And we now go live to Apple v Corellium, where the iTitan is still lobbing copyright fireballs at the virtual iPhone upstart Corellium and Apple are once again trading allegations in a legal brouhaha over the former's virtual-iPhones-as-a-service operation. Over the Christmas break, the Cupertino phone flinger filed an amended complaint [PDF] against Corellium in the US state of Florida regarding the virtualized Arm-based instances Corellium offers …
...it does seem that Apple have a case. Claiming we only do it for the greater good is flimsy at best. Lifting a product wholesale then selling it on slightly modified is blatant copyright infringement.
Of course the sensible thing would be for the two to come to a licensing agreement, but I can't see that happening.
You don't understand how FRAND works. You don't just "make something FRAND", and FRAND is only used for patents not copyright.
FRAND is something that happens to your patents VOLUNTARILY. You agree to license certain patents on a FRAND basis to get something else you want - typically to be able to participate in the standards setting process and help decide what "5G" is or what "DDR4" is, etc. No company has ever been forced into offering their patents on a FRAND basis, it is voluntary 100% of the time.
They’re both bad. Apple are upset that it’s easier to find bugs, Corellium are plainly ripping off Apple’s software.
I’m very wary of using their offering tbh. The fact it’s aimed at security researchers and runs in the cloud makes it easy for them to monitor and sell on any vulnerabilities.
Given that Apple distributes a billion copies of each release, it is kind of hard to keep a lid on. They are using the binary (and presumably figured out where to tweak the binary to skip the checks for running on real Apple hardware) not the source code.
Bits of iOS are actually open source. The base OS is XNU, which is Apple’s flavour of Unix based on the Mach core and BSD user components. One assumes that there’s enough there to patch the binary iOS image that Apple distribute to anyone with an iPhone.
In relation to the article and most notably the mention "illegally copied the mobile operating system", what does "Illegally Copied" actually mean in this case ?
"Made derivative versions by modifying the software", I would like to know how they successfully modified a Binary Image to such an extent that they could fool it into believing that it was running on a complete platform. Not a script kiddie kind of venture, that takes some serious hardware/software knowledge and a Hell of Lot of reverse engineering, time and a bucket load of patience.. Not for the faint of heart...
And that's before mentioning that the Hypervisor could simulate the BIOS, IOs, Interrupts, Timing etc of the entire IOS familly. Again, that's no mean feat..someone had to create/write that Hypervisor These guys obviosuly come from a very serious engineering background..
This leads me to believe that they were possibly Ex Apple Engineers or stemmed from one of the major Chip Manufacturers that supplied Apple.
Well duh. Apple has been locking down every new jailbreak technique with every new release of its iOS since forever.
And it won't stop, because when you buy Apple you go the Apple Way or the highway.
To be fair, Apple is far from the only company that doesn't want anyone to tinker with their code.
If Corellium had purchased physical Apple hardware (iPad, iPhone etc) and then modified them so they were jailbroken and you could connected to it remotely over the internet then Corellium would have a strong case against Apple. But hacking iOS to run on virtual machines without a license or permission from Apple its clearly copyright infringement and they haven't really got a leg to stand on.
Is the DCMA still in force? Because that would be how you break the DCMA.
At this point I find myself wondering the extent to which software development is being held up by US corporations being able to monopolise the market. Early industrial progress in the US was rapid because, basically, they stole everything that was liftable, and if it wasn't liftable they got crowbars. Now they want to stop the less developed world from doing the same.But you end up with a-plague-on-both-your-houses nonsense like this.
but if I owned a company that made a complex product, and some smucks were taking it apart repackaging it and selling it, cutting in on my sales. I might send someone to talk to them, with a shovel. Corellium should be happy they get a day in court, in Russia or china and many other countries, they would already be worm food.
Correct they don't sell the OS, they license it. They sell the hardware.
If you make and sell music/software, and someone takes and alters it a tiny bit, but it still sounds like your music/looks and acts like your code, and they sold it, giving you nothing,,,,,
The fact is, they are cracking the software for people to develop exploits to commit crimes with. The governments hate competition. And if Apple didn't do everything they could to stop them, they would be negligent.
Interesting you use the word "negligent". To me, crypto locking an OS to force people into using the Apple App Store, then taking no responsibility for any loss or theft of data that happens anyway inside Apple's tightly controlled ecosystem is negligent. In fact, doesn't the tight locking make Apple the publisher, as in they're technically legally responsible for what happens regardless of any (illegal) EULA they tried to push on the user?
Not that the other company is doing the right thing either, they're in pretty clear copyright violation on a use that (AFAICS) does not fall into a fair dealing type exception.
Simple solution? Don't buy or use iCrap!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
