Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,483
30,719


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.

corellium.jpg

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
 
Last edited:

Realityck

macrumors G4
Nov 9, 2015
10,059
15,065
Silicon Valley, CA
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?
 

LawJolla

macrumors regular
Sep 29, 2013
194
1,318
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

macrumors 601
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
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

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
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

macrumors 601
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
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.
 

amartinez1660

macrumors 68000
Sep 22, 2014
1,572
1,602
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.
 

StevieD100

macrumors 6502a
Jan 18, 2014
732
1,148
Living Dangerously in Retirement
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...
 

nostaws

macrumors 6502a
Jan 14, 2006
520
472
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.