Apple Files Lawsuit Against Virtualization Company Corellium for Illegally Replicating iOS and Apple Apps

[jzuena]

Apple's claims of infringement sound legitimate, but this phrase seems over the top to me:

Corellium makes no effort whatsoever to confine use of its product to good-faith research and testing of iOS.​

Suppose for a minute that they hadn't violated Apple's IP and were instead offering this service with a license from Apple. If a product or service like this can be used for both proper and improper or illegal purposes, must the company make efforts to "confine the use" to proper purposes, and be legally liable or subject to lawsuits if they do not?

If Apple made it part of their license agreement, then yes. Then Apple could pull the license and sue them anyway. They would have had to get a license AND not get Apple to put conditions on it -- which probably wouldn't have happened -- hence they didn't bother trying to get a license.

 

[Glockworkorange]

You could consider the following question as me being innept, but can't you already virtualize iOS in Xcode? If so, then buying this company is worthless, because they don't add anything of value to Apple.

But what if you want to virtualize iOS in Windows?

 

[kingtj]

If Google could prove Apple stole their actual code and recompiled into iOS, then sure!

That's the issue in this situation. These Corellium folks are basically saying they took all of iOS (which wasn't obtained legally) and recompiled it for ARM processors. When you think about that for a minute, you realize there really isn't a whole lot of demand for such a thing - regardless of legality. So that's likely why they took the "computer security" angle with it -- trying to sell it as a tool to find vulnerabilities in iOS. That's probably a niche that had some profit potential for them.

Simply writing your own code that uses the same concept someone else used in a different product isn't necessarily illegal though. You can try to file a lawsuit, but that gets into arguments about "look and feel" and often borders on the ridiculous. (EG. The time Apple tried to sue Microsoft for copying their "trash can" icon with the "Recycling Bin" in Windows.)

Poor Apple. You dummies gonna pay up cash to Google for stealing Notification Center from them? Annnnd 99% of all the other things you’ve stolen from Android, you dirty thieves? Year after year after year.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Does Apple win money from this or do they only get to shut them down?

Shut them down. Squash them.

 

[now i see it]

doesn't anyone think that Corellium thought this one all the way through and consulted lawyers before building it? Of course they did. Apple will lose this case.

 

[Glockworkorange]

doesn't anyone think that Corellium thought this one all the way through and consulted lawyers before building it? Of course they did. Apple will lose this case.

No they won’t.

 

[cmaier]

Poor Apple. You dummies gonna pay up cash to Google for stealing Notification Center from them? Annnnd 99% of all the other things you’ve stolen from Android, you dirty thieves? Year after year after year.

They stole the code for Notification Center?

Didn’t think so.

They infringed the patent on Notification Center?

Didn’t think so.

 

[RogerWilco]

Where is that damned cat? It was in the bag just a minute ago!

 

[macfacts]

I hate to be that “read the article” guy, but dude... read the article.

It says apple claims that they copied everything. So Apple's security is so lax that this company could just download the iOS source code? I don't think so. What most likely happened is that someone from apple marketing says they copied everything including code.

 

[cmaier]

doesn't anyone think that Corellium thought this one all the way through and consulted lawyers before building it? Of course they did. Apple will lose this case.

Because no company has ever lost a copyright suit? I mean they all have lawyers.

 

[mannyvel]

doesn't anyone think that Corellium thought this one all the way through and consulted lawyers before building it? Of course they did. Apple will lose this case.

The funny thing about the law is you can always find a way to believe you'll win. Then you hit the justice system and suddenly all your ideas are faced with the cold, hard reality that your reasoning is totally specious.

 

[I7guy]

It says apple claims that they copied everything. So Apple's security is so lax that this company could just download the iOS source code? I don't think so. What most likely happened is that someone from apple marketing says they copied everything including code.

They probably didn't obtain the source code, but used a reverse compiler to reverse engineer the code (maybe the ipsw). They then compiled it to run on a different platform and are selling a mobile development platform against the license agreement.

That's what I think the scenario is, not "apple security is so lax"....

 

[CarlJ]

It says apple claims that they copied everything. So Apple's security is so lax that this company could just download the iOS source code? I don't think so. What most likely happened is that someone from apple marketing says they copied everything including code.

"Code" can be source code or executable object code. You should know this. If this company had stolen iOS source code, Apple would have called the police, not the lawyers, and the company would be up on criminal theft/espionage charges, not facing a lawsuit. The company built (or "borrowed") an emulator that works enough like an iPhone to run an unmodified, or slightly patched, version of iOS. There's no way they got any sort of legal permission from Apple to do that.

(iOS is not free. Apple has spent a ton of money building it. They provide it at no additional charge to users of iPhones and iPads, and it's specifically licensed only for running on those Apple devices.)

 

[CarlJ]

They probably didn't obtain the source code, but used a reverse compiler to reverse engineer the code (maybe the ipsw). They then compiled it to run on a different platform and are selling a mobile development platform against the license agreement.

Apple's A* series processors are basically ARM processors, just optimized for Apple's needs. Unless I've missed something, the instruction set is going to be largely the same. I don't think there's much need for reverse compiling, maybe just some patching - either patching over Apple-specific instructions with calls to a software version of said instruction, or catching an "invalid instruction" trap from the ARM CPU when it tries to execute an Apple-specific instruction and, again, emulating it in software.

 

[macfacts]

So why isn't apple suing parallel

 

[I7guy]

"Code" can be source code or executable object code. You should know this. If this company had stolen iOS source code, Apple would have called the police, not the lawyers, and the company would be up on criminal theft/espionage charges, not facing a lawsuit. The company built (or "borrowed") an emulator that works enough like an iPhone to run an unmodified, or slightly patched, version of iOS. There's no way they got any sort of legal permission from Apple to do that.

(iOS is not free. Apple has spent a ton of money building it. They provide it at no additional charge to users of iPhones and iPads, and it's specifically licensed only for running on those Apple devices.)

Probably Apple would have called the FBI.

 

[macfacts]

There's no way they got any sort of legal permission from Apple to do that.

Look up clean room reverse engineering. They don't need apples permission to do that.

 

[Lalatoon]

Is the emulator already for sale?

 

[Kabeyun]

Sounds like Apple should just buy them and use the virtual iOS as a tool for developers and researchers looking for exploits, better than handing out locked down devices to everyone.

Why would Apple reward malfeasance? Not a clever precedent: “Hey everyone, steal from us and we’ll buy you out for millions!”

Simply writing your own code that uses the same concept someone else used in a different product isn't necessarily illegal though. You can try to file a lawsuit, but that gets into arguments about "look and feel" and often borders on the ridiculous. (EG. The time Apple tried to sue Microsoft for copying their "trash can" icon with the "Recycling Bin" in Windows.)

Apple got sued for copying the look of a bloody clock and had to pay Swiss Federal Railways $21 million, plus a licensing agreement. And they didn’t need the original fabrication designs or materials to do it. Only looked the same. Just sayin’.

So why isn't apple suing parallel

Because Parallels copies nothing. Parallels Desktop (among others) creates a virtual machine – their code – onto which you can install Mac OS/macOS – Apple’s code. Apple’s EULA specifically allows for virtualization as long as the VM is running on a host Mac. (You can also install a number of other guest OSs as well, provided you own them too, as supported guest OSs all allow virtualization. That’s why Parallels isn’t being sued by Microsoft or Oracle either.)

 

[JosephAW]

They were probably doing it better than Apple and they can't have that.

 

[macfacts]

Is the emulator already for sale?

In the lawsuit file, apple complains that they sell it for $1 million usd. Seem like apple is just mad they didn't think of selling the iPhone for $1 million first.

 

[jdechko]

In the lawsuit file, apple complains that they sell it for $1 million usd. Seem like apple is just mad they didn't think of selling the iPhone for $1 million first.

more like Apple got mad that another company was selling their (Apple’s) IP for $1m when they (the other company) had no legal right to do so.

 

[The Cappy]

I suspect Corellium didn't copy one line of code and wrote it themselves from scratch. The only thing copied were icons and graphics.

They did a clean-room perfect rewrite of iOS? Is that seriously the argument you just made?

 

[szw-mapple fan]

Sounds like Apple should just buy them and use the virtual iOS as a tool for developers and researchers looking for exploits, better than handing out locked down devices to everyone.

Why? They offer nothing of value that Apple cannot already provide. I'm sure Apple has virtual iOS used internally. If they had wanted to release something like this they would have already.

 

[jonblatho]

They did a clean-room perfect rewrite of iOS? Is that seriously the argument you just made?

Well, this person also seems to believe that someone in Apple’s marketing department would have any serious say in what makes it into a court filing, so why not just take it all the way to 11?