3 ms·

I don't think the finer legal points matter too much. If Apple wants to sue them, they'll sue them, regardless of legal merit. And I suspect Beeper is betting t

I don't think the finer legal points matter too much. If Apple wants to sue them, they'll sue them, regardless of legal merit. And I suspect Beeper is betting they can make their case from a more philosophical angle, such that it's irrelevant what grounds Apple cites when suing them. Beeper will fight it either way. I'm an Apple user who has no need for this app. But I really appreciate that Beeper has the balls to reverse engineer the protocol and build a business around it while fully expecting a lawsuit. That's some old school hacker shit and I'm here for it. Apple tried and failed to sue Corellium for emulating their hardware, and now Corellium has a viable business around it. I don't see why Beeper should fare any differently. They just need to be prepared for a fight, both legally (lawsuits) and technically (ongoing game of cat-and-mouse).

madeofpalk 3y ago
I dont believe Apple would sue. I think they would just change the protocol to block this from happening.
- chatmasta 3y ago
  I think you might be right, especially with the heat on them from the EU right now. It's faster to play the technical cat-and-mouse game for as long as possible.
vbezhenar 3y ago
Reverse-engineering and documenting protocol is OK. Implementing protocol according to the documentation is OK. Copying and modifying binary with proprietary license is not OK.
- fragmede 3y ago
  How do you run the binary if that's not OK? In order to install it, The binary gets copied from the installer (dmg/zip/app store/CD install media), and then to run it, it gets copied from your hard drive to RAM, so that's clearly okay in some circumstances. Furthermore, once it's on my hard drive, I can copy it over and over again in random places on my hard drive for funsies and the operating system will gladly cooperate. Once it's on my drive, I can go in with a hex editor and randomly change bytes for funsies. It's on my hard drive. Am I then not allowed to delete the program from my system? If I use shred to delete it, which will set the bytes in the file to zero, or format the hard drive, am I breaking the law?
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Those are all fine but it's not the context of the copying in the discussed scenario.
  - ketzo 3y ago
    In my very limited understanding, distribution is the key. It’s legal for Apple to distribute Apple binaries. It is not legal for someone else to distribute Apple binaries. Copying a binary from installer to app folder: not distribution Putting the binary on a USB and giving it to your buddy: gray area, not worth prosecuting, but maybe technically distribution Uploading the binary to a GitHub repo titled “Apple binaries here”: obviously distribution
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Which is weird if you think about it. If I buy a car, give it a paint job, mount some LEDs, and a new sound system, I'm totally within my rights to sell it. I can't say that I'm Ford or Honda when selling this modified car, but I'm totally allowed to sell it.
      - chatmasta 3y ago
        Yes, and this analogy is even more valid than usual, because unlike most software where each binary is an exact copy of all the others, in this case each binary is actually unique to a device. But it's more like a ticket, or an NFT. It's a unique blob that was sold to you. You should be able to transfer it. Apple's best argument here might be that the blob is meant for one person, and distributing it this way is like sharing a ticket to the cinema between multiple people. I can't enter the cinema, then come outside and pass you the ticket so you can enter it too.
    - Shawnj2 3y ago
      In that case the easy way out (and what plenty of Hackintosh/console hacking/emulation/etc. communities have done since the beginning of time) is to just download the file directly from Apple when the app starts up the first time or have an “import BOOT.bin here” button you use to activate the app. If someone can source the binary you need to get the app to work I think that’s DMCA legal.
dylan604 3y ago
>Beeper will fight it either way. That sounds nice and all, but what happens when the first bill comes due from their legal team?
- canada_dry 3y ago
  The Streisand effect will certainly boost enrollment if Apple sues.
- brokencode 3y ago
  I’d donate to a legal fund on this personally. I think a lot of people and large corporations would like to see Apple have to make concessions here. I think if it comes to it, Apple will wind up looking very bad in a trial. Their behavior here is deeply anticompetitive. iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. If Apple doesn’t want to make an Android app, they should at least make an API so other developers can.
  - Domenic_S 3y ago
    > iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. What do you mean; if a private company creates something, and enough people buy/use it, at some point it becomes a common good? I like the idea of iMessage being open, but I don't like the idea of forcing Apple under government threat to open it
    - brokencode 3y ago
      I don’t know what you mean by “common good” in this context, but if a company has a dominant market position and uses its power to cripple competition, then it falls within antitrust laws. iMessage is so important today, especially to young Americans, that its exclusivity to iOS has become a significant barrier to Android or other operating systems from being competitive. It’s up to regulators and the court system to decide whether that is a violation of antitrust law. But if it is, then yes, the government should force them to open it. That’s what it means to enforce antitrust law.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zamalek 3y ago
There's also a very small chance that the EU would sit idly by and watch Apple wreck compatibility.

madeofpalk 3y ago

I dont believe Apple would sue. I think they would just change the protocol to block this from happening.

chatmasta 3y ago
I think you might be right, especially with the heat on them from the EU right now. It's faster to play the technical cat-and-mouse game for as long as possible.

vbezhenar 3y ago

Reverse-engineering and documenting protocol is OK. Implementing protocol according to the documentation is OK. Copying and modifying binary with proprietary license is not OK.

fragmede 3y ago
How do you run the binary if that's not OK? In order to install it, The binary gets copied from the installer (dmg/zip/app store/CD install media), and then to run it, it gets copied from your hard drive to RAM, so that's clearly okay in some circumstances. Furthermore, once it's on my hard drive, I can copy it over and over again in random places on my hard drive for funsies and the operating system will gladly cooperate. Once it's on my drive, I can go in with a hex editor and randomly change bytes for funsies. It's on my hard drive. Am I then not allowed to delete the program from my system? If I use shred to delete it, which will set the bytes in the file to zero, or format the hard drive, am I breaking the law?
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Those are all fine but it's not the context of the copying in the discussed scenario.
- ketzo 3y ago
  In my very limited understanding, distribution is the key. It’s legal for Apple to distribute Apple binaries. It is not legal for someone else to distribute Apple binaries. Copying a binary from installer to app folder: not distribution Putting the binary on a USB and giving it to your buddy: gray area, not worth prosecuting, but maybe technically distribution Uploading the binary to a GitHub repo titled “Apple binaries here”: obviously distribution
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Which is weird if you think about it. If I buy a car, give it a paint job, mount some LEDs, and a new sound system, I'm totally within my rights to sell it. I can't say that I'm Ford or Honda when selling this modified car, but I'm totally allowed to sell it.
    - chatmasta 3y ago
      Yes, and this analogy is even more valid than usual, because unlike most software where each binary is an exact copy of all the others, in this case each binary is actually unique to a device. But it's more like a ticket, or an NFT. It's a unique blob that was sold to you. You should be able to transfer it. Apple's best argument here might be that the blob is meant for one person, and distributing it this way is like sharing a ticket to the cinema between multiple people. I can't enter the cinema, then come outside and pass you the ticket so you can enter it too.
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    In that case the easy way out (and what plenty of Hackintosh/console hacking/emulation/etc. communities have done since the beginning of time) is to just download the file directly from Apple when the app starts up the first time or have an “import BOOT.bin here” button you use to activate the app. If someone can source the binary you need to get the app to work I think that’s DMCA legal.

dylan604 3y ago

>Beeper will fight it either way. That sounds nice and all, but what happens when the first bill comes due from their legal team?

canada_dry 3y ago
The Streisand effect will certainly boost enrollment if Apple sues.
brokencode 3y ago
I’d donate to a legal fund on this personally. I think a lot of people and large corporations would like to see Apple have to make concessions here. I think if it comes to it, Apple will wind up looking very bad in a trial. Their behavior here is deeply anticompetitive. iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. If Apple doesn’t want to make an Android app, they should at least make an API so other developers can.
- Domenic_S 3y ago
  > iMessage is just too important to modern text communication to be as locked down as it is. What do you mean; if a private company creates something, and enough people buy/use it, at some point it becomes a common good? I like the idea of iMessage being open, but I don't like the idea of forcing Apple under government threat to open it
  - brokencode 3y ago
    I don’t know what you mean by “common good” in this context, but if a company has a dominant market position and uses its power to cripple competition, then it falls within antitrust laws. iMessage is so important today, especially to young Americans, that its exclusivity to iOS has become a significant barrier to Android or other operating systems from being competitive. It’s up to regulators and the court system to decide whether that is a violation of antitrust law. But if it is, then yes, the government should force them to open it. That’s what it means to enforce antitrust law.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zamalek 3y ago

There's also a very small chance that the EU would sit idly by and watch Apple wreck compatibility.