2 ms·

article Dec. 29, 2020 https://archive.ph/4WSne https://archive.ph/4WSne (captured 7 Aug 2021 23:58) FTA: The judge in the case ruled that Corellium’s creatio

article Dec. 29, 2020 https://archive.ph/4WSne https://archive.ph/4WSne (captured 7 Aug 2021 23:58) FTA: The judge in the case ruled that Corellium’s creation of virtual iPhones was not a copyright violation, in part because it was designed to help improve the security for all iPhone users. Corellium wasn’t creating a competing product for consumers. Rather, it was a research tool for a comparatively small number of customers. Judge Rodney Smith called Apple’s argument on those claims “Puzzling, if not disingenuous.” Smith found that Corellium used a vetting process before selling its products to customers.

smoldesu 3y ago
Reading through the appeal affidavit[0], some of the prosecution's claims are wild: > The district court granted summary judgment for Corellium on Apple’s three copyright claims [...] (2) direct infringement of Apple’s icons and wallpapers > For example, CORSEC (Apple says) competes with Apple’s (1) iOS Simulator, which “allows developers to work on a virtual iOS device”; (2) Security Research Device Program, which gives “customized iPhone[s] loaded with iOS to legitimate security researchers”; and (3) Xcode Cloud, a forthcoming program that will enable researchers “to remotely access iOS.” > Apple claims that our case is like Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc. In Fox News, TVEyes, a media company, “redistribute[d] Fox’s news programming in ten-minute clips, which . . . likely provide[d] TVEyes’s users with all of the Fox programming that they [would] seek" > Apple argues that CORSEC “customers care only about the function and ideas of the portions of iOS they are analyzing—not its many creative elements.” [0] https://aboutblaw.com/7PK https://aboutblaw.com/7PK