Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#31

Post by [deleted] »

ProAm wrote: post #22
nirushiv wrote: post #17

On the surface, this is an easy case for Apple. Their argument is simple: iOS is not a licensed product like Windows. You can’t run it - virtualized or not - without Apple’s permission. I do think Apple will win the follow up appeal. For even a billion dollar company (let alone a 2 trillion dollar company), their legal team has had some surprisingly bad failings. I recall another “cupcake” case they lost a few years…

> iOS is not a licensed product like Windows Do developers not need to pay $100 a year to write code for it? (for software that will run longer than a couple weeks on a device). To run IOS no, it develop for it, yes?

[deleted]

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#32

Post by rad_gruchalski »

ProAm wrote: post #22
nirushiv wrote: post #17

On the surface, this is an easy case for Apple. Their argument is simple: iOS is not a licensed product like Windows. You can’t run it - virtualized or not - without Apple’s permission. I do think Apple will win the follow up appeal. For even a billion dollar company (let alone a 2 trillion dollar company), their legal team has had some surprisingly bad failings. I recall another “cupcake” case they lost a few years…

> iOS is not a licensed product like Windows Do developers not need to pay $100 a year to write code for it? (for software that will run longer than a couple weeks on a device). To run IOS no, it develop for it, yes?

That’s an interesting way to ask that question. GP claimed that iOS is not a licensed product while your question is about developing for iOS.

While the answer to your question is:

> Membership includes access to beta OS releases, advanced app capabilities, and tools needed to develop, test, and distribute apps and Safari Extensions. You must be 18 years or older to join.

essentially: yes. You need to pay to develop, the core thing is: is does not give an iOS “license”.

These are orthogonal.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#33

Post by macintux »

enos_feedler wrote: post #19
_qcti wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they hate controversy even more. Did you come from the Berenstein Bears universe? Apple does unpopular things constantly. The iPhone 12 doesn't come with a charger, and you think they're terrified of controversy? Apple's MO is to double down on controversy.

I don’t think its to double down on controversy but to not be afraid to make product changes they believe in despite the predictable ensuing controversy.

Right. Apple commits to a direction and rarely changes course, which could be perceived as doubling down on controversy if you happen to think their motives are ill.

I’ve long felt Apple is a Rorschach test. How you feel about the company and its products often says more about your priorities than the company itself.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#34

Post by ineedasername »

That's an interesting ruling, but seems overly broad to allow an entirely unlicensed copy simply because there are (apparently extensive) debugging tools incorporated into the emulation. Then again, this sort of debugging it already possible on less locked-down OS's with valid paths to licensing them. I like the end result, but not the means by which this ruling gets there: I'd rather something like compulsory licensing under reasonable terms for certain purposes like this, something along the lines of the system used for compulsory licensing in music.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#35

Post by ineedasername »

Steko wrote: post #30
ackbar03 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What crimes did he commit before? I couldn't find anything on it

> his sentence is under seal, as are the offences under which he is convicted.

It's rather scary that such a thing is possible.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#36

Post by EMIRELADERO »

ineedasername wrote: post #34

That's an interesting ruling, but seems overly broad to allow an entirely unlicensed copy simply because there are (apparently extensive) debugging tools incorporated into the emulation. Then again, this sort of debugging it already possible on less locked-down OS's with valid paths to licensing them. I like the end result, but not the means by which this ruling gets there: I'd rather something like compulsory licens…

The whole point of this is that it should be debuggable without any permission from the copyright holder.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#40

Post by gorkish »

ineedasername wrote: post #34

That's an interesting ruling, but seems overly broad to allow an entirely unlicensed copy simply because there are (apparently extensive) debugging tools incorporated into the emulation. Then again, this sort of debugging it already possible on less locked-down OS's with valid paths to licensing them. I like the end result, but not the means by which this ruling gets there: I'd rather something like compulsory licens…

Can’t legislate from the bench. But there already is a subtext here. If one could license iOS for this, what they are doing here probably wouldn’t fall under fair use. Instead it could fall under the terms of Apple’s own license agreement. I’m personally kind of sick of Apple’s shit in the virtualization/emulation/kernel/cloud/hackintosh/thumb-on-developers area though, and I fully realize my bias to applaud this decision regardless of whether or not it is fair or right to Apple or whether Cornelium deserved to win. Seems there is a lot of smoke billowing out of this thing...
Post reply on HN