They didn't copy iOS like the wording Apple is using, they took actual iOS and made it able to run on non-Apple devices. Think of it like this, all they're selling is a virtualization tool (like VMWare or VirtualBox) capable of running iOS.I’ve seen articles on this before but I’ve never really understand this. So, this company re-created iOS using identical source code? How would they know the exact source code Apple uses and every time an Apple programmer commits a change to it?
If the source code isn’t exactly identical, how would their ‘functions similarly visually but has different source code behind’ possibly help security researchers?
They didn't, they just made a VM capable of running iOS and are selling access to it.How did they get the code for iOS?
Apple claimed Corellium had violated copyright law with its software.According to you they sure did. BTW would you mind telling us what they lied about? 🙄
Nice post.Reverse engineering is fair use, but it’s not clear that this is strictly speaking reverse engineering. As a matter of fact, Corellium‘s own statements and marketing suggest it’s not a reverse engineered version of iOS but actually iOS itself running in a cloud environment (otherwise, it would have no value for security research, for instance, because it would have different bugs than iOS). They might have reverse engineered some aspects of the boot process to get iOS to boot in a virtualized environment, but it seems like it’s copyrighted userland code running unmodified. Second, as I understand it (though I am not a lawyer in general, let alone an IP lawyer), it’s considerably harder for commercial use to be considered fair use than for similar non-commercial use. It sounds like this is a commercial product. That said, most judges really aren’t the best people to make copyright decisions about software/hardware or other technical issues in general, because they’re not technology specialists. (They usually understand technology about as well as stereotypical grandparents or the writers of shows like CSI.)
This case continues to confound me. What happened here, exactly?
Did Corellium crack copy protection to run iOS on a VM? That would make sense in terms of security research, but this keeps taking about a “copy” and a replica.
Did Corellium make an OS that’s bug-for-bug-compatible with iOS, i.e. a “replica”? No they didn’t. That’d take absurd amounts of engineering effort, and they’d always be catching up.
Did they reverse-engineer portions, to be similar? Maybe, but that wouldn’t be useful for security research, unless to research the security of high-level apps, maybe?
🙄 Wrong.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.
Perhaps. In that case, the article is… at best misleading:They didn't copy iOS like the wording Apple is using, they took actual iOS and made it able to run on non-Apple devices.
Sure.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.
Not quite true. It would be more like if VMWare included a copy of windows.They didn't copy iOS like the wording Apple is using, they took actual iOS and made it able to run on non-Apple devices. Think of it like this, all they're selling is a virtualization tool (like VMWare or VirtualBox) capable of running iOS.
I doubt it. The DMCA has the following fair use exemption:Yeah, the copyright claim was interesting. Imo Apple would probably win the DMCA claim though.
Yup.Not quite true. It would be more like if VMWare included a copy of windows.
Ah, okay so, the article is basically saying (in a really convoluted way) that they cracked an IPSW file (or many) and created a virtualizer to run it/them?Yup.
Also, VMware specifically has (easy-to-crack but perhaps good enough to be on the legally safe side) provisions in place to prevent you from running OSes you're not allowed to virtualize.
They're not selling ipsws, they're selling the virtualization service, you can provide it any supported ipsw straight from apple and it'll work.Ah, okay so, the article is basically saying (in a really convoluted way) that they cracked an IPSW file (or many) and created a virtualizer to run it/them?
And these are being sold (or given) to researchers?
They appear to have made a virtualizer that runs recent versions of iOS.Ah, okay so, the article is basically saying (in a really convoluted way) that they cracked an IPSW file (or many) and created a virtualizer to run it/them?
So many patent, IP and copyright lawyers adding their expertise to this forum. most impressive.
Legal manoeuvrings aside this simply makes sense.I fail to see the fair use of just copying everything. Copyright doesn’t make any sense if anyone can just copy a work.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law. In fact, a basic understanding of the law should be required for graduating high school, because the law is one of the things that shape the outlines of society.
The law isn't complicated, it's just a bunch of rules that derive from certain principles and the vicissitudes of the various people in the process.
Here's a fair use primer from the copyright office: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html