3 ms·
I don’t see how this differs much from a common “clean room” reverse engineering strategy where one set of engineers accepts the eula and then writes down in ex
by alasdair_ 5y ago
I don’t see how this differs much from a common “clean room” reverse engineering strategy where one set of engineers accepts the eula and then writes down in excruciating detail exactly how the target item works, then a second set of engineers that have never seen the item in question (or accepted a eula) takes these detailed writings and uses them to reverse engineer the item in question. (A mere description of a device or software is not protected)
This is standard practice at large companies when reverse engineering chips, devices and software and seems very similar to the above eula argument.
- desdiv 5y agoIn the clean room reverse engineering case: 1a. one team examines the device and products a detailed specification of it 1b. another team works solely off that newly produced specification; this team has zero contact with the actual device In this hypothetical case: 2a. a third party affiliate accepts the Apple EULA, and gives the Apple IDs to NSO Group 2b. NSO Group uses the Apple IDs as credential to obtain Apple services Notice that in case 2b, NSO Group has actual contact with Apple in two ways. They used Apple IDs, and that they obtain Apple services. This didn't happen in the reverse engineering case.
- alasdair_ 5y agoGood points - thank you!