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

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#41

Post by inopinatus »

lukeh wrote: post #26

I haven't read the ruling, but I'm surprised. Surely iOS is only licensed to run on Apple hardware, and any other usage would involve making an unlicensed copy?

The law is not a programming language, no matter what herds of software engineers may like to believe. Every license is subordinate to legislation, statute, rights and obligations, tests of reasonableness and the public interest, jurisprudence etc.

The delusion that one can magically conjure otherwise with a few words and a tickbox, leads straight down the path that Apple followed.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#42

Post by xxpor »

ineedasername wrote: post #35
Steko wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

It's common after convictions that judges can seal or expunge charges. It's with the permission of the convicted. The point of a public trial is to protect the defendant, not just so the public is aware generally.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#43

Post by comboy »

apple_innocent wrote: post #29
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…

Imagine if software developers were held to this standard. Time to find another team of developers. Imagine if consumers held the billion/trillion dollar companies to this standard. Time to find another OS. Apple's outside counsel do not take anything for granted. Post a link to the "cupcake" case and let's have a look. iOS is a licensed product. The license only allows iOS to be run on a single "Apple-branded" compu…

> Imagine if software developers were held to this standard. Time to find another team of developers.

> Imagine if consumers held the billion/trillion dollar companies to this standard. Time to find another OS.

What is there to imagine? If you are not satisfied with the relationship, you quit. Why would you torture yourself and not do that?

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#44

Post by thaumasiotes »

xxpor wrote: post #42
ineedasername wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's common after convictions that judges can seal or expunge charges. It's with the permission of the convicted. The point of a public trial is to protect the defendant, not just so the public is aware generally.

No, public awareness is an explicit goal of the system, and one of the factors that must be considered in a motion to seal legal filings.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#45

Post by apple_innocent »

comboy wrote: post #43
apple_innocent wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if software developers were held to this standard. Time to find another team of developers. Imagine if consumers held the billion/trillion dollar companies to this standard. Time to find another OS. Apple's outside counsel do not take anything for granted. Post a link to the "cupcake" case and let's have a look. iOS is a licensed product. The license only allows iOS to be run on a single "Apple-branded" compu…

> Imagine if software developers were held to this standard. Time to find another team of developers. > Imagine if consumers held the billion/trillion dollar companies to this standard. Time to find another OS. What is there to imagine? If you are not satisfied with the relationship, you quit. Why would you torture yourself and not do that?

Absence of choice. Necessity.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#46

Post by ineedasername »

xxpor wrote: post #42
ineedasername wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's common after convictions that judges can seal or expunge charges. It's with the permission of the convicted. The point of a public trial is to protect the defendant, not just so the public is aware generally.

I believe the interests of the public are best served with transparency of our justice system. Unless public knowledge would truly pose more harm to the convicted than the sentence itself and stigma that any conceited criminal bears, then it should be public. If sealed under the "additional harm" principal, the public should be provided with at least the broad strokes of that potential harm so that public scrutiny of our justice system is possible. The more such scrutiny is lacking, the more room for abuse.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#47

Post by ineedasername »

gorkish wrote: post #40
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 dec…

Yes, I'd rather see legislation to resolve this issue as well.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#48

Post by ineedasername »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #36
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.

I agree, which is why I would rather a legal framework of compulsory licensing. This seems an overly broad interpretation of fair use.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#49

Post by saagarjha »

g_p wrote: post #13
CamJN wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real devices are fused to prevent downgrades. Not quite, to install a version of iOS it must be signed by Apple, and Apple stops signing old versions soon after releasing a new one. Further you need to put the phone in recovery mode to install a lower version because the UI simply won't do it. You may be thinking of game consoles, which use fuses to prevent downgrades.

Thanks, I was thinking of the server-side AP Token system (i.e. the signed per-device authentication tags that confirm the firmware is up to date and able to be installed), but then ended up describing the Nintendo Switch fuse system. Indeed, in the past I believe people have used SHSH blobs to successfully downgrade, and also if Apple misconfigured their signing server to approve older versions, people have successf…

Apple's devices have fuses, too, but they ensure that you boot something signed by them.

Re: Apple loses copyright battle against security startup Corellium

#50

Post by LocalH »

macintux wrote: post #33
enos_feedler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly, this can often (but not always) be true regarding social or political views, as well. Something about the ego projecting onto the external world.
Post reply on HN