Apple Flexing Monopolistic Muscles, Sues Indepent Researchers

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i never said that its 100% 1:1 equivalent im saying that there are examples of why companies might not want to sue people violating their IP and that protecting their IP isnt apple's motivation in this

Then why say it at all? it's now a redundant false equivalency.  If we can't prove their motive then anything we say about it is just speculation.  Occam's razor,  that which requires the least amount of assumptions is more likely to be true.  In this case they are suing to protect their IP,  anything other than that strays from the obvious and requires assumptions be made.

 

4 minutes ago, Spotty said:

snip

I would say it is still going to fall on the judges (if not a jury heaven forbid) conclusion regarding what is in the public's best interest.  But i do agree, it really doesn't look good for them.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Then why say it at all? it's now a redundant false equivalency.  If we can't prove their motive then anything we say about it is just speculation.  Occam's razor,  that which requires the least amount of assumptions is more likely to be true.  In this case they are suing to protect their IP,  anything other than that strays from the obvious and requires assumptions be made.

 

I would say it is still going to fall on the judges (if not a jury heaven forbid) conclusion regarding what is in the public's best interest.  But i do agree, it really doesn't look good for them.

except we have information that suggests its not true in that apple tried to acquire the company. if a company is just infringing on your IP and doesnt have anything of value why would you try to buy that company 

[Kisai]

12 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

lots of things are technically illegal like people writing fan fiction or doing lets plays of video games but companies let them happen because it benefits them. apple is only doing this to try and get out of having to pay the company for finding bugs

No. That's fabrication. "It's free promotion" is a lie, if a company is big enough to want to sue you, they don't need free promotion, and that argument will not fly.

 

Fanfiction is tolerated because it falls in between the cracks of fair use and "is this worth sueing someone for?" In most cases fanfiction is copyright infringement that the IP holder is actively pretending doesn't exist because THEY do not want to be sued for accidentally lifting anything from it. It's mostly just tolerated because suing the fanbase never creates positive PR, but if they wanted to they could shut down any site carrying fanfiction, fanart, etc

 

Let's Plays, Speed Runs, and any other kind of video showing gameplay is 100% copyright infringement and no amount of weaseling around it can be made as an argument that it's not. With that said, it depends on the nature of the game. Recording someone playing Football and someone playing Dungeons And Dragons is no different. The games outcome will never be the same twice, and you aren't watching a let's play with a known outcome. So that means that the fair use argument of "adding value" to the product applies, and while I'm certian it would lose in court, you can probably get away with it if you at least do two things: 1) Don't record the pre-rendered cutscenes, and 2) mute or lower the volume of non-generated sound track/speech and talk over it. 

 

If there is no "pre-rendered" aspect being copied, then the infringement basically has to fail on fair use grounds, as it would be impossible to get the same outcome twice without a the original input being recorded, and even then the amount of RNG involved in some games would render it impossible anyway. Playing back the RNG and input (keyboard/mouse/joystick/touchscreen) would be the only way to generate an identical let's play, and some emulators allow that, but those same emulators only play pirated games. You can't do that with real hardware (other than TASbot) and that still requires an input recording phase done with non-standard equipment.

 

Which goes back to this issue with Apple. If you're not an Apple fan, and you're looking for reasons to think Apple is bad, you're going to latch on to anything that appears anti-consumer. In this case this is very much not even what is happening. Here is a third party company who created an ARM emulator. Apple would very much be interested in acquiring such types of tech for use in their own laptops if they were wanting to suddenly abandon x86-64 and run everything on ARM for some wacky reason that isn't entirely out of the question. However the company in question apparently decided it was worth more to sell the bugs found with this emulator to malicious entities who would use it to break security on iPhones rather let Apple know about them. There is no such thing as a "good" blackhat.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

so when are you guys going to call for apple to sue linus for stealing their code and IP and making a hackintosh

and companies/games do need promotion or else why do companies bother paying for ads and it does work because i bought plenty of games because i saw a streamer or a youtuber was having fun with a game

[Spotty]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

except we have information that suggests its not true in that apple tried to acquire the company. if a company is just infringing on your IP and doesnt have anything of value why would you try to buy that company 

Do you have information that suggests that? Because this is the information publicly available from the court documents...

 

Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6532002-Corellium-Answer.html

 

Quote

"Apple's Attempts To Purcahse Corellium's PREDECESSOR Company - Virtual, LLC"

 

It was not Corellium LLC that they allege Apple attempted to buy. It was a different company called "Virtual, LLC" that Mr Wade was involved in before co-founding Corellium LLC. After he sold Virtual, LLC he later went on to co-found Corellium.

There is nothing in the publicly available court filings to suggest that Apple ever attempted to purchase Corellium.

The source article from MacRumours (https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/29/apple-corellium-ios-lawsuit/) does not say anything about Apple offering to purchase Corellium.

[spartaman64]

8 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Do you have information that suggests that? Because this is the information publicly available from the court documents...

 

Ok I'm wrong on that but it's still in Apple's interest to make it easier for people to find bugs. Unless there's evidence that people are using it to run iOS on phones for personal use then I don't see how it hurts them

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Linus even stated he was in the wrong, and pretty much implied they had every legal right to.   Should I develop a bias and support a criminal act?   There's being a fan then there's being a biased fanboy.  I'm not going to defend someone clearly in the wrong because of a bias.  There really is no excuse for what this company did even if I despise Apple.

Laws shouldn't be the definitive indicator of what's right or wrong because if they are why are we able to change them. Linus doesn't believe that he's in the wrong or else he wouldn't have made it what he admits is that he's breaking the law. If you support America being independent from the UK then you are supporting a criminal act right now

[Spotty]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

Ok I'm wrong on that but it's still in Apple's interest to make it easier for people to find bugs. Unless there's evidence that people are using it to run iOS on phones for personal use then I don't see how it hurts them

Oh, I agree with you with that. I have no idea what sort of tools Apple offers its developers and security researchers, but it seems like this virtualised iOS system has potential to be very useful. Maybe Apple has plans to introduce their own version but needed to clear up any legal issues before proceeding? Who knows. Doesn't really matter as what Corellium are doing is wrong.

 

It's their property and someone is stealing it and selling it. They not only have a right to defend it, but they are also expected and required to defend it. With intellectual property if you are not actively defending your rights it can hurt your claim in future cases and you can even lose the rights. I can assure you that Apple definitely does not want to risk losing their rights to iOS.

[captain_to_fire]

38 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I have no idea what sort of tools Apple offers its developers and security researchers, but it seems like this virtualised iOS system has potential to be very useful.

Unlike Microsoft, Intel, et.al who uses open platforms for bug bounties either through their own website or HackerOne, Apple's bug bounties remain an invite only.

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

except we have information that suggests its not true in that apple tried to acquire the company. if a company is just infringing on your IP and doesnt have anything of value why would you try to buy that company 

Why would apple want to protect their IP if they didn't consider its value to be under threat?  both buying the company and suing it can serve the same purpose.

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

 

 

so when are you guys going to call for apple to sue linus for stealing their code and IP and making a hackintosh

and companies/games do need promotion or else why do companies bother paying for ads and it does work because i bought plenty of games because i saw a streamer or a youtuber was having fun with a game

If apple sues Linus for anything I'll judge that case on it's evidence. 

[JoostinOnline]

I guess I'm playing devil's advocate here, but this is a really one-sided thread. None of us know what the truth is, yet you immediately decided that something shady is going on.

 

By the way, Apple doesn't have a monopoly or corner the market.

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

lots of things are technically illegal like people writing fan fiction or doing lets plays of video games but companies let them happen because it benefits them. apple is only doing this to try and get out of having to pay the company for finding bugs

Assumptive.  Especially since it seems that is not all they’re doing.

 

i suspected this thread would be questionable when I saw the word “monopolistic” used in the title.  Apple is a minority rather than majority player in the PC market.  There is no “monopoly”. They actually had to be saved once by their main competitor because they got so very small that their competitor risked becoming a monopoly.

[Thaldor]

Assuming based on assumptions and lacking evidences, in this case I'm with Apple. What I get from all of this Corellium is selling the completely vitualized iOS as a package and the buyer doesn't need anything else to run it, that is IP crime and quite probably Apple has an easy way to take them out.

Corellium could have stayed in the grey zone where many later emulators stay and made their software at least resemble to be a platform only by requiring something like a DeviceID or some half assed, not really needed "EFI"-dump from iOS device before it could work. That way they could have defended with "not shipping complete working iOS with their software" and "buyer needing to own their own iOS license", but if nothing like that is required to run their software and it runs complete copy of iOS, too bad, hopefully they realize their mistake soon enough to not being drowned in legal costs where I think Apple isn't going to spare a dime and they are quite soon very large sums.

[spartaman64]

7 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I honestly am not pro America either, and we're going for a few hundred year stretch now are we?  Both parties are fine with it now, so there's honestly no law broken anymore there.  Especially considering the criminals in that scenario are dead.  Even if we were to argue that one the UK no longer has jurisdiction, and I'm pretty sure that another counter argument would be statute of limitations.  Is Apple okay with this company stealing and illegally distributing their code?  No!  They did this recently, so statute of limitations doesn't apply.  The defendant has no legal defense here.  I get what you're doing, but no I am not going to have a bias for a criminal.  You do you.

so if you lived in the cccp and someone came to you and said they escaped from a gulag you will turn them in because you have no bias for criminals that break the laws of mother russia

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why would apple want to protect their IP if they didn't consider its value to be under threat?  both buying the company and suing it can serve the same purpose.

If apple sues Linus for anything I'll judge that case on it's evidence. 

idk why did PA after years of telling us rangers that ranged protected ccs are too OP make archer a class based entirely around ranged protected ccs and give them insane amounts of damage pissing off the rest of the community and making most of the ranger community quit the game. companies regularly make decisions that make no sense

7 hours ago, Spotty said:

Oh, I agree with you with that. I have no idea what sort of tools Apple offers its developers and security researchers, but it seems like this virtualised iOS system has potential to be very useful. Maybe Apple has plans to introduce their own version but needed to clear up any legal issues before proceeding? Who knows. Doesn't really matter as what Corellium are doing is wrong.

 

It's their property and someone is stealing it and selling it. They not only have a right to defend it, but they are also expected and required to defend it. With intellectual property if you are not actively defending your rights it can hurt your claim in future cases and you can even lose the rights. I can assure you that Apple definitely does not want to risk losing their rights to iOS.

so why isnt apple suing linus? they dont want to lose the the rights to their mac os right

[DrMacintosh]

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

Apple isn't the bad guy here. Corellium dun goofed.

Idk how they planned to get away with something that is clearly in violation of the EULA and is literally copy/pasting the code of iOS. 

[Commodus]

On top of people pointing out that Corellium isn't the poor, innocent company it pretends to be, I have to call out the "market completely dominated by yourself" crap from the OP.

 

You can't have a monopoly over your own business.  Apple doesn't exist in isolation -- it's competing against Google, Microsoft and the vendors that use their platforms.  Hell, there was even a lawsuit that helped establish this.  Remember when Psystar tried to defend its illegal Hackintosh business by claiming that Apple had a monopoly over OS X?  Yeah, the court slapped that down.

 

You don't have to like everything Apple does (I have my share of beefs), but for goodness' sake, let's drop the notion that Apple is a 'tyrant' because it prefers tightly integrated platforms instead of licensing its operating systems.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

 

idk why did PA after years of telling us rangers that ranged protected ccs are too OP make archer a class based entirely around ranged protected ccs and give them insane amounts of damage pissing off the rest of the community and making most of the ranger community quit the game. companies regularly make decisions that make no sense

 

What are you trying to say here?  

[amdorintel]

16 hours ago, Suika said:

$300,000

that is a nothing burger to the company, or its mt everest

[jagdtigger]

Security researchers should stop poking at their stuff, lets see how well it will go for apple....

[amdorintel]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Security researchers should stop poking at their stuff, lets see how well it will go for apple....

thats why precedent court cases are important

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

What are you trying to say here?  

im saying companies regularly make decisions that dont make sense and that is self sabotaging 

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

You gunna run a 5k with all that stretching you're doing?

what stretch? you think im accusing you of being a soviet sympathizer XD. im just saying that laws should not be the definition of whats right and wrong thats the only point im trying to make there. you  are attacking a strawman here as i use the example precisely because i believe you wont agree with it im just trying to make you see your cognitive dissonance

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, you're stretching to find some bias that I clearly lack.   You've been arguing pretty poorly that breaking the law is good for companies because advertising.  It's also pretty clear that you're biased towards YTers breaking the law because you find it beneficial to you.

im saying that it isnt as black and white as you think and that laws are not the decider of whats right and wrong. and its not benefiting me at all i stopped watching lets plays years ago and move to watching streams. and considering how many game devs sponsor lets plays and even nintendo has stopped issuing take downs of lets plays i think most game studios agree with me that they are beneficial to them

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

 

thats not what im arguing about i recognize that apple and nintendo have the legal right to sue them but i dont think they should. 

just because you could take legal action against something and win doesnt mean its the right thing to do such as in the case of patent trolls (before you write something about that no im not calling apple a patent troll its just an example) or if someone saves my life but breaks one of my ribs. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

im saying companies regularly make decisions that dont make sense and that is self sabotaging 

 

And we are back to false equivalencies.  You  cannot attribute a motive to something where no evidence for said motive exists.

 

People are wrong and I can prove it, does that mean I can just arbitrarily call anyone wrong?  No of course it doesn't.  Same goes with this.  Apple have plenty of reasons to both want to buy the company (if that is what they did) and sue the company.   Just because other companies do things differently or make mistakes in your eyes doesn't imply anything in this case.

[amdorintel]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

im saying companies regularly make decisions that dont make sense and that is self sabotaging 

yea its all too common

government is the same, but worse!

 

maybe it makes sense in some obscure way, but the main one is obviously making more money, making more easier money

 

LNCLavalin self sabotage with bribing.

they knew it was wrong

 

 

 

[Thaldor]

58 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

thats not what im arguing about i recognize that apple and nintendo have the legal right to sue them but i dont think they should. 

just because you could take legal action against something and win doesnt mean its the right thing to do such as in the case of patent trolls (before you write something about that no im not calling apple a patent troll its just an example) or if someone saves my life but breaks one of my ribs. 

While I agree that in some cases taking legal actions is ridiculous and wrong (like corporations going after single pirates vs. going after the sources and release groups). But in this case for me it's completely OK for Apple to take the legal action and in full force. Corellium could have easily taken the more subtle way of shipping their product as many more current console emulator makers have done in the past and quite easily dodged the bullet and made it seem at least somehow more acceptable business. Like even if there was a single need for it, but requiring that the customer digs out some sort of deviceID or something from their iOS device to make it at least look like that what they are shipping isn't complete iOS, but only the parts that make iOS run in emulation (as with older PS1 and PS2 emulators required you to gain BIOS for them to run, there wasn't any other reason why they wouldn't ship it with the emulator except that basicly Sony couldn't sue them for it because they were not shipping PS1/PS2 OS and virtualized system, but only a platform which could run PS1/PS2 emulation, even now RPCS3 requires you to download official PS3 OS update from Sony and most likely for this reason). Even giving out the platform for free and having "premium service" which could have included some modified parts of the iOS that made only parts of it work could probably have given them a much more positive points, but selling complete iOS emulator straight out of the box with everything in it is fucking stupid move.