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.
Corellium Accuses Apple of Using Lawsuit to 'Crack Down on Jailbreaking'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am confusing nothing. Jailbreaking is legal. Full stop. There is no arguing that point. Your interpretation of the power of an EULA is grossly inaccurate. An EULA does not supersede the law. I am honestly not even sure how you... IANAL but I'm 100% sure you aren't based on the claims you've made in this thread. Sweet Jeebus man.
The only thing Apple would probably do is void your warranty.
Please go back and re-read the original comment you quoted. It will help you. In your effort to reply you display more and more you didn't understand the quote. Apple's product - the special dev version of the iPhone competes with Corellium's software version of what devs were using.
Again, you are 100% dead wrong. The EULA does not supersede the law, it grants you rights that you never had under the law. It voluntarily rolls back the law.
Contracts are generally valid unless they are contrary to the law (e.g. a contract cannot permit me to murder you), or are unconscionable. Again, the EULA is not contrary to the law because you never had a right to use Apple software to begin with.
The law says you have no automatic rights to use Apple's copyrighted software. That is the point of copyright. Apple has granted limited rights to you in exchange for money and promises. It is not illegal to revoke those rights if you violate those promises.
You need to learn about contract law and read the EULA before continuing with your wrong and hysterical arguing.
It is completely indefensible. So much so I don't even understand why there is controversy.
If I programmed an exact emulator of Adobe Photoshop, including every feature, function, and look and feel, and even branding and logos, copied to the exact pixel, there would be no controversy about whether or not I was profiting from illegal theft of Adobe's IP.
Correllium has done this. Not just for one application like my Photoshop example, but for an entire operating system AND all of the default applications included with that operating system.
I don't understand how this is legally defensible. Maybe it is morally defensible to the type of people that believe all software should be free, but that is a philosophical opinion that I don't agree with.
And the worst part here is, it's very unlikely Corellium created this code from scratch, like my Photoshop example. Apple has accused Corellium of outright copying iOS code. I haven't seen where Corellium has refuted this. In fact, they bragged it is an exact copy of iOS including undiscovered vulnerabilities. So this is even worse than my example of creating a duplicate from scratch. This appears to be outright stolen source code, repackaged and resold for profit.
So to modify my example, if I stole Adobe's source code for Photoshop and then sold exact functioning copies of it, there would again be no controversy. Correlium stands accused of this.
Jail breaking allows people to circumvent Apple’s Monoplositic App Store practices (or profit). It makes sense that Apple would want to discourage or prevent jail breaking so that they can maintain control (instead of trusting their users to decide for themselves)
Corellium did this with the full knowledge of Apple. As I said earlier, Apple even had them as one of the invite-only devs working on the Bounty Program. It's not as if this was an under the radar stealth operation.
To piggyback on your example. If AMango was invited by Adobe to join a select group of devs in their Bug Bounty Program and devs use AMango's emulator to find bugs in Adobe's software...
Now Adobe is well within it's rights to change it's stance about what you and others have done for them in the past using your software. Especially since they think they developed a better tool - the special dev
I think there are some good point's here but there is one thing most persons aren't considering that the nerds in here are:
Allowing users to publically attack and test an OS allows for better security in the future. If there aren't external people openly poking and proding, then who knows what flaws exist? Only Apple and hackers that don't want their methods publicly disclosed.
The problem here I'm worrying about isn't jailbreaking or DMCA (both valid concerns), but the longevity of the OS's security.
OpenBSD is the "most secure OS in the world"* and it's due to every exploit being publicly announced Day-0. Even oddball OS's that have been mostly closed and proprietary like vxWorks get hacked and exploited. It's nice to know the community is at work because one single company doesnt have the resources to stop even most threats, hence why I think Microsoft is moving things slowly over to Linux, because they have run out of manpower to track all the bugs that already exist.
Allowing users to publically attack and test an OS allows for better security in the future. If there aren't external people openly poking and proding, then who knows what flaws exist? Only Apple and hackers that don't want their methods publicly disclosed.
The problem here I'm worrying about isn't jailbreaking or DMCA (both valid concerns), but the longevity of the OS's security.
OpenBSD is the "most secure OS in the world"* and it's due to every exploit being publicly announced Day-0. Even oddball OS's that have been mostly closed and proprietary like vxWorks get hacked and exploited. It's nice to know the community is at work because one single company doesnt have the resources to stop even most threats, hence why I think Microsoft is moving things slowly over to Linux, because they have run out of manpower to track all the bugs that already exist.
Jailbreak happens because security holes in iOS, Apple fix them, jailbreak find another way. Jailbreak is a consequence of crackable software. Having others jailbreaking their phones won't make yours less secure more than already is, probably more secure since Apple patches iOs.
I don't see anything in this that justifies repackaging Apple's code as an emulator for profit.
To piggyback on your piggyback, if Adobe gave me the code for the express purpose of finding vulnerabilities, and I turned around and profited from emulating that product, my actions would be indefensible regardless of originally acquiring that code with permission.
You and I both. If I paid for the data; how I use it is MY BUSINESS. What the companies were doing was unethical, IMHO
Sell me the data; if I opt to use MY PHONE’s radio to tether to my laptop or tablet - that is no more your business as the content of my email
that is the only reason I used to jailbreak. Now, there simply is no legitimate reason to do so
The solution seems simple.
Require Apple to allow jail-breaking. Just make it a switch in Settings.
”To defeat Apple’s security measures, click this red switch.” Then have it issue a pop up that states something like this:
WARNING. By defeating Apple’s built-in iOS security measures, you are willingly and of your own free will doing all of the following:
1. Voiding your warranty for hardware and software regardless of whom you bought this device from, or when, including any extended warranties, implied warranties, and Apple Care, and waiving all right to a refund or to sue Apple, its affiliates, partners, etc. In addition, no product recall, whether voluntary or not, shall apply to this device hereafte.
2. Rendering your device ineligible for Apple service, assistance, upgrade or trade-in of any kind.
3. Permanently disabling all Apple services on this device, as well as relinquishing the ability to sync this device or interoperate it with any other Apple device. You will not be able to access further iOS updates from Apple, nor any iCloud services, such as Apple Music, News, Podcasts, iCloud Storage, Password Management, Game Center, App Store, etc., nor be eligible for any future services Apple might introduce or make available in the future on this device. YOU WILL BE ON YOUR OWN. This is for the protection of Apple’s systems and services and other customers.
4. While you will be able to use your device once jail-broken however you see fit, all user data files and media will be wiped off the device and overwritten. Apple makes no guarantees of any kind that iOS itself will function on this device after this, but you WILL have access to the hardware you paid for or were given.
5. You must first sign out of all Apple services on this device and disable Find My Device if it is enabled.
Are you sure you want to do this? By selecting “PROCEED,” you will be prompted for final confirmation, after which jail-breaking will take place IMMEDIATELY. The process will take about 1 minute.
...when the user presses “PROCEED,” it will check to see if everything is signed out and verify online that the iOS device is device is paid-for and not reported lost or stolen, and that sufficient battery life remains to carry out the opelation.
Then it will give the final prompt, for the user to type, “I understand this is irrevocable. Proceed.” (or the equivalent in whatever language the system is set to) Then, when selecting the “JAIL-BREAK NOW” button, it will go through and wipe user data and overwrite with random garbage, disable all security measures, and electrically fry a security circuit inside each major component that is normally required to function normally to authenticate and authorize the device for use with Apple’s services, permanently making the device free and open, and placing it OUTSIDE the “walled garden”.
That should make everyone happy. Apple gets to kick jailbroken devices out of their ecosystem, and doesn’t have to service them, and people who insist on “owning” their devices can do so freely if they so choose provided they acknowledge the consequences and accept the responsibilities.
Any iOS version after that should display a message if running on jailbroken hardware displaying text at the top, maybe next to the clock in the status bar reading, ”JAILBROKEN“ in whatever language the OS is set to. It should show up on every screen, just to warn any potential user or buyer that security has been disabled.
Solved. I think.
You keep making these specious claims backed with generic rhetoric. Please back them with facts about the topic or stop. As I said, the only consequence of ignoring the EULA and jailbreaking is a possible voided warranty and refused service. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201954
Relevant: Apple strongly cautions against installing any software that hacks iOS. It is also important to note that unauthorized modification of iOS is a violation of the iOS end-user software license agreement and because of this, Apple may deny service for an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch that has installed any unauthorized software.
Jailbreakers aren't violating copyright law by violating the EULA because the U.S. Copyright Office exempts jailbreaking (and rooting). The exemption was expanded in 2015 to include other mobile computing devices such as tablets.
Apple just wants to suppress security researchers to find holes and announce them publicly. It's better for Apple to provide their chosen people with the dev-fused devices and gag the researchers with NDA's.
I love how you keep framing the issue from an individual basis and are ignoring the crux of the case: a third party blatantly profiting off virtual copies of Apple's product. Let's call it like it is: they're getting sued for monetizing IP they don't own. Apple is not going after hobbyists.
I'm framing the issue based on the poster I am interacting with at the time. Different people are addressing different aspects of the issue. You'd recognize that if you paid attention. There hasn't been a single one of my comments about the stuff you keep trying to address incorrectly with me. There are plenty of people discussing that aspect of this subject. Please find one of them if that's what you're interested in discussing.
It's not a "different aspect" of the issue. The lawsuit is not going after individual hobbyists who jailbreak their devices. People who are afraid that somehow this will affect them have not read the lawsuit yet.
From the lawsuit: "Corellium explicitly markets its product as one that allows the creation of "virtual" Apple devices. For a million dollars a year, Corellium will even deliver a "private" installation of its product to any buyer."
A million dollars a year. To any buyer. I'm not making this up. Read it for yourself.
You conveniently did half the work.
Section 6
Jailbreak = software now unauthorized and continued use is a copyright violation.
As you can see, you're wrong again. Of course, you're not going to listen to hard facts and repeat your same flawed argument.
Yet the only thing you can do is not provide a single fact to back your claims. Generic rhetoric is not hard facts. The Copyright Office says you're wrong and provides exemptions for jailbreaking.
Last edited:
Exactly what I suspected people jailbreaked for. How is that defensible though? You knew when you signed up with your cellular provider what services were offered. Just because you think it’s unethical not to allow something doesn’t mean you have the right to obtain that service/feature via shady means.
"Monopolistic App Store practices"? "trusting their users to decide for themselves"? Apple is quite clear on what they're offering, and information is widely available about it. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to buy an iPhone, and you knew (or should have known) going it what the deal was. Arguing after the fact that you don't have enough control is somewhere between silly and disingenuous. If you didn't understand the arrangement and benefits and limitations of the iOS ecosystem before you bought into it, that's on you. It's not like iPhones existed in the wild as a natural resource and evil Apple came along and enslaved the iPhones and their users. You willingly bought into the deal.
I'd venture a guess that this may come down to a situation of, as they say, one hand to not know what the other hand is doing. Apple is long past the point of two guys sitting in a garage - various parts may have been working in opposing directions, or one group was paying attention while another was not, and got caught by surprise by some of this - or heard of it in passing but didn't work out all the ramifications.
I remember a point many years back where one part of Sony was working on making and selling devices that could play/use MP3's, while at the same time another part - Sony Music - was doing their best to try to entirely kill off MP3s as a thing - they wanted people to only buy and listen to CDs (or, they'd begrudgingly let them use a proprietary digital music format with rather draconian restrictions on it - including things like rendering the songs on your computer unplayable when you transferred them to your portable player, and vice versa, so you'd have to go through a whole error-prone "mother may I" process every time you wanted to switch from listening on one device to the other).
No, absolutely not. Not only was this deemed not to be illegal, it also does not void warranty.
I absolutely love this forum every time jailbreaking comes up; the litany of ignorance and Apple loving that suddenly occurs after seeing the trash flinging within rumor posts is hysterical. Y'all are genuinely really entertaining people.
But hey, let's not forget that this product discovered bugs which were reported to Apple, that were fixed and not paid out (as a donation to a non-profit, as was requested.)
And let's not forget that nearly all of the cool new features of iOS started off being available to people who jailbroke because none of those were things that could happen before apparently. I mean, fascinating that Dark Mode is an iOS 13 exclusive...that was tweaked into iOS around 7 or 8. But sure, only works on iOS 13 a la Apple.
But yeah I guess jailbreaking is just about teenagers crying about snapchat tweaks. All they do. Yep.
Say, does anyone else here own a Mac? Real curious as to why anyone in this thread enjoys how much Apple tries to lock the user out of a device they paid for.
Being in court doesn't mean being in the wrong though. The court could uphold the EULA, but could also declare it or parts of it unenforceable. Would not be the first nor the last time it happens.