Apple Loses Copyright Claims in Lawsuit Against Corellium

[LawJolla]

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.

Thanks for your comment.

As I mentioned earlier, the more creative and less factual, the broader the protection. The phone book doesn't get copyright protection but the Hunger Games gets a lot. Those protections include a bundle of rights e.g. the right to duplication or the right to create a derivative work.

The Apple/Windows copyright case isn't a good example because that was largely decided on contractual grounds and the court didn't get into a "look and feel" analysis. And remember, Apple lost.

Your Coke/Cake example confuses legal regimes. While the logo could infringe copyright, it's likely to be a trademark case (does the allegedly infringing trademark likely to confuse as to the origin of the product/service).

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.

You're again confusing copyright law for patent law. Motion picture studios and recording companies buy others for the licensing / copyright portfolios, but I'm unaware of tech companies buying anyone for copyrights.

And patent law isn't broken -- it's a MacRumors trope. Again, many brilliant people have worked centuries developing patent law and for every trope-y argument of why it's broken, I can respond with a counter argument that the Mac Rumors intelligencia never considered.

Here's an example... "Patent TROLLS shouldn't be allowed to sue! ****ing stupid." In other words, if you don't make the product, you shouldn't be able to sue those that do.

But here are the problems. First, patent laws are designed to protect everyone, including the little guy. If you come up with the next great video encoding algorithm and patent it but can't sue unless you actively practice it, you now have to figure out a successful business on top of creating the IP. And you can't sell it because, after all, you can't sue unless you're using it, so who is going to buy it from you unless you become successful? They'll just steal it instead.

Then I hear "oh well yeah, let's protect the inventor. He can sue without practicing. He just can't sell it to someone who won't practice." This is the same thing as saying "person who bought a piece of land... you can sell it to someone who's going to build a mall, but you can't sell it to someone who's going to sell it to the people who will build the mall."

I know there's no chance of this but... I'd just like to see a little humility when people comment on other people's professions.

 

[cmaier]

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.

You are confusing patents and copyrights.

 

[ilikewhey]

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

so glad i'm not the only one noticing, everytime she posts nothing of substance gets added and its a general blanket statement that can be attached to any articles. i smell a bot?

 

[0924487]

I fail to see the fair use of just copying everything. Copyright doesn’t make any sense if anyone can just copy a work.

For education, reverse engineering and security research related use of software without the consent of the right holder is permissible and is considered fair use.

This law not only exist in the US but in most countries including China as well.

 

[DeepIn2U]

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.

your area of expertise, could have you at a disadvantage when it comes to legal rights to music. The rights for ‘fair use’ or redistribution of music (even radio, dancehalls/clubs etc or even sampling of music ... anything more than I think it’s 4 seconds or 4 bars unsure - means you’re in violation of copyright. 15 seconds means anyone can identify the music, yet the critical part is ...

1. Either you’re making revenue or using for advertisement for your personal gain without legal permission,
2. YouTube earns money (via ad revenues) and thus they too need legal permission.

Copyright in music protects originality not creativity.
Example ... copying the crazy drum solo by Clyde Stubblefield in James Brown’s Funky Drummer is sampled over 200x and yet each sample use in various tracks by Prince, Sinhead O’Connor, Madonna, etc. ALL are the same sample regardless if it ‘sounds’ creatively different in the songs of various songs by artists.
Now contrast that to completely changing the beat itself, the percussion, THEN that’s creative expression.

The kid that samples 15 seconds of the song for exampale and dancing ... only the dancing is creative expression, NOT the song because that uploaded did NOT create the song, nor has been legally noted as creating the song, nor is the rights holder, you dig?

Have a real listen to Young Guru about sampling VS ’borrowing a beat’ (4-8 bars for sampling leads to license clearing for rights).

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.

 

[LawJolla]

your area of expertise, could have you at a disadvantage when it comes to legal rights to music. The rights for ‘fair use’ or redistribution of music (even radio, dancehalls/clubs etc or even sampling of music ... anything more than I think it’s 4 seconds or 4 bars unsure - means you’re in violation of copyright. 15 seconds means anyone can identify the music, yet the critical part is ...

... just making it up as you go along.

You should ask questions instead of lecturing. Then I would tell you -- sans condescending tone -- that you're conflating certain tests courts may use to determine instrumental copyright infringement with recordings. I was referring to sound recordings which, you obviously don't know, is analyzed differently from other copyrights. Music has layers of copyrightable content -- instrumental, lyrics, performance, and recording.

Obviously, playing a recording of 15 seconds is a different fair use analysis from copying 15 seconds for incorporation into a new composition.

The rest of your nonsense I won't bother addressing. Ya dig? 🙄

 

[nexusrule]

Fun fact: the same day the founder of Corellium, that is currently in jail for reasons unrelated to this trial, received a pardon by the soon to be ex president of the USA, but nobody knows for what because his record it‘s sealed.

 

[nexusrule]

As an IP attorney.

——

 

[nexusrule]

The whole concept of fair use is dependent on how it's used, not how much is copied. If a newspaper does an article about the Mona Lisa and includes a photo of it in the article, is that copyright infringement? The entire Mona Lisa is visible. (This is just an example that's easily visualized, the Mona Lisa isn't actually under copyright anymore)

That’s not a good example because newspapers actually pay rights to print photographers/agencies pictures, or if they staff photographers they pay them.

 

[Red Menace]

For education, reverse engineering and security research related use of software without the consent of the right holder is permissible and is considered fair use.

This law not only exist in the US but in most countries including China as well.

That isn’t what they the suit is about - they are copying iOS in the product(s) they are selling to others. If their tools just worked on what the user had, it would be similar to the hackintosh community - you are performing the fair use stuff on what you have, they are just providing the tools.

You can do all the reverse engineering and education stuff like that with your own legitimately obtained copy (the fair use part), but the minute you provide that copy to others, it becomes a violation.

 

[7493920]

Apple claimed Corellium had violated copyright law with its software.

Apple claimed this in the sense that they asserted it as an argument. Just because a judge disagreed doesn't mean they lied, they just didn't win their argument in that court.

 

[kc9hzn]

Apple's biggest issue with Corellium seems to be that Corellium doesn't require it's customers to report the found bugs to Apple.

Wait, really?! That’s pretty sleazy of Corellium, then. It virtually guarantees the tool will get used by criminals collecting zero day exploits, law enforcement contractors collecting exploits, and malicious nation state actors. While there may possibly be valid reasons for not requiring disclosure (arguably jailbreaking, for instance), it’s highly likely that a tool like this that permits automated exploit discovery and doesn’t require disclosure will be used for malicious and criminal purposes.

 

[kc9hzn]

They didn’t copy the entirety of iOS - only the part they needed for security research;

That’s not accurate. They clearly are running the actual iOS userland, including the App Store, iTunes, etc. It is effectively the entirety of iOS. You could argue that, yes, that amount of iOS is needed for security research, but you’re demonstrably wrong that it isn’t “the entirety of iOS”. That is, it’s clearly running the kernel, window manager, frameworks, etc. It wouldn’t have any value as a security research tool if it weren’t.

Incidentally, the fact that they’re able to virtualize iOS suggests that they’re probably sitting on a kernel exploit that impacts the boot process and that affects the current release of iOS. It’s naive to assume that they’re the only ones who know about or could use the exploit.

 

[eoblaed]

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

I stand corrected.

 

[nsayer]

Without diving into the minutiae, I am gratified to see a relatively rare victory for the idea of fair use. Fair use has been under assault by the copyright mafia for my entire adult life. It's spinach and I say the hell with it.

 

[Bauer24]

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.

Can you provide evidence that supports your notion that code is not a creative expression?

 

[cmaier]

Can you provide evidence that supports your notion that code is not a creative expression?

I once had a very long debate with an attorney at fenwick & west. As someone with a foot in both camps, I can go either way on this. There’s often a beauty to source code, but source code is also very functional, and often times choices are not so much “creative” as simple habit or expediency.

of course, in this case we would seem to be talking about object code, not source code. And i think the argument that object code is a creative work is a bit weaker.

 

[DeepIn2U]

... just making it up as you go along.

You should ask questions instead of lecturing. Then I would tell you -- sans condescending tone -- that you're conflating certain tests courts may use to determine instrumental copyright infringement with recordings. I was referring to sound recordings which, you obviously don't know, is analyzed differently from other copyrights. Music has layers of copyrightable content -- instrumental, lyrics, performance, and recording.

Obviously, playing a recording of 15 seconds is a different fair use analysis from copying 15 seconds for incorporation into a new composition.

The rest of your nonsense I won't bother addressing. Ya dig? 🙄

I honestly feel someone of your education, field of expertise would not jump in a pseudo condescending way, and instead you'd enlighten with corrections.

I'm sure you're aware of the very first self-playing piano, that played sheet music printed on a spool for use in rich family homes upon initial release led to our music licensing structure we have today. Payment and licensing fees agreed to by Singers/Song-writers/music conglomerates and license holding 3rd parties we have today across the globe. Surely you know that every few decades a paradigm shift occurs is what is considered non-licensed use vs fair play: self playing instruments, AM/FM Radio, records - used by family parties yet broadcast at a large gathering, clubs (where DJ's play tracks they've purchased), the advent of MP3's and digital music streaming, etc. Each in it's own right causing a licensing structure change.

sound recordings are all used for playback, sampling is exactly taking a recording and playing it back ... the fine details of what is used, how it's used, where its used (different licensing agreements across countries vs venues therein, life of the song sampled/used), and the life of the rights of the song ... which I believe changed some 30yrs ago - AFTER the death of a writer, composer, musican/band can still be licensed and needs to be agreed to for use.

I know there is differences in layers of copyright-able content within a song, that is precisely why I linked those two youtube videos: to show an instrumental (specifically a drum loop by Stubblefield, and how he doesn't own the rights to that regardless that it was his creative expression that was recorded live and pressed onto record and resold), and with changing the beat (how much CAN a sample or song's content be changed before it's no longer considered license infringement).

I guess this may have been lost on your as I may not have been clear before in my irratic post, maybe it was status or ego was the reason to consider I don't know anything bout this topic so I need to be condescended to.

what do I know.

Either way ... you seemed to have gotten upset by these words "your area of expertise, could have you at a disadvantage when it comes to legal rights to music". sorry this upset you.

 

[LawJolla]

Either way ... you seemed to have gotten upset by these words "your area of expertise, could have you at a disadvantage when it comes to legal rights to music". sorry this upset you.

The only thing that upsets me is ignorance masquerading as knowledge. So yes, you upset me.

 

[nsayer]

I'll jump in on the side that asserts that "code is speech" in the 1st amendment sense. In Bernstein v. US we got all the way to the 9th circuit deciding that code is speech before the Clinton administration mooted the case (probably for fear that a Supreme Court precedent might be set).

Someone once wrote a compiler for what amounts to "simple english," which just shows how blurry the line is between that which is expressive and that which is purely functional. This was done during the height of the DeCSS arguments. The description of the algorithm was pretty clearly non-functional and expressive (and thus worthy of 1st amendment protection), but could be directly and automatically translated into object code by tools that themselves did not infringe on section 1201. It's hard for me to see how, properly framed, the proposition that code is speech would not carry the day.

 

[0924487]

That isn’t what they the suit is about - they are copying iOS in the product(s) they are selling to others. If their tools just worked on what the user had, it would be similar to the hackintosh community - you are performing the fair use stuff on what you have, they are just providing the tools.

You can do all the reverse engineering and education stuff like that with your own legitimately obtained copy (the fair use part), but the minute you provide that copy to others, it becomes a violation.

No, “share alike” is still fair use.

If I give an Apple bug to the NSA or China’s NSA and the ways to exploit it further, it’s still fair use.

 

[tny]

I once had a very long debate with an attorney at fenwick & west. As someone with a foot in both camps, I can go either way on this. There’s often a beauty to source code, but source code is also very functional, and often times choices are not so much “creative” as simple habit or expediency.

of course, in this case we would seem to be talking about object code, not source code. And i think the argument that object code is a creative work is a bit weaker.

That's a very good point - object code is less expressive, and less ambiguous. One thinks as well of the SCO trial and the header files - a standard library header file is much more like a phone book, and object code is more like a recipe, than high-level source code.

The thing is, key features of high level languages (syntactic sugar) are tools to improve expressibility - they are used by programmers to communicate to other programmers (or themselves in the future) who will be maintaining and updating the code what their intentions are. Once you get to approaches like literate code (think of Jupyter and knitr) I think you are dealing with things that clearly would be expressed quite differently by different writers.

It's a fascinating problem; but while I think there are clearly things worthy of IP protection in iOS, and the CEO of Corellium might be worthy of jail time for other reasons, I think an argument that providing access to virtualized iPhones for security research is fair use is reasonable. Maybe my counter argument would be that Corellium should just buy the iPhones and interface them with their host machines (the same thing AWS is doing to provide "cloud" macOS). But I'm not an lawyer or an IP professional, just a programmer with a long history of working with various licenses and copyright.

 

[tny]

Someone once wrote a compiler for what amounts to "simple english," which just shows how blurry the line is between that which is expressive and that which is purely functional. This was done during the height of the DeCSS arguments. The description of the algorithm was pretty clearly non-functional and expressive (and thus worthy of 1st amendment protection), but could be directly and automatically translated into object code by tools that themselves did not infringe on section 1201. It's hard for me to see how, properly framed, the proposition that code is speech would not carry the day.

I'd argue that any subset of English that can be parsed deterministically is a formal language, not a natural one. COBOL and AppleScript _look_ more like English, but they don't have any more ambiguity, really, than C. (I use "deterministically" mostly to exclude ML approaches and other NLP techniques, which can get a lot out of natural English, but have probabilistic results.)

 

[Jnyis]

I fail to see the fair use of just copying everything. Copyright doesn’t make any sense if anyone can just copy a work.

Totally agree - like cloning your house so I can suggest improvements security wise to your windows doors etc. One would not want strangers knowing where everything is to help out. The original idea seems wrong to me!

 

[Macbookprodude]

This is good news.. Maybe Apple will lose some money due to this. Shame on them for trying to be like Microsoft - monopoly should be decentralized.