I sell you a wrench and you use it as a hammer, I can’t bitch about you not also buying my hammers, which seems to be Apple’s argument, a different use of the tools they make.
It’s more like if you wrote a book then someone bought one copy then photocopied it and charged people access to read the photocopies without giving you a cut of the profits.
Yep. Apple is correct here, even if people don’t like it. They sell devices with the hardware and software as one unit, and Apple does not license their OS to run on anything that isn’t Apple hardware. It’s pretty simple.
Here’s the thing.
Should Apple be allowed to be compensated for this use of its software?
Yes, Correlium should have to pay Apple something. It “seems” wrong and should be illegal.
Should there be a product like Correlium to help security researchers?
Absolutely. If Apple doesn’t provide it, they should let someone else.
Should Apple be using the law they are to make there case?
No! Heck no, its would make a really bad precedent. I really wish they could just settle out of court, or by some miracle the law is changed to make it illegal but for a more narrow and sensible reason. You know, lawmakers who I contribute $0 in campaign donations, read my unconscious mind and take into account all possible interpretations and technicalities, stat! Citizen talking here. chop chop!
Is virtualizing a pre-existing device, any device, one that has been legally purchased complete with it’s operating system, the same as selling software without paying royalties?
What do you do when an end user discovers a use for your software that you didn’t foresee?
cpcf,
If you’re a greedy corporation like apple, you do what apple does as long as the courts let you get away with it. They have no incentive to care especially when the public don’t value their own freedoms. Yes it’s a problem, but corporations would argue it’s our problem and not theirs.
Does Corellium really have one device for every customer, or are they oversubscribed and make customers reserve slots? This would be technically legal, sort of like video game ROMs. The ROMs are least have the defense of preservation since companies have moved on.
Apple is vertically integrated, and they sell hardware bundled with software. A company selling access to iOS without Apple hardware is asking to be sued, and Apple has always been very clear that their operating systems are to be used with their hardware unless they authorize it. Anything else is a violation of their EULA. This is clearly not something they authorized, and very much a EULA violation.
The hackintosh community exists because Apple doesn’t care to go after individuals, but they have gone after companies who have tried selling hackintoshes.
Hosting companies who rent access to Macs for development generally have fleets of Mac Minis sitting in racks.
Corellium is very much in the wrong here, and why they didn’t take the money offered is beyond me.
Apple foresaw this, and expressly forbid it.
If the end user figures out they can crack the license and sell copies of the cracked software or sell access to the cracked software, you figure out how to get them to stop. One of the options is suing them.
Flatland_Spider,
I don’t have the answer, but that is the question. If they own enough legal licenses to cover all the users, then Corellium is in compliance with copyright principals in the exact same way that libraries, video rental stores, netflix (the original DVD company) are. Time sharing instances *is* allowed by copyright, but you obviously cannot be oversubscribed. I assume corellium was not oversubscribed, and the morality of apple’s case pivots entirely on this fact.
If they did not create more instances than they had licenses and if apple’s case is purely based on section 1201 of the DMCA, as asserted, then this means that corellium did not meaningfully infringe on apple’s copyright. Recall the DVD jon lawsuits where he was sued over decrypting dvds he owned, he was acquitted twice in norway because his copies were legal despite the very strong objections of copyright holders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen . The difference here is that under US law one can be sued merely for circumventing digital protections, which in and of itself is considered illegal under the DMCA regardless of the absence of copyright crimes.
Sometimes people forget this, but It’s not apple nor any private company that determines what your allowed to do with your legal copies, it’s congress. Under “normal” copyright it’s irrelevant whether apple forbids it or not unless copyright law gives them the right to forbid it in the first place. For example, libraries, game rental shops, etc don’t need to get the permission of copyright holders to legally exchange copyrighted works in the US. The problem here stems entirely from the DMCA which did give publishers an additional right to prohibit reverse engineering and that is what apple is apparently relying on in this case.
So IMHO using DMCA section 1201 may be legally right, but it’s still morally wrong and I do think it’s being used by corporations in ways that the 1998 congress had not approved of.
I just read the court docket here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/441298959/Apple-Versus-Corellium-Amended-Filing
Apparently the claim is that the IOS software is downloaded directly from apple themselves at the time of instance creation. Now this is interesting since apple admits they made the copy (see page 12). I don’t know the specifics of the download process (like does apple force downloaders to agree to any of its terms of service before downloading). If so, then corellium would be subject to those terms and be subject to the consequences of breaking them. However the claim does not mention this, and if apple is/was distributing the software without forcing users to agree to anything first, then I think it’s hard to avoid the fact that all the copies were made voluntarily by apple themselves rather than corellium. Claiming copyright infringement under those circumstances seems not only weak but dishonest on apple’s part.
However, the DMCA’s restrictions on reverse engineering still applies. Even if corellium committed no copyright infringement whatsoever, and even if apple failed to put up terms and agreements in order to download, they still have a DMCA case against reverse engineering.
So based on this information, corellium could have a decent case for no copyright infringement, but they clearly are reverse engineering apple’s software. Maybe they can argue for DMCA security research exceptions, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Apple has created this situation, it’s complete emphasis on “new and latest hardware” has left a market flooded with relative pristine used devices that can be cheaply obtained and upgraded to the latest OS. Corellium and other entities do not give a stuff what Apple fan boys think, Syndicate that recycled material around the globe and you have all the resource you need to provide global developers with 24×7 access.
Even if the used hardware is not workable in real-time with the latest iOS, the visualised instance works fine for R&D purposes. Of course Apple saw this coming a few years back and started restricting access to iOS upgrades on old hardware.
Apple’s growth through consumption model is unsustainable, as are any pure growth models, sooner or later they’ll pay a price for ultimate consumerism no matter what extreme measures they will take to maintain the growth flood.
No wonder Musk and Bezos are so keen to leave the planet!