Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Loses Copyright Claims in Lawsuit Against Corellium
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
They didn't, they just made a VM capable of running iOS and are selling access to it.
People here are mixing up a lot of things, and I guess most are not software engineers.
Copyright infringement does not mean they did copy/steal their stuff!
They just made sure Apple iOS can run virtualized like windows and Linux for security research reasons. Technically, one could upload his „own“ version of iOS from a phone he actually owns...
This ruling is very good news, and let’s see how it ends. Together with Oracle vs Google this is will finally create clarity!
Copyright infringement does not mean they did copy/steal their stuff!
They just made sure Apple iOS can run virtualized like windows and Linux for security research reasons. Technically, one could upload his „own“ version of iOS from a phone he actually owns...
This ruling is very good news, and let’s see how it ends. Together with Oracle vs Google this is will finally create clarity!
Seems like a bad ruling. ‘Fair use’?? If I copy Windows and sell it to people so they can ‘study it’ how exactly is that fair use?
Apple claimed Corellium had violated copyright law with its software.
Nice post.
First, this is a motion for summary judgement. For a successful summary judgement, the moving party must show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Summary judgement was granted for Corellium's non infringement, denied for DMCA non infringement, and denied for Apple's infringement. The DMCA issue can go to trial. (And the summary judgement decisions can be appealed)
You're right on fair use. Fair use lays out factors for a court to consider together. The more commercial, the more it cuts against fair use. However, the type of commerce is important. Apple doesn't use iOS code to commoditize security research and Corellium's code doesn't compete with iOS. Therefore, it's likely the court didn't find the commercial part very persuasive because Corellium's use was transformative from Apple's.
Moreover, I'm sure a lot of Apple's code is open source. That doesn't help.
Any federal judge can be assigned an IP case, but typically judges specialize in the area (willingly or not). For instance, whenever you see a Northern District of California patent case, it's Judge Koh. I don't know Judge Smith from the Southern District of Florida, but I strongly suspect this isn't his first time wrestling copyright.
Not sure what actually happened, but under copyright law a “copy” would occur just by copying the iOS image to another machine. (Not sure what “replica” is all about).
🙄 Wrong.
See, e.g. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015)(holding copyright owners must consider fair use when issuing take down orders for 15 second Youtube clips); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)(holding reverse engineering as fair use); 17 U.S.C. §102 ("In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process . . . ."
As the kids would say, "owned."
Last edited:
Perhaps. In that case, the article is… at best misleading:
"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"
I'm not even sure what "creates replicas" is supposed to mean. If the intent was to say "virtualizes", just say that. I suppose one might argue that it runs the replica of an iPhone/iPad.
Sure.
Fair use is a factor test where a court weighs the following:
1. Is the work transformative? Did the infringing work add something new to give expression and meaning?
2. Nature of the copyrighted work, factual vs creative. The more factual the work, the less protection (and the more likely it is to be fair use).
3. The amount and sustainability of the portion taken.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market.
The court concluded that Corellium's copying is fair use because it transformed iOS into a new work that doesn't infringe on the marketability of iOS.
Leaving aside that Corellium continues to advertise that they're not just for security research, let's pretend for a second that they are. If taking an entire OS verbatim and running it in a VM for security research purposes is fair use, why isn't playing a complete motion picture in the classroom for educational purposes fair use?
Not quite true. It would be more like if VMWare included a copy of windows.
I doubt it. The DMCA has the following fair use exemption:
"Computer programs, where the circumvention is undertaken on a lawfully acquired device or machine on which the computer program operates solely for the purpose of good-faith security research and does not violate any applicable law."
To me that sounds exactly like what Correlium is doing. I see from some previous posts that Correlium is doing more than that, but even as a layman I see legal arguments they can make to cover those scenarios.
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.
So many patent, IP and copyright lawyers adding their expertise to this forum. most impressive.
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're not selling ipsws, they're selling the virtualization service, you can provide it any supported ipsw straight from apple and it'll work.
They appear to have made a virtualizer that runs recent versions of iOS.
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. It's amusing that in many ways criminals have a better understanding of the law and legal system than "normal" people.
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
"This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below"
This is literally a thread about a court ruling that was far from a foregone conclusion.
lol, are you saying fair use "isn't complicated"?