Apple Fails To Revive Copyright Case Over iPhone iOS Simulator (bloomberglaw.com) 14
Apple failed to revive a long-running copyright lawsuit against cybersecurity firm Corellium over its software that simulates the iPhone's iOS operating systems, letting security researchers to identify flaws in the software. From a report: The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Monday ruled that Corellium's CORSEC simulator is protected by copyright law's fair use doctrine, which allows the duplication of copyrighted work under certain circumstances. Apple argued that Corellium's software was "wholesale copying and reproduction" of iOS and served as a market substitute for its own security research products. Corellium countered that its copying of Apple's computer code and app icons was only for the purposes of security research and was sufficiently "transformative" under the fair use standard. The three-judge panel largely agreed with Corellium, finding that CORSEC "furthers scientific progress by allowing security research into important operating systems" and that iOS "is functional operating software that falls outside copyright's core."
Oh no! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> There's a crack in the walled garden!
We have drones now.
Will it help other cases? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Screw you, I'm in a country where DMCA is merely four letters out of order of the alphabet.
--security researcher abroad, who will leapfrog those of the US before long
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely.
It's basically saying you can violate copyright to do security research. It doesn't say anything about letting others violate copyright. So as long as you're using the software as intended, you're covered under fair use. You can use it to find weaknesses and holes in the operating system or study how it works. But that's all you can do with it - study it,
Re: (Score:2)
It's akin to dumping of ROMs - this is actually illegal no matter what - format conversions are illegal.
Citation Needed.
Dumping of ROMs is legal as per US Code 17 117 [cornell.edu]. As they are archival copies made by the lawful owner of that copy of the game. Further, use of the ROM should also be legal as it's "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine". The DMCA doesn't alter any of the language in this statue, and the Supreme Court refused to rule on the matter when it comes to reconciling 117 with the DMCA's technological protection measures.
Re: Will it help other cases? (Score:2)
This is a pretty expansive view of fair use (Score:1)
IANAL - but I don't see how this decision does not basically say 'you can't copyright firmware'
One could argue that you'd need to for any non-trivial device that will be running software which must be binary compatible on top of it.
WINE as an example of a similarly complex platform (if not exactly firmware) - not withstanding, but I would not say its 'fully inter-operable' either.
I see a lot of implications here for a lot of device vendors, not all of which seem 'fair'
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how this decision does not basically say 'you can't copyright firmware'
It depends on the purpose. The purpose is taken into consideration for fair use. You should be able to copy firmware for research purposes, and the court agrees.
Re: (Score:2)
But Correllium isn't really doing iOS security research (well they do some of course) but their primary activity is actually selling access to others to do security research.
further they are not really even doing that - they are essentially selling iOS VMs in the cloud. Which they let you do whatever you like with. Which could easily just mean running some app on it.
Uh.... yeah? (Score:1)
Apple argued that Corellium's software was "wholesale copying and reproduction" of iOS and served as a market substitute for its own security research products.
Out here in reality, we call that a "competitor". I know, Apple is not used to this, but believe it or not, that's legal.
Apple should do this instead. (Score:1)