Apple Loses Copyright Claims in Lawsuit Against Corellium

[nsayer]

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.)

The point is that it's not possible to neatly separate the two.

You tell me,

"If x is equal to two then set y to seven."

is that formal language or natural? Because it is parseable one way or the other, and it's also exactly the sort of way you'd describe an algorithm expressively (which means it is protected speech).

You could argue that you don't even have to go that far. Back when Bernstein v. US was being litigated someone printed a literal book with the PGP source code in it as a means to export it from the US. A copy of the book was purchased, flown to Europe, then the binding was cut and the pages run through OCR. I don't think it was ever litigated, but at the time it was argued that even source code printed in a book was protected speech. The Clinton administration mooted the case by granting open source software an exemption from ITAR after the 9th circuit ruled (but before it could be heard en banc) that at least source code was speech.

 

[nsayer]

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

Whether copying is fair use or not does not primarily depend on how much of the work is copied. It depends on the motivation behind the copying and what is done with the copy. Reverse engineering typically examines the entire work and is fair use. In this case, the purpose for the copying is to do security research. This is also fair use. A copyright holder need not permit and cannot forbid fair use (outside of a contract between the parties, which is not the case here). Section 1201 conflicts with this, which is why the judge has not dismissed that section of the suit. It's also the reason I believe 1201 must be destroyed.

Really the only question in my mind is how they got a copy of iOS without agreeing to the terms of the EULA. They either ignored the EULA after agreeing to it (for example by buying an iPhone, jailbreaking it and dumping it) or they downloaded it from Apple, which could be argued is accessing Apple's servers without authorization. There is/was an opportunity here to litigate the validity of EULAs which has been ignored.

 

[nsayer]

It sounds like Corellium would be a super useful tool for hackers, in which case it seems like a very UNfair use of Apple's code.

Except that it has been shown (and the judge concurred) that Corellium vetted their customers to prevent that.

 

[nsayer]

There is no way this holds up. If this company can copy and make available iOS and various apps, this means other companies could do the same and literally monetize other company’s software and applications for their own use and distribution.

Reverse engineering has a long and storied history, and it is absolutely fair use. The most prominent recent example was USL v. the University of California back in the 90s. UCB basically made a clean-room implementation of the Unix kernel (minus, like, 4 files) and released it. The lawsuit was settled, but was mostly about whether or not the reverse engineering was done properly (in other words, insuring that the folks writing the code were never exposed to the original source), not whether they were entitled to do it.

 

[LawJolla]

is that formal language or natural? Because it is parseable one way or the other, and it's also exactly the sort of way you'd describe an algorithm expressively (which means it is protected speech).

You could argue that you don't even have to go that far. Back when Bernstein v. US was being litigated someone printed a literal book with the PGP source code in it as a means to export it from the US. A copy of the book was purchased, flown to Europe, then the binding was cut and the pages run through OCR. I don't think it was ever litigated, but at the time it was argued that even source code printed in a book was protected speech. The Clinton administration mooted the case by granting open source software an exemption from ITAR after the 9th circuit ruled (but before it could be heard en banc) that at least source code was speech.

"Protected speech" isn't a term used in copyright -- it's a 1st Amendment term. Protected speech simply means not speech that the government can outlaw. Protected speech is not expressly prohibited, like speech to incite physical harm. Copyrightable speech is any work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. I haven't looked up the case law, but I'd assume you could have non-protected speech that is copyrighted.

Also, algorithms are not copyrightable (I assume that's what you mean by "protected speech"). See 17 U.S.C. §102(b). There's also no such "formal" or "natural" language distinction. There is a creative vs factual/functional distinction, but there's no human creativity introduced by transforming:

`y = x === 2 && 7` to `If x is equal to two then set y to seven."

I studied copyright law at the highest levels from 04-08 (even wrote my Law Review comment on copyright in 05) and I never came across the PGP source code. However, one of the textbook cases that might help is Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

 

[tny]

"Protected speech" isn't a term used in copyright -- it's a 1st Amendment term. Protected speech simply means not speech that the government can outlaw. Protected speech is not expressly prohibited, like speech to incite physical harm. Copyrightable speech is any work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. I haven't looked up the case law, but I'd assume you could have non-protected speech that is copyrighted.

Also, algorithms are not copyrightable (I assume that's what you mean by "protected speech"). See 17 U.S.C. §102(b). There's also no such "formal" or "natural" language distinction. There is a creative vs factual/functional distinction, but there's no human creativity introduced by transforming:

`y = x === 2 && 7` to `If x is equal to two then set y to seven."

I studied copyright law at the highest levels from 04-08 (even wrote my Law Review comment on copyright in 05) and I never came across the PGP source code. However, one of the textbook cases that might help is Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

I'm the one who is introducing the formal / natural language distinction here as a proxy for human creativity, so I'll take the criticism for that. My point is that just because you can have a subset of the rules of a natural language express the rules of an algorithm, that doesn't make the algorithm a creative expression in the sense that copyright protects.

 

[nsayer]

"Protected speech" isn't a term used in copyright -- it's a 1st Amendment term.

I was not really talking about copyright. Perhaps a bit off topic, but there we are.

Also, algorithms are not copyrightable (I assume that's what you mean by "protected speech").

Nope, nothing to do with copyright.

See 17 U.S.C. §102(b). There's also no such "formal" or "natural" language distinction. There is a creative vs factual/functional distinction, but there's no human creativity introduced by transforming:

`y = x === 2 && 7` to `If x is equal to two then set y to seven."

But algorithmic descriptions are protected speech in the 1st amendment sense (again, nothing to do with copyright). The point is that there is no bright line that separates purely expressive algorithm descriptions from purely functional binary object code. And, in fact, it is possible to argue that object code can be expressive, since it can be understood by humans (even if it's tedious to do).

I studied copyright law at the highest levels from 04-08 (even wrote my Law Review comment on copyright in 05) and I never came across the PGP source code. However, one of the textbook cases that might help is Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

The PGP stuff was a bit of a sideline, but the major case that actually made headlines was Bernstein v. US. Again, nothing to do with copyright, but everything to do with whether code is protected speech. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes is also germane. The 2nd district there did agree that code was speech, but upheld restrictions on distributing DeCSS on the theory that the restrictions were justified by the purely functional aspects. I believe that they erred in not considering the absence of the bright line between the purely expressive and purely functional.

 

[nsayer]

I'm the one who is introducing the formal / natural language distinction here as a proxy for human creativity, so I'll take the criticism for that. My point is that just because you can have a subset of the rules of a natural language express the rules of an algorithm, that doesn't make the algorithm a creative expression in the sense that copyright protects.

It's perhaps my fault that I wasn't more clear that I wasn't talking about copyright law, but rather 1st amendment protection. There definitely exists a continuum with purely expressive natural language algorithm descriptions, to pseudo-code, to traditional source code languages to intermediate forms to executable object code, and I believe it is impossible to define a border between the expressive (which the 1st amendment protects) and the purely functional.

My interest is in government censorship of such things. Like the export controls on encryption in the 90s, the suppression of DeCSS in the 00s, the freedom to propagate CNC files for firearms, and on and on.

"Information wants to be free" falls directly out of "Congress shall make no law..."

 

[Mac Prodigy]

Selling an Apple OS clone? What does that even mean? Their virtualization tools seem to be what they claim them to be. Apple's biggest issue with Corellium seems to be that Corellium doesn't require it's customers to report the found bugs to Apple. The relationship between Apple and Corellium was rumored to be quite cozy according to reports like this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomas...-bites-back-at-apple-lawyers/?sh=38414c9115f0

Hey there! I'd love to get your thoughts on Hyundai's quality again. Here we are, back in the forums per your request. Here's a couple of articles for you to peruse:

Hyundai recalls 471K more SUVs, tells owners to park outside

The latest recall covers certain model-year 2016 through 2018, and additional 2020 through 2021, Hyundai Tucson SUVs

www.foxbusiness.com

Hyundai Kona EV set to stop sales in Korea following battery fires and recalls, report says

Local reports say Hyundai plans to yank the EV locally, but it'll continue on elsewhere in the world.

www.cnet.com