4 ms·
Truly a jaw dropping blog post, as the top comment currently states, Apple may be legally required to at the very least, comment on this situation.
by rubatuga 6y ago
Truly a jaw dropping blog post, as the top comment currently states, Apple may be legally required to at the very least, comment on this situation.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago> Apple may be legally required to at the very least, comment on this situation. "Required" to comment? By whom and for what reason?
- oh_sigh 6y agoSending a cease and desist to Cellebrite for shipping their DLLs in their product I imagine. Obviously there may be some backchannel, but that is probably how it would go if you assume Apple and Cellebrite have no relationship.
- mintplant 6y agoThey could send such a C&D, and they may be inclined to for the sake of public perception, but what would "legally require" them to do so?
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoIf they ignore cellebrite using their stuff they may have waived their right to be upset about someone else doing the same thing.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y agoCopyright law isn't the same thing as Trademark law. Copyrights don't expire because the rightsholder failed to enforce their rights, only trademarks do.
- Y_Y 6y agoVigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit. The principles of laches may still apply and provide a defence for Cellebrite if Apple makes an "unreasonable delay".
- grumple 6y agoWould they have a relationship? Cellebrite is an ant to Apple. Why would Apple risk credibility and security by helping them?
- coldcode 6y agoBecause Apple cares a lot about their security, and the perception of security, and they have a lot of lawyers with nasty teeth. Using stolen unlicensed Apple technology to hack people's iOS devices is like eating a bear cub in front of mama bear.
- mhuffman 6y ago>"Required" to comment? By whom and for what reason? By stockowners who might not like their valuable IP used in this way or by this company without permission?
- sneak 6y agoDon't confuse the thing where a company has to defend its trademarks to keep them with copyrights (which do not require active defense to maintain). This, if Apple does pursue it, is a copyright matter, not trademark.