6 ms·

>“Although Corellium paints itself as providing a research tool for those trying to discover security vulnerabilities and other flaws in Apple’s software, Corel

>“Although Corellium paints itself as providing a research tool for those trying to discover security vulnerabilities and other flaws in Apple’s software, Corellium’s true goal is profiting off its blatant infringement,” Apple said in the complaint. “Far from assisting in fixing vulnerabilities, Corellium encourages its users to sell any discovered information on the open market to the highest bidder.” Why doesn't Apple simply outbid whomever is outbidding them? Why is Apple entitled to security research at anything less than the current market rate?

outworlder 7y ago
> Why is Apple entitled to security research at anything less than the current market rate? This is not only about Apple. This is also about their customers. You are essentially advocating that people should sell exploits in the black market, legal disclosure be damned.
- ekc 7y ago
  That is what freedom of speech implies, yes.
  - mlindner 7y ago
    There's a strong difference between being in favor of the _right_ of freedom of speech but against specific instances of speech. They are completely different. I'm in favor of their right to go to the black market, but I'm completely against them actually going to the black market.
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      This reminds me of the “DeCSS” case, where claims were made that a specific number was not allowed to be spoken or transmitted or otherwise shared. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS ) Obviously the DeCSS people lost that argument. Banning someone from saying “by doing X you can bypass security feature Y” is going to be a difficult one to get past the Supreme Court, at least in the USA.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      So if they have a right to go to the black market, then Apple has no case. Or rather Corellium might have a case against Apple for tortious interference.
  - nguoi 7y ago
    Total freedom of speech would imply that you're allowed to make movies about cartoon mice and publish information about military designs. No country has total freedom.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  Substitute “exploit” for “speech about security” and you will see that doing so is explicitly protected under US law.
Despegar 7y ago
Security research doesn't really have anything to do with Apple's complaint of copyright infringement.
- kjksf 7y ago
  Apple lawyers clearly think it does. Part of their legal argument is that the tool doesn't have valid uses. Apple lawyers are expensive and know what they are doing. They think that bringing this up will increase their chances of winning the lawsuit. Therefore it's perfectly valid to point out that their argument is BS.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    I think it is entirely naive and optimistic to think that Apple's lawyers aren't perfectly capable of framing things in the best light, even when their goals (or even a subset of them) may be less favorable.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > Part of their legal argument is that the tool doesn't have valid uses. The tool has many valid uses. You’re not going to hear about them from Apple, though.
Iv 7y ago
For the same reason a host is entitled to prior disclosure of its unfixed vulnerabilities. Selling vulnerabilities on an open market should be outlawed. Either disclose them publicly for free, or participate in a bounty program by the software owner. People selling undisclosed vulnerabilities should be considered accomplice of people who then use it to break into systems.
- kjksf 7y ago
  U.S. has very strong free speech protections, codified as First Amendment in the Constitution. As such it's unlikely that such restrictions would survive a constitutional challenge.
  - gjsman-1000 7y ago
    You can legally sell security bugs, as the NSA buys them all the time. However, running a platform for the explicit goal of breaking security? Are you copying copyrighted code to achieve this goal? You're on shaky ground there.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Corellium uses its own bootloader IIRC.
  - youareawesome 7y ago
    The 1A is about freedom to express any idea or opinion, not about literally publishing or saying whatever you want. Purposeful lying, for instance, is not covered under 1A. Finding bugs for the purpose of selling them to people with malicious intent is malicious itself, and is very likely not covered under 1A. All rights imply a commensurate duty. You don't have freedom of speech for the purposes of harming others.
    - jimktrains2 7y ago
      > Purposeful lying, for instance, is not covered under 1A. Yes, it is. The restrictions to the first amendment are very tight and very narrow. > You don't have freedom of speech for the purposes of harming others. So, that's complicated. You can't incite violence, but you're more than allowed to disparage groups of people.
saagarjha 7y ago
> Why doesn't Apple simply outbid whomever is outbidding them? It’s quite hard to outbid the black market.
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  Lol what? Apple is the second richest company in the world by market cap.
segmondy 7y ago
I highly doubt that is there concern, I think it's to paint them as evil. If the case was on should Corellium emulate Apple's hardware that will be simple, but to tack on that Corellium also indirectly enables the bad guys in this age of constant hacks and privacy invasion is an additional burden that Corellium has to bear.

outworlder 7y ago

> Why is Apple entitled to security research at anything less than the current market rate? This is not only about Apple. This is also about their customers. You are essentially advocating that people should sell exploits in the black market, legal disclosure be damned.

ekc 7y ago
That is what freedom of speech implies, yes.
- mlindner 7y ago
  There's a strong difference between being in favor of the _right_ of freedom of speech but against specific instances of speech. They are completely different. I'm in favor of their right to go to the black market, but I'm completely against them actually going to the black market.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    This reminds me of the “DeCSS” case, where claims were made that a specific number was not allowed to be spoken or transmitted or otherwise shared. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS ) Obviously the DeCSS people lost that argument. Banning someone from saying “by doing X you can bypass security feature Y” is going to be a difficult one to get past the Supreme Court, at least in the USA.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    So if they have a right to go to the black market, then Apple has no case. Or rather Corellium might have a case against Apple for tortious interference.
- nguoi 7y ago
  Total freedom of speech would imply that you're allowed to make movies about cartoon mice and publish information about military designs. No country has total freedom.
alasdair_ 7y ago
Substitute “exploit” for “speech about security” and you will see that doing so is explicitly protected under US law.

Despegar 7y ago

Security research doesn't really have anything to do with Apple's complaint of copyright infringement.

kjksf 7y ago
Apple lawyers clearly think it does. Part of their legal argument is that the tool doesn't have valid uses. Apple lawyers are expensive and know what they are doing. They think that bringing this up will increase their chances of winning the lawsuit. Therefore it's perfectly valid to point out that their argument is BS.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  I think it is entirely naive and optimistic to think that Apple's lawyers aren't perfectly capable of framing things in the best light, even when their goals (or even a subset of them) may be less favorable.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Part of their legal argument is that the tool doesn't have valid uses. The tool has many valid uses. You’re not going to hear about them from Apple, though.

Iv 7y ago

For the same reason a host is entitled to prior disclosure of its unfixed vulnerabilities. Selling vulnerabilities on an open market should be outlawed. Either disclose them publicly for free, or participate in a bounty program by the software owner. People selling undisclosed vulnerabilities should be considered accomplice of people who then use it to break into systems.

kjksf 7y ago
U.S. has very strong free speech protections, codified as First Amendment in the Constitution. As such it's unlikely that such restrictions would survive a constitutional challenge.
- gjsman-1000 7y ago
  You can legally sell security bugs, as the NSA buys them all the time. However, running a platform for the explicit goal of breaking security? Are you copying copyrighted code to achieve this goal? You're on shaky ground there.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Corellium uses its own bootloader IIRC.
- youareawesome 7y ago
  The 1A is about freedom to express any idea or opinion, not about literally publishing or saying whatever you want. Purposeful lying, for instance, is not covered under 1A. Finding bugs for the purpose of selling them to people with malicious intent is malicious itself, and is very likely not covered under 1A. All rights imply a commensurate duty. You don't have freedom of speech for the purposes of harming others.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    > Purposeful lying, for instance, is not covered under 1A. Yes, it is. The restrictions to the first amendment are very tight and very narrow. > You don't have freedom of speech for the purposes of harming others. So, that's complicated. You can't incite violence, but you're more than allowed to disparage groups of people.

saagarjha 7y ago

> Why doesn't Apple simply outbid whomever is outbidding them? It’s quite hard to outbid the black market.

kthejoker2 7y ago
Lol what? Apple is the second richest company in the world by market cap.

segmondy 7y ago

I highly doubt that is there concern, I think it's to paint them as evil. If the case was on should Corellium emulate Apple's hardware that will be simple, but to tack on that Corellium also indirectly enables the bad guys in this age of constant hacks and privacy invasion is an additional burden that Corellium has to bear.