Apple Loses Copyright Claims in Lawsuit Against Corellium

[MacRumors]

Corellium, a mobile device company that supports iOS, this week won a significant victory in its legal battle against Apple. Apple last year sued Corellium for copyright infringement because the Corellium software is designed to replicate iOS to allow security researchers to locate bugs and security flaws.

According to The Washington Post, a Florida judge threw out Apple's claims that Corellium had violated copyright law with its software. The judge said that Corellium successfully demonstrated that it operates under fair use terms.

"Weighing all the necessary factors, the Court finds that Corellium has met its burden of establishing fair use," Judge Smith wrote Tuesday's order. "Thus, its use of iOS in connection with the Corellium Product is permissible."

In its lawsuit, Apple said that Corellium illegally replicated the operating system and applications that run on the iPhone and iPad. "Corellium has simply copied everything: the code, the graphical user interface, the icons - all of it, in exacting detail," Apple said in the original filing.

Corellium's software does indeed create digital replicas of iOS, iTunes, and user interface elements available on a web-based platform or custom platform built by Corellium, with the software posed as an exact copy of iOS to allow security researchers to locate bugs. Corellium argued that its software helps Apple by making it easier for security researchers to find flaws and has also accused Apple of using the lawsuit to "crack down on jailbreaking."

Corellium claimed that Apple's code in its product is "fair use," which the judge in the case agreed with. Apple has also said that Corellium circumvented Apple's security measures to create its software and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and that claim has not been tossed out. Apple has not yet commented on the decision.

As an alternative to Corellium, Apple launched a Security Device Research Program to give vetted researchers access to specially-configured iPhones that are less locked down than consumer devices with the aim of helping researchers locate bugs in iOS. Apple in late December began sending out the first of these research iPhones.

Article Link: Apple Loses Copyright Claims in Lawsuit Against Corellium

 

[n0va]

honestly the first 3 words immediately surprised me. this is the first time i've ever heard of apple losing a case

 

[macfacts]

So apple got caught lying

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

I feel like Apple might appeal this and win... I dunno they usually win these sorts of cases. Just a feeling though.

 

[Appleman3546]

This reminds me of that jailbreaking lawsuit that Apple lost approximately ten years ago

 

[jayducharme]

This ruling will open a whole proverbial can of worms. If this one company can copy Apple's code, that means others can as well.

 

[Realityck]

Well if first you don't succeed, trial trial again.

 

[adib]

However the same tech could potentially be used to offer virtualized iOS devices on the cloud. Pretty much the same way how AWS runs Windows. But since these are not running on true iOS devices, its licensing is suspect.

 

[ian87w]

Yeah, the copyright claim was interesting. Imo Apple would probably win the DMCA claim though.

 

[Red Menace]

I fail to see the fair use of just copying everything. Copyright doesn’t make any sense if anyone can just copy a work.

 

[Iconoclysm]

So apple got caught lying

Where in the world are you getting that?

 

[Realityck]

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.

This just begs the question if involves exposing confidential aspects of a product or software, is that a exception to fair use being legal?

How do you insure access to copyrighted material is being done for a limited and transformative purpose instead of reverse engineering a product as a example?

 

[C DM]

So apple got caught lying

What is that based on? Or is it just another thing simply lobbed over the fence?

 

[LawJolla]

As an IP attorney, I think this is a good ruling. Fair use is often not considered by internet companies so the public thinks it's not real. (For instance, posting a 15 second clip of your child dancing to music is fair use of the music, but You Tube will often take it down).

Reverse engineering is fair use.

Copyright protects creative expression, not facts or algorithms. The less creativity the less the protection. Thus, code is mostly the province of patents, not copyrights, and the court shouldn't give wide copyright protection.

 

[the8thark]

Apple should just offer to buy these companies like this outright and put these developers to work making iOS and MacOS more secure.

Also I do think the term "fair use" is being abused here. Outright copying something and then calling that fair use jsut to skirt around copyright laws should be illegal. Obviously it is not according to this court case.

 

[4jasontv]

As an IP attorney, I think this is a good ruling. Fair use is often not considered by internet companies so the public thinks it's not real. (For instance, posting a 15 second clip of your child dancing to music is fair use of the music, but You Tube will often take it down)

Copyright protects creative expression, not facts or algorithms. The less creativity the less the protection. Thus, code is mostly the province of patents, not copyrights, and the court shouldn't give wide copyright protection.

Can you provide clarification of how it's 'fair use' because the article is lacking details and I feel this term tends to get massaged by those in favor of it.

 

[the8thark]

As an IP attorney, I think this is a good ruling. Fair use is often not considered by internet companies so the public thinks it's not real. (For instance, posting a 15 second clip of your child dancing to music is fair use of the music, but You Tube will often take it down).

Reverse engineering is fair use.

Copyright protects creative expression, not facts or algorithms. The less creativity the less the protection. Thus, code is mostly the province of patents, not copyrights, and the court shouldn't give wide copyright protection.

So you are saying Apple should have sued for patent infrigment instead?

I think even you know blatently copying the entire of something shouldn't be happening without the consent of the original creators of the work. I agree youtube (ie google) is going way too far and needs to be stopped but this here seems to be a large portion of their app is just copy/pasted from work Apple has already done.

 

[ilujon]

It sounds like Corellium would be a super useful tool for hackers, in which case it seems like a very UNfair use of Apple's code.

 

[Plutonius]

Did Corellium design this OS for finding security problems in Apple's OS or to make money selling an Apple OS clone ?

 

[amartinez1660]

Good! Tim Cook, along with the Deep State and social media tyrants of Silicon Valley are rich, influential, and arrogant.

(...) gonna leave the rant there.
How do we know that Corellium isn’t part of the influential, rich and arrogant? “Small business”?

I don’t know the net worth of any of it, but just for starters, the CEO graduated from Yale university... that makes her what, part of the 0.001% of the US population that graduates from a cohort there a year? That’s already quite prestigious to me.

 

[jmgregory1]

There is no way this holds up. If this company can copy and make available iOS and various apps, this means other companies could do the same and literally monetize other company’s software and applications for their own use and distribution.

 

[StevieD100]

I fail to see the fair use of just copying everything. Copyright doesn’t make any sense if anyone can just copy a work.

Very true especially when the latest bill signed by Trump makes copying any copyrighted material a FEDERAL Crime. This was put in by Hollywood/Music biz to stop unauthorised streaming but also effectively stops people posting anything on social media that has a song or image that is copyrighted to others. No more TikTok posts to Taylor Swift warbles. Do that and you go to jail, federal jail.
Yes, it is unenforceable for the masses but...

 

[Apple_Robert]

So apple got caught lying

The ruling said nothing about lying. Just because Apple lost, that doesn't mean they lied. You would have to take the article and wrap it in the shape of a pretzel to come up with the conclusion you did.

 

[Cosmosent]

Based upon the Timing of the two, it sure sounds like Apple knew they might lose this one.

 

[nostaws]

As an IP attorney, I think this is a good ruling. Fair use is often not considered by internet companies so the public thinks it's not real. (For instance, posting a 15 second clip of your child dancing to music is fair use of the music, but You Tube will often take it down).

Reverse engineering is fair use.

Copyright protects creative expression, not facts or algorithms. The less creativity the less the protection. Thus, code is mostly the province of patents, not copyrights, and the court shouldn't give wide copyright protection.

Most of what you said in this post is patently wrong. Including but not limited to:

Posting a 15 second clip...is fair use
Reverse engineering is fair use
Copyright doesn’t protect algorithms

There is so much nuance in those blanket statements.