Apple Loses Copyright Claims in Lawsuit Against Corellium

[Scipster]

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?

I believe the implication of the quotes are important here. If you are asking if you can lend/rent someone a copy of your virtualized device so they can study the operating system on that device for security research purposes, then yes:

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.

Because study would be good-faith security research. If by 'study' you are implying the end user is using the virtualized device for something other than security research, then no. But I think most companies are insulated from the actions end users take with their programs, platforms, etc. If it's anything like music or movies, Apple would go after the end user, not the manufacturer, because the end user would be violating the terms that Corellium sets (like running a boot legged version of Windows on VMWare or distributing a song you bought on iTunes - neither VMWare or Apple is at fault here).

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?

And playing a complete motion picture in a classroom for educational purposes is not technically fair use because it is does not infringe upon copyright to begin with: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110

Congress made an exemption for exactly that purpose. For example, one of my close friends who teaches 7th grade science will show the full two hours of An Inconvenient Truth from the school's library to teach her students about climate change. Not only do the kids love it, but it meets state curriculum guidelines too. Sure the school paid for the DVD, but they don't pay royalties every time they show the film because it falls under the copyright exemption.

 

[jimbobb24]

Interesting result. Fair use of software in this way has not been supported. I can make a fair use copy of Windows?

 

[I7guy]

So apple got caught lying

Lose a case = lying. Like saying the Grand Canyon is just another hole in the ground.

 

[I7guy]

This ruling will open a whole proverbial can of worms. If this one company can copy Apple's code, that means others can as well.

It means any company's code can be copied for the same purpose.

 

[vipergts2207]

Apple claimed Corellium had violated copyright law with its software.

There’s a difference between lying and being wrong. The former requires intent. If I claim the sky is red because I genuinely believe it is, that doesn’t make it a lie, it just makes me wrong. Using your logic, every loser in a court case would be punished for perjury.

 

[mannyvel]

One question is, is what corellium doing really good-faith security research? They are selling access to Apple's software to others, who may or may not be doing security research; they aren't doing any research themselves.

That section of the DMCA protects you when you reverse engineer something. In this case Corellium bypassed copy protection and is selling you access to that to that so you can do research.

To take another company's IP as an example: "I broke Tesla's copy protection, created a virtual car, installed the Tesla software on a virtual car, and sell access to copies of the virtual car so people could do research on how the car works and it's systems."

Does that sound like it's covered by the DMCA? Because that's essentially what Corellium is doing. I guess I have to read the ruling and see what the basis of the ruling really is.

 

[UrbanJoe1]

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.

Interesting 🧐 Why wouldn’t Apples legal department know better or are they just using their deep pockets to push everybody around?
Sounds pretty cut throat to me.

 

[jinnj]

However the same tech could potentially be used to offer virtualized iOS devices on the cloud. Pretty much the same way how AWS runs Windows. But since these are not running on true iOS devices, its licensing is suspect.

AWS pays a license fee for those VMs.

 

[mannyvel]

So reading just a little, Apple didn't really lose, and Corellium didn't quite win. The DMCA part still needs to be adjudicated, and the determination of fair use will like be appealed.

Reporters really should be banned from covering court rulings. They just don't seem smart enough to understand what's happening. A team scores a touchdown in the first 2 minutes of the game and the reporter would start running around saying the game is over. Uh, no, not even close.


ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/apple-corellium.pdf

On August 15, 2019, Apple filed this lawsuit alleging that Corellium infringed Apple’s copyrights in iOS and circumvented its security measures in violation of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Corellium denies that it has violated the DMCA or Apple’s copyrights. Corellium further argues that even if it used Apple’s copyrighted work, such use constitutes “fair use” and, therefore, is legally permissible. Apple filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 470] and Corellium filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 464]. For the reasons explained below, on the copyright claim, the Court finds that Corellium’s use of iOS constitutes fair use, and a genuine dispute of material facts precludes summary judgment on the DMCA claim. Thus, Corellium’s motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Apple’s motion is denied.

 

[MrDerby01]

Outstanding! Let's keep Apple honest!

 

[mi7chy]

So, does that mean Project Sandcastle is moving forward with more progress?

https://projectsandcastle.org/status

 

[eoblaed]

So apple got caught lying

There was no lying involved.

Apple, like any other company with copyrights, has to engage in lawsuits defending their IP, even if it's a borderline case or something that they don't really care about (such as a security application like this one). If a company fails to defend its IP, it can lose those copyrights. So, they're forced to look like a heavy, even in cases where they'd really rather not.

 

[tny]

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.

They didn’t copy the entirety of iOS - only the part they needed for security research; and the way they copied it did not compete with Apple.

While I disagree with the idea that code shouldn’t be copyrightable (it isn’t quite the same thing as an algorithm, which is patentable, as it’s an expression of an algorithm), overall this is a good ruling. Using the code to evaluate it for flaws, for review, strikes me as within the intent of the fair use doctrine. But IANAL.

 

[LawJolla]

Interesting 🧐 Why wouldn’t Apples legal department know better or are they just using their deep pockets to push everybody around?
Sounds pretty cut throat to me.

Apple has a winnable case (and their DMCA claim is still alive). I just don’t think they have the better case.
And like you said, it’s cutthroat. Apple failed to buy them in 2018 so I wonder if this case is more a threat to future would-be sales.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Holy smokes what? Looks like you forgot to add actual content to your post, again.

He probably didn’t realize he was post #29, he usually likes to get in early to farm likes.

 

[tny]

Apple has a winnable case (and their DMCA claim is still alive). I just don’t think they have the better case.
And like you said, it’s cutthroat. Apple failed to buy them in 2018 so I wonder if this case is more a threat to future would-be sales.

I think a lot of folks are assuming that copyright law is simple and deterministic (not LawJolla, who I think is one of the best commenters in this thread). Because law is founded in human language, it is ambiguous; because it tries to encompass a wide range of scenarios, it is complex. It is perfectly reasonable to have conflicting good-faith arguments about whether what Corellium is doing is fair use, or even about the copyrightability of code in the first place.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Not meaning to inject politics into this, but the judge was a Trump appointee. He seems to be somewhat qualified for the seat, but many are aghast at the decision. It's so unlike a court to agree with a corporation that did what they did. They clearly broke several laws, and shouldn't have won, and I guess depending on what kind of judge they get on appeal this could be that judges spanking moment. We have to be on the lookout for 'bad judges', and 'bad decisions'.

People have predicted more bad judgements in the coming years. The problem is removing them would require impeaching HUNDREDS of bad judges, and if Congress isn't inclined to approve the impeachment of bad judges, they stay, meaning more bad decisions.

With luck, this will be killed on appeal. There is a reason courts adhere to precedent. Precedent supports what has happened before. It assures the courts look to be reliable, coherent, and people can rely on the courts to support those precedents. If the nation can't depend on the courts, what can we depend on?

 

[hasanahmad]

Coincidently Corellium co-founder was pardoned by Trump on December 23. He was convicted for cyber security offenses. FWIW for the folks who think this ruling is a good thing

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Coincidently Corellium co-founder was pardoned by Trump on December 23. He was convicted for cyber security offenses. FWIW for the folks who think this ruling is a good thing

Not that I've seen, so far, but Chris Wade did market iPhone jail breaking software...

Nope, found it.

Christopher Wade — President Trump granted a full pardon to Christopher Wade. Wade’s pardon is supported by Isaac Perlmutter, Mark Templeton, and numerous current and former law-enforcement officials. Mr. Wade served two years’ probation after pleading guilty to various cyber-crimes. Since his conviction, he has shown remorse and sought to make his community a safer place.

He was probably sued by Apple for his jail breaking software.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

It means any company's code can be copied for the same purpose.

Or damn near ANY purpose.

 

[cmaier]

There was no lying involved.

Apple, like any other company with copyrights, has to engage in lawsuits defending their IP, even if it's a borderline case or something that they don't really care about (such as a security application like this one). If a company fails to defend its IP, it can lose those copyrights. So, they're forced to look like a heavy, even in cases where they'd really rather not.

None of this is true. You don’t lose copyrights by failure to enforce. You are thinking of trademarks.

 

[C DM]

Outstanding! Let's keep Apple honest!

How does that relate to this?

 

[LawJolla]

I think a lot of folks are assuming that copyright law is simple and deterministic (not LawJolla, who I think is one of the best commenters in this thread). Because law is founded in human language, it is ambiguous; because it tries to encompass a wide range of scenarios, it is complex. It is perfectly reasonable to have conflicting good-faith arguments about whether what Corellium is doing is fair use, or even about the copyrightability of code in the first place.

Dead on. There's tension between predictability and justice. Copyright law is mushy. It favors justice over predictability. And given the law and the factor test, I think Corellium has the better argument, but I wouldn't have been surprised to read a judgement in favor of apple and I won't be surprised if it's overturned on appeal (particularly because it's at the summary judgement stage.. we may need more evidence).

I'm still dismayed by the arm chair legal quarterbacks who cast judgement over a system of which they're completely ignorant. And, moreover, call the judgement wrong when they don't know the first thing about copyright law. A lot of brilliant people worked on copyright law over hundreds of years... we didn't reach this point because we're all stupid and failed to listen to the guy on MacRumors sporting the "I'm with Steve" shirt.

If you want to call the decision wrong, fine, but it should be backed up with a legal argument, not "everyone knows you can't copy! What a moron!"

When I think something outside of my field is wrong -- e.g. when economic experts believe that cryptocurrencies will take over -- I don't think "what a bunch of idiots, I better go tell everyone." But rather "I don't agree... But these people thought far deeper about it and are much more educated than I am. I wonder if I missed something."

 

[gregohb]

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.

In the case of Apple's fight against Windows 25 years ago, it was not even an exact copy but just a rough copy with the same look and feel. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think I can sell a soft drink called "Cake" with a logo that looks like "Coke" without some ramifications.

 

[gregohb]

Dead on. There's tension between predictability and justice. Copyright law is mushy. It favors justice over predictability. And given the law and the factor test, I think Corellium has the better argument, but I wouldn't have been surprised to read a judgement in favor of apple and I won't be surprised if it's overturned on appeal (particularly because it's at the summary judgement stage.. we may need more evidence).

I'm still dismayed by the arm chair legal quarterbacks who cast judgement over a system of which they're completely ignorant. And, moreover, call the judgement wrong when they don't know the first thing about copyright law. A lot of brilliant people worked on copyright law over hundreds of years... we didn't reach this point because we're all stupid and failed to listen to the guy on MacRumors sporting the "I'm with Steve" shirt.

If you want to call the decision wrong, fine, but it should be backed up with a legal argument, not "everyone knows you can't copy! What a moron!"

When I think something outside of my field is wrong -- e.g. when economic experts believe that cryptocurrencies will take over -- I don't think "what a bunch of idiots, I better go tell everyone." But rather "I don't agree... But these people thought far deeper about it and are much more educated than I am. I wonder if I missed something."

But its common knowledge that copyright law is broken. Companies like Apple and Google buy other companies just to get their copyrights, and various unknown companies constantly sue Apple and others for minuscule little things.