4 ms·

Correct timeline: August 2019 - Apple sued iOS virtualization provider Corellium for copyright infringement and DMCA violations December 29, 2020 - Apple lose

Correct timeline: August 2019 - Apple sued iOS virtualization provider Corellium for copyright infringement and DMCA violations December 29, 2020 - Apple loses copyright claims in lawsuit against U.S. security bug startup August 5, 2021 - Apple announces new protections for child safety August 17, 2021 - Apple says researchers can vet its child safety features. But it’s suing a startup that does just that. Unless there is an iTimemachine I struggle to see how Apple sued a company in August 2019 for saying in August 2021 it will vet help vet its CSAM tools announced in August 2021.

commoner 5y ago
Apple settled the lawsuit on August 10, 2021, just to file an appeal on August 17, 2021 (one day after Corellium's announcement). That is the focus of the article, not the original 2019 filing. From the Reuters link in the article: > The appeal came as a surprise because Apple had just settled other claims with Corellium relating to the Digitial Milennium Copyright Act, avoiding a trial. > Experts said they were also surprised that Apple revived a fight against a major research tool provider just after arguing that researchers would provide a check on its controversial plan to scan customer devices. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apple-files-appeal-notice-copyright-lawsuit-against-cybersecurity-firm-2021-08-17/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apple-files-appe...
zenexer 5y ago
It’s going to be practically impossible for most researchers to vet the CSAM detection tool without Corellium. It’s already very difficult with Corellium, but Apple is going out of their way to ensure such research is infeasible in most cases. That isn’t limited to their CSAM detection tool—hence the lawsuit that predates that tool. Apple is claiming that researchers can vet the CSAM detection feature while simultaneously attempting to take down organizations that make such research possible. It’s a stupid statement on their part.
saurik 5y ago
Neither the headline nor the HN title say that the lawsuit is "for saying" anything... they both merely--and very correctly--claim that Apple "is suing a startup that does just that". Are you claiming that Apple is not suing Corellium? Alternatively, are you claiming Corellium does not "do[] just that"?

commoner 5y ago

Apple settled the lawsuit on August 10, 2021, just to file an appeal on August 17, 2021 (one day after Corellium's announcement). That is the focus of the article, not the original 2019 filing. From the Reuters link in the article: > The appeal came as a surprise because Apple had just settled other claims with Corellium relating to the Digitial Milennium Copyright Act, avoiding a trial. > Experts said they were also surprised that Apple revived a fight against a major research tool provider just after arguing that researchers would provide a check on its controversial plan to scan customer devices. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apple-files-appeal-notice-copyright-lawsuit-against-cybersecurity-firm-2021-08-17/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/apple-files-appe...

zenexer 5y ago

It’s going to be practically impossible for most researchers to vet the CSAM detection tool without Corellium. It’s already very difficult with Corellium, but Apple is going out of their way to ensure such research is infeasible in most cases. That isn’t limited to their CSAM detection tool—hence the lawsuit that predates that tool. Apple is claiming that researchers can vet the CSAM detection feature while simultaneously attempting to take down organizations that make such research possible. It’s a stupid statement on their part.

saurik 5y ago

Neither the headline nor the HN title say that the lawsuit is "for saying" anything... they both merely--and very correctly--claim that Apple "is suing a startup that does just that". Are you claiming that Apple is not suing Corellium? Alternatively, are you claiming Corellium does not "do[] just that"?