Corellium Accuses Apple of Using Lawsuit to 'Crack Down on Jailbreaking'

[konqerror]

Jail breaking isn’t a crime

It actually is. It's in violation of the EULA of the software, which revokes your right to use it, and that means you are committing copyright infringement. It's the same crime as making a hackintosh or pirating Windows.

That's akin to saying if you want your Mustang faster, go buy a Hellcat. Telling someone to move to Android doesn't actually sate their desire to modify iOS.

Unlike a car, you do not own the software your device is running, it is merely licensed to you by an explicit contract. You agreed that you would not modify iOS when you agreed to the EULA. It is perfectly within Apple's rights to prohibit modification of iOS. There are similar restrictions on the non-open source part of Android phones (Google Store).

In contrast, your car may be protected under patent rights, but under the doctrine of "exhaustion", the owner of the patent has limited control of what you do after sale.

 

[I7guy]

It actually is. It's in violation of the EULA of the software, which means you are committing copyright infringement. It's the same crime as making a hackintosh or pirating Windows.

EULAs are meaningless. It may protect Apple, but has anyone in this world ever been convicted of copyright infringement for jail-breaking?

 

[centauratlas]

So here's the deal: do we want our phones to be secure or not? If we want them to be uncrackable, then we should support Apple on this lawsuit. If we really want to jailbreak them (for what?), then we are giving up security. Cant have both.

While I am not supporting Corellium here, I would have to say the opposite: security through obscurity is always a bad idea. But note that there are two separate issues here: If you want security, don't jailbreak which may open up more vulnerabilities vs allowing researchers to find bugs and report them to Apple for the bounty or use them for jailbreaks which then provides the bug to Apple for free.

Essentially Corellium is providing an emulator which allows people (whether CS researchers or jailbreakers) to follow the path of execution of the code running the entire phone. This helps them find security issues which can then (hopefully) be reported to Apple or provided as a jailbreak which then is obvious to Apple what the problem is. For example, one might be able to find a stack overflow or buffer overflow etc which can then be used as a code injection vector.

Personally, I would like Apple to provide this to developers as they do with the special iPhones for security researchers (Apple's iOS Security Research Device program). It is cheaper than providing special iPhones and gets a lot more people looking at the code trying to find problems and then reporting them to Apple for the bounty. Apple should just buy them and be done with it.

I'd much prefer to have the information out there so that Apple can fix it vs have it hidden so only the CIA/NSA/Russian Intelligence/Chinese Intelligence/Israeli intelligence etc know about it and can then exploit it.

 

[Swift]

So, what? They think that because finding bugs is not fun, then people won't do it? I believe Apple has just announced a very substantial payment for people who find bugs on whatever Apple platform. That will find a lot of bugs, and actual researchers will make a living.

 

[konqerror]

EULAs are meaningless. It may protect Apple, but has anyone in this world ever been convicted of copyright infringement for jail-breaking?

The EULA is why Corellium is in court, so it's hardly "meaningless".

Laws work to prevent people from doing something before they do it. Convictions are not a sign that a law is effective. The fact that jailbreaking is a copyright violation prevents companies from selling pre-jailbroken phones, or Best Buy from offering a jailbreaking service, for example.

 

[GCHASE1995]

I could be wrong. If they made it just an emulator, wouldn’t they be ok? Because then it would be like Delta (Nintendo Emulator)

 

[lockhartt]

That's akin to saying if you want your Mustang faster, go buy a Hellcat. Telling someone to move to Android doesn't actually sate their desire to modify iOS.

That’s just ridiculous. You don’t own iOS, and what you’re saying is an attempt to justify something that is prohibited by intent.

It’s like saying that I should be able to satisfy my desire to paint a smile on the Mona Lisa by actually painting a smile on it. It’s not my painting, I only paid for the right to enjoy it for a brief while, no one forced me to do either of those things, and my opinion of its appearance is no more important than anyone else’s. If I don’t like it, then I should most definitely move on and look at a different painting... or, in this case, a different OS.

 

[69Mustang]

I'm suspicious of Apple's motives. Apple and Corellium used to be pretty cool with each other. Apple even chose Corellium to be in it's invite-only Security Bounty Program. Seem to be working fine. August rolls around. Apple announces new Security Bounty Program open to all and cover all Apple devices. They also offer special iPhones (part of the iOS Security Research Device Program) to select researchers to use in the same way the researchers were using Corellium. Week later... lawsuit against Correlium.

Is Apple in the right? Idk. IANAL and the case hasn't been adjudicated. Right or wrong, it's cases like this - with timing and circumstances like these - that cause some to accuse Apple of anti-competitive behavior.

 

[lockhartt]

I could be wrong. If they made it just an emulator, wouldn’t they be ok? Because then it would be like Delta (Nintendo Emulator)

That depends upon the methods used to create it. Best case scenario in both cases assumes that no laws were broken in the creation process (no decompilation or other means of accessing the source code of the original), so it’s only illegal if it actually gets used in an illegal way An emulator’s existence is only legal if the methods by which it was made are legal. If, however, it’s use breaks any laws (whether licensing, distribution, patent, trade dress, etc.), then the whole thing falls apart.

 

[2979382]

I can understand where Apple is coming from. iOS is a closed source software. Attempting to modify it is against the law no matter how much those modifications may or may not benefit the original software. Android on the other hand is an open source project that anyone is open to contribute to, create distros and forks, modify it to their heart's desire. It's a crucial difference, and I don't get how Corellium is even attempting to justify what they're doing. From where I'm standing it's a very black and white situation.

 

[bytesynthesis]

Right or wrong, it's cases like this - with timing and circumstances like these - that cause some to accuse Apple of anti-competitive behavior.

What is exactly "anti-competitive" about Apple not being okay with an unauthorized third party selling virtual replicas of their own product?

 

[69Mustang]

I can understand where Apple is coming from. iOS is a closed source software. Attempting to modify it is against the law no matter how much those modifications may or may not benefit the original software. Android on the other hand is an open source project that anyone is open to contribute to, create distros and forks, modify it to their heart's desire. It's a crucial difference, and I don't get how Corellium is even attempting to justify what they're doing. From where I'm standing it's a very black and white situation.

What you wrote is not true. Modifying iOS is not against the law.. Jailbreaking (modifiying iOS) is completely legal. What Corellium is doing may in fact be wrong, but not based on your interpretation of the facts about iOS and modifying it.
[automerge]1577740926[/automerge]

What is exactly "anti-competitive" about Apple not being okay with an unauthorized third party selling virtual replicas of their own product?

Clearly you didn't understand my comment.

 

[Tech198]

note: "legal to jailbreak in United States" Apple has not read the DMCA laws lately. It may be against the EULA, but the EULA is not law.. its only the service you use which says.

 

[Michvuee]

Boomers not wanting jailbreak lol

 

[bytesynthesis]

Clearly you didn't understand my comment.

I understood it just fine. You're insinuating that since Apple was seemingly impressed with the product in the beginning, that the founders are somehow entitled to keep profiting off Apple's intellectual property. Copyright law doesn't work that way.

 

[69Mustang]

It actually is. It's in violation of the EULA of the software, which revokes your right to use it, and that means you are committing copyright infringement. It's the same crime as making a hackintosh or pirating Windows.

It actually is not. Jailbreaking is legal. The DMCA (the same DMCA Apple is using) provides exemptions for jailbreaking.

Unlike a car, you do not own the software your device is running, it is merely licensed to you by an explicit contract. You agreed that you would not modify iOS when you agreed to the EULA. It is perfectly within Apple's rights to prohibit modification of iOS. There are similar restrictions on the non-open source part of Android phones (Google Store).

In contrast, your car may be protected under patent rights, but under the doctrine of "exhaustion", the owner of the patent has limited control of what you do after sale.

Bud, what the heck are you talking about? None of what you wrote has anything to do with my car analogy.

 

[gnasher729]

If Apple need to use the DMCA in their argument they're probably wrong

That is of course totally wrong.

 

[CarlJ]

Curious. What exactly do you think is indefensible about their business practices?

@realtuner beat me to the punch, er, reply.

 

[bytesynthesis]

It actually is not. Jailbreaking is legal. The DMCA (the same DMCA Apple is using) provides exemptions for jailbreaking.

So... do those "exemptions" also allow third parties to brazenly monetize jailbroken products and brag about it in their marketing campaigns? I doubt it.

 

[gnasher729]

EULAs are meaningless. It may protect Apple, but has anyone in this world ever been convicted of copyright infringement for jail-breaking?

Apple doesn’t sue individuals for this. Psystar was ordered to pay $2,500 per copy of MacOS that they made in violation of the DMCA (but went bankrupt so neither their lawyers nor Apple did ever see any money they were owed). Not quite the same as jailbreaking.
[automerge]1577742056[/automerge]

note: "legal to jailbreak in United States" Apple has not read the DMCA laws lately. It may be against the EULA, but the EULA is not law.. its only the service you use which says.

The EULA is not law but it is the only thing that allows you to use the software.

 

[69Mustang]

I understood it just fine. You're insinuating that since Apple was seemingly impressed with the product in the beginning, that the founders are somehow entitled to keep profiting off Apple's intellectual property. Copyright law doesn't work that way.

No, your explanation proves you didn't understand it at all. I stated pretty clearly, I thought, that the timing of the lawsuit -one week after debuting a competing product- and the circumstances -previous amicable relationship based Corellium product- could cause some to accuse Apple of being Anti-competitive.

I'm not really sure how you even came to the conclusion you did regarding my comment. Waaaay off.
[automerge]1577742316[/automerge]

So... do those "exemptions" also allow third parties to brazenly monetize jailbroken products and brag about it in their marketing campaigns? I doubt it.

That's an unrelated argument. Entirely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the legality of jailbreaking.

 

[konqerror]

It actually is not. Jailbreaking is legal. The DMCA (the same DMCA Apple is using) provides exemptions for jailbreaking.

You are incorrect and confusing two different things.

As a broad analogy, the fact that lockpicking tools is not illegal in a certain jurisdiction doesn't mean breaking and entering is legal.

The DMCA says that the distribution of tools to defeat copy protection is illegal. An exemption to the DMCA makes it inapplicable to jailbreaking tools, thus the distribution of those is not banned under the DMCA.

However, if you jailbreak, you are violating the EULA, which is a civil contract you entered in with Apple. The EULA revokes your right to use the software if you jailbreak. Therefore, use after you jailbreak is a violation of basic copyright law and a violation of the contract you entered with Apple.

The DMCA is a law, which means your rights are taken away by the Government. You have no rights, in general, to use somebody else's copyrighted work. The EULA grants you only very specific rights, under a voluntary contract between you and Apple. Thus, the EULA can be considerably stricter than law.

 

[Rogifan]

That's akin to saying if you want your Mustang faster, go buy a Hellcat. Telling someone to move to Android doesn't actually sate their desire to modify iOS.

That’s not Apple’s problem.

 

[bytesynthesis]

No, your explanation proves you didn't understand it at all. I stated pretty clearly, I thought, that the timing of the lawsuit -one week after debuting a competing product- and the circumstances -previous amicable relationship based Corellium product- could cause some to accuse Apple of being Anti-competitive.

Wait. This is funny. You honestly think Apple made a "competing product" against itself. That's hilarious.

What's irrelevant here are any amicable relationships you keep referring to as if it's somehow a good point for your argument, because we don't know the context of those relationships, nor are they relevant either. Apple is a massive company and knowing a handful of people that might like you isn't a legal argument.

 

[I7guy]

The EULA is why Corellium is in court, so it's hardly "meaningless".

Laws work to prevent people from doing something before they do it. Convictions are not a sign that a law is effective. The fact that jailbreaking is a copyright violation prevents companies from selling pre-jailbroken phones, or Best Buy from offering a jailbreaking service, for example.

Corellium is in court because they sold/gave away services that ran afoul of the DCMA, which is why I asked if any individual got prosecuted for the same thing. The law generally doesn’t like it when making a business based on copyright infringement.