Apple and Corellium Reach Settlement in iOS Replication Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

Apple has reached a settlement in its multi-year copyright lawsuit against Corellium, a company known for creating virtual versions of iOS for security research purposes, Forbes reports.

The lawsuit, initiated by Apple in 2019, accused Corellium of infringing upon its copyrights by replicating iOS. Corellium's technology allowed security researchers and developers to run virtual iPhones, enabling them to probe iOS outside of Apple's own security measures. This capability was at the core of Apple's allegations, claiming that Corellium's software not only replicated iOS but also served as an alternative to Apple's security research products.

Corellium defended its actions under fair use, asserting that its replication of iOS was solely for the purpose of security research and was substantially transformative. In 2021, Apple agreed to drop its claims but then filed an appeal that challenged an earlier ruling in favor of Corellium's fair use claim.

This week, the court announced that both Apple and Corellium have ultimately come to a confidential settlement, bringing the prolonged dispute to an end.

Article Link: Apple and Corellium Reach Settlement in iOS Replication Lawsuit

 

[0339327]

While I understand that Apple doesn’t want this, it seems that Corellium has a legitimate purpose that serves to help better the product.

What I find surprising is that Apple didn’t agree to work with Corellium as a partner, instead, forcing them to recreate the OS.

Whatever the settlement is, I hope it allows the research to continue unabated.

 

[Shirasaki]

Whatever the settlement is, I hope it allows the research to continue unabated.

Those involved would be more than happy to know what kind of change to Corellium’s ToC and all the string attached because of this confidential settlement, and the impact of this settlement to their research.

With that being said, we badly need strong individual entities outside Apple to see how ugly iOS is in its security and patch those vulnerabilities before government and hackers find them out and exploit for nefarious purposes.

 

[Steve121178]

What I find surprising is that Apple didn’t agree to work with Corellium as a partner

They probably didn't want them finding too many holes in the security & prefer security issues to be something they curate and highlight rather than the broader community exposing their software willy nilly.

But I can understand they didn't want them creating virtual versions. However, if it helps plug the holes in security it's completely bizarre to be against this.

 

[ScooterComputer]

Corellium defended its actions under fair use

Fair Use is a recognized “natural right”, cut out of ‘copyright’, which is not a “natural right” but a government-derived and -enforced “right”. So, in this case, Apple was looking to diminish the natural rights of “the people” to further its best interests… the company that once invoked Orwell’s ‘1984’ against its competitors. “Our enemies shall talk themselves to death”.
Can’t make this stuff up.
“We shall prevail.”

 

[lkrupp]

So what is Corellium’s business model? Find security flaws on iOS and sell them on the dark web?

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Well, if you're uploading their software on the internet without paying them, they won't be happy!

 

[nathan_reilly]

Well, if you're uploading their software on the internet without paying them, they won't be happy!

this is not at all what this is about. To frame this like it's a high schooler pirating videogames is disingenuous and uncharitable to the extreme

 

[AiPone12mini]

Unbelievable fuzz and same time Android is available to everyone to run and still is secure and becomes even more securer year after year. Not only just available, but most code too, except vendor specific parts.

 

[spcopsmac21]

So what is Corellium’s business model? Find security flaws on iOS and sell them on the dark web?

No….not at all.
It helped developers better design and implements applications and patch loose holes in systems and code in order to get full utilization of the operating system.

They didn’t sell back doors or holes. The whole thing was designed to BLOCK back doors and hole and find flaws that would enable nefarious actors into doing what you said…..

 

[rgwebb]

While I understand that Apple doesn’t want this, it seems that Corellium has a legitimate purpose that serves to help better the product.

What I find surprising is that Apple didn’t agree to work with Corellium as a partner, instead, forcing them to recreate the OS.

Whatever the settlement is, I hope it allows the research to continue unabated.

Just as likely the fruits of Corellium’s efforts goes to the national and international security apparatuses that surveil their citizens and those outside their jurisdiction for flimsy reasons.

 

[sw1tcher]

So what is Corellium’s business model? Find security flaws on iOS and sell them on the dark web?

It took me less than 1 minute to see what their business model is.

-> https://www.corellium.com/about

We change what's possible, so you can build what's next.

Corellium was founded to equip developer and security teams with the tools they need to advance the next generation of smart devices powered by Arm processors.


-> https://www.corellium.com/pricing

We offer solutions for business and individuals, and with several deployment models from onsite appliances to cloud services.

 

[CarAnalogy]

So what is Corellium’s business model? Find security flaws on iOS and sell them on the dark web?

They contract out their services to governments and law enforcement.

This is the company that made a device for police to plug an iPhone into to siphon off the data.

 

[Shirasaki]

Fair Use is a recognized “natural right”, cut out of ‘copyright’, which is not a “natural right” but a government-derived and -enforced “right”. So, in this case, Apple was looking to diminish the natural rights of “the people” to further its best interests… the company that once invoked Orwell’s ‘1984’ against its competitors. “Our enemies shall talk themselves to death”.
Can’t make this stuff up.
“We shall prevail.”

Copyright has been severely misused by corporations and business world in general to punish their competitors and curtail innovation by arbitrarily determining ownership of whatever applicable. I’m not saying copyright must not be protected. I’m saying copyright has been weaponised, and it will go stronger by the day.

Will big corp copyright walking, breathing and many other daily activities? I have no idea. What I do know is there will be nothing stopping big corp from seeking legal damage just because you are alive, breathe, walk and drink water.

 

[Gasu E.]

Fair Use is a recognized “natural right”, cut out of ‘copyright’, which is not a “natural right” but a government-derived and -enforced “right”. So, in this case, Apple was looking to diminish the natural rights of “the people” to further its best interests… the company that once invoked Orwell’s ‘1984’ against its competitors. “Our enemies shall talk themselves to death”.
Can’t make this stuff up.
“We shall prevail.”

I have the "natural right" to walk in a straight line, thanks to my "divinely provided" (or DNA-provided) legs. Your so-called "property line" is a government-derived and enforced "right", derived originally from a government grant of land and passed on through government enforced re-sale contracts. The so-called "trespassing" laws are an infringement of my natural right to walk in a straight line.

 

[farmboy]

Fair Use is a recognized “natural right”, cut out of ‘copyright’, which is not a “natural right” but a government-derived and -enforced “right”. So, in this case, Apple was looking to diminish the natural rights of “the people” to further its best interests… the company that once invoked Orwell’s ‘1984’ against its competitors. “Our enemies shall talk themselves to death”.
Can’t make this stuff up.
“We shall prevail.”

A little too much hyperbole. Fair use quite often depends on a court decision, not a "natural right", and depends a great deal on how much you use from the copyrighted item. If you use a little, it will probably pass as fair use. If you copy the whole thing, probably not. The outcome can be hard to predict.

Per a white paper by Stanford Libraries (well worth a read) that itemizes the consideration as to fair use:
• the purpose and character of your use
• the nature of the copyrighted work
• the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market.

 

[jjwwqq]

Is Corellium still providing the replicated iOS platform for security research purposes? The reality of this existence (or absence) would fall outside of the confidential settlement, and would be an important thing to report.

 

[TruthAboveAllElse]

Will big corp copyright walking, breathing and many other daily activities? I have no idea. What I do know is there will be nothing stopping big corp from seeking legal damage just because you are alive, breathe, walk and drink water.

Hyperbole like this just diminishes your quite valid point.

 

[Shirasaki]

Hyperbole like this just diminishes your quite valid point.

That comment is deliberately made to be a hyperbole as a ridiculously stupid sounding speculation to criticise copyright system as a whole being a failure.

 

[TruthAboveAllElse]

That comment is deliberately made to be a hyperbole as a ridiculously stupid sounding speculation to criticise copyright system as a whole being a failure.

Yes, I understand that. However, I think that it only detracts from your point.