4 ms·
What grounds would Apple have for suing?
by Laaas 3y ago
What grounds would Apple have for suing?
- ethanbond 3y ago"No reverse engineering" is a pretty standard TOS item.
- Nextgrid 3y agoHas any of this ever been tested in court though? Also, the whole thing can be (and very well may have been) implemented using a "clean-room" process, where the Beeper app developers were never exposed to proprietary Apple code, instead working off the pypush PoC's code. I think Beeper is intentionally aiming for (heavily publicized) litigation to set a precedent.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoWhen did Bepper accept their TOS?
- ethanbond 3y agoEither they're authorized to use the service and (almost certainly) signed a TOS, or they're not, in which case they're using the service unauthorized. Not a lawyer but I don't see what else could be true here. I suppose you could say the end users are the ones violating the TOS? I don't think it'll land with any judge, "your honor we just did the reverse engineering (without signing a TOS) and sold it to our users (who did sign a TOS, but didn't reverse engineer), so we're all clean."
- randyrand 3y agoAuthorization is the first step of setting up Beeper Mini. During setup, Apple's servers return authorization keys for your device to use. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ethanbond 3y agoUnder this logic, no hacking would ever be illegal. After all, there's obviously no way any attacker ever did anything the code actually made impossible. Fortunately, courts aren't computers, judges aren't compilers, and legal code isn't a programming language.
- randyrand 3y agoBeeper Mini uses the official channels to get authorization. It's not a "hack".
- ethanbond 3y agoEvery attack ever uses something that can be described as "official channels." It's all in the code, after all. As Apple's response makes clear, this is indeed not via the official channels. "Authorization" in the legal sense != authorization in the cryptographic sense. You can get a token and still be not legally authorized to access a system.
- randyrand 3y agoIt's not illegal to scrape a website, even if the owners don't want it to be scraped. Accessing a public server using the public protocol it advertises is generally allowed.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoI'm not a lawyer either but I don't see what's wrong with that argument. The tool that Beeper built isn't infringing any laws, reverse engineering in this context is perfectly legal. They're not responsible for their users' use of the tools they build and their consequent violation of the TOS.
- ethanbond 3y agoThat's not generally true in practice. Especially when it is marketed to end users as a TOS-violating product and doubly so when it was originally a commercialized product.
- pr0zac 3y agoTOSes are not legally binding so who cares?
- ethanbond 3y agoWhat is up with this meme around here? Of course terms of service are legally binding. They're a contract. It is possible to put unenforceable terms in a TOS, but it's simply untrue that "TOSes are not legally binding." What do you think is the distinction between a legally binding contract and a TOS?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoYou say that, but what is Apple going to sue Beeper for? Tortious interference? That seems a stretch. In a similar vein: has any maker of web scraping tools been sued by a website? I couldn't find anything.
- gkbrk 3y agoReverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is explicitly allowed. Also, breaking the TOS is usually not illegal. TOS of a random company is not the law, otherwise you would get into trouble non-stop from random websites and apps making you "agree" to things.
- ethanbond 3y ago> Reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is explicitly allowed. In Apple's iMessage TOS? I don't find that likely but open to being wrong. > Also, breaking the TOS is usually not illegal In general, contracts are legally binding, therefore breaking them is illegal. Sometimes contracts include clauses that can't be legally binding, but I don't think a TOS forbidding this type of behavior would be questionable in the slightest. Apple obviously has no obligation to allow anyone to use its platform as a backend for their own (previously commercialized) product.
- kuschku 3y ago> In Apple's iMessage TOS? I don't find that likely but open to being wrong. In EU law. No contract or license may restrict your right to reverse engineer or decompile for the purpose of interoperability or building an alternative implementation.
- pr0zac 3y agoIn US law as well fwiw.
- ethanbond 3y agoAt least in US law, that's overridable by EULAs, TOS, T&C's, etc: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/What-were-the-5N_SjNVpRTOJr5DZ3JtTyQ?s=c#e4dfd28c-d569-4533-89af-90d9dc9b53c9 https://www.perplexity.ai/search/What-were-the-5N_SjNVpRTOJr... Not quite a carte blanche protection in the EU, either.
- quantumsequoia 3y agoCan you sue someone for violating TOS? It's not illegal, and Apple doesn't have any damages. Terms of Service are just... the terms you need to follow in exchange for service. If you violate the terms, you get cut off from service... which they already did
- ethanbond 3y agoYes, breach of contract, especially when you’re circumventing controls specifically designed to prevent the thing you’re doing.