6 ms·
“Short of that sort of clause being declared unenforceable” is not an insurmountable barrier. Clauses are deemed unenforceable all the time. Reverse engineerin
by jncfhnb 3y ago
“Short of that sort of clause being declared unenforceable” is not an insurmountable barrier. Clauses are deemed unenforceable all the time.
Reverse engineering is not a problem.
Shutting down a competitor business draws scrutiny. Beeper’s strategy is not clean, but apple’s behavior in this space could be framed as anti competitive to begin with. They’re probably hoping so for some kind of concession that will force apple to open and provide a way for beeper to operate that is more above the table.
- fh9302 3y agoReverse engineering is not a problem, accessing servers in an unauthorized way and then charging money for it is a problem.
- jncfhnb 3y agoSure. But breaking down an illegally constructed fence can produce discussions beyond vandalism.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoA real, operating, company needs to have a more solid foundation than 'produce discussions'.
- jncfhnb 3y agoDoesn’t matter for the case
- MichaelZuo 3y agoHuh? Of course it matters whether they are a viable company, at least according to many HN readers who upvoted this post to the front page and engaged in comments.
- freejazz 3y agoYeah, like trespassing
- jncfhnb 3y agoSiding with the hypothetical entity of whom all you know is that they illegally built barriers is a strange choice to me
- freejazz 3y agoThis is the equivalent of a "When did you stop beating your wife" type of question. It puts words in my mouth. There's nothing remotely illegal about Apple operating iMessage. It takes even greater leaps to jump from that to then it somehow legally justifying the trespass...
- jncfhnb 3y agoIf there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo.
- freejazz 3y ago>If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? >Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo. I didn't accuse you of anything. You seem a bit confused so try to follow here: I'm literally just explaining to you that when someone goes and uses another other person's property without permission, its prima facie trespass. You can make a defense that it was "just", but that's an affirmative defense.
- jncfhnb 3y ago> Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? There’s no ambiguity over what Apple did. The question is whether it violates the law. Acknowledging that there is legal theory to suggest it’s illegal has nothing to do with “guilty before proven innocent” and it is a complete straw man to suggest that anyone is discussing throwing out the need for trials altogether
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- giantrobot 3y ago> but apple’s behavior in this space could be framed as anti competitive to begin with People are free to pay Beeper for a service and Apple isn't stopping that. Apple is stopping unauthorized access a private network they run.
- iAMkenough 3y ago> Apple is stopping unauthorized access a private network they run. In order to prevent competition, Apple does not provide services like Beeper an authorized way to pay for access to their messaging protocol.
- wang_li 3y agoApple isn't preventing competition. There are numerous messaging apps available on iPhone. They are preventing non-customers from using a service provided for customers only. To make a bad analogy, it is like Jack's Auto Repair selling a service that enables Honda owners to use BMW service centers. And then Accord owners expecting to go to their nearby BMW dealer and get warranty repairs to their Honda. Apple has a simple solution here. Identify how many unique users are coming to the iMessasge service via Beeper's app and send Beeper a bill for one iPhone 15 Max Pro for each user.
- iAMkenough 3y agoI hope that any attempt Beeper made to negotiate authorized access is made public in an investigation, and Apple’s control of the default secure messaging service baked into all iOS telco customer devices is scrutinized. If they weren’t concerned about competition, we would have seen iMessage on Android a decade ago. If they wanted to provide iPhone users a default secure way of messaging competitor hardware, they would have pursued an open alternative to SMS before they faced antitrust investigations.
- jncfhnb 3y agoDon’t make bad analogies. They cheapen discussion.
- 3y ago
- etchalon 3y agoBeeper is not a competitor though. Signal, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, etc. are competitors. Beeper is a free-rider. If you're a grocery store, it's anti-competitive to try and shut down the store down the street. It's not anti-competitive to arrest the shoplifter who's selling their spoils in your parking lot.
- sbuk 3y agoThis is the crux of it. Beeper are not competing with Apple. With Beeper mini, they are piggybacking Apples services without their permission.
- lstamour 3y agoIt’s not that different from any third-party client though. Remember Trillian? https://web.archive.org/web/20020326174902/http://trillian.cc/ https://web.archive.org/web/20020326174902/http://trillian.c... As they note back in 2002: “ Fixed AOL Connectivity Bug: Yes, again and again and again.” And they write: > Going forward, Cerulean Studios is committed to maintaining interoperability across all major IM networks. We will continue to work hard and pursue the necessary avenues to keep this a reality. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to all of you out there supporting us! We’ve allowed third-party ecosystems to develop elsewhere before. And it’s been said before that the cost to Apple is minimal if you exclude the lock-in effect. Amortized across a global base, running a chat network is barely $1/year/user for the average case is what I’ve seen before on HN. I’m not saying using a third-party client needs to be completely free - paying Apple in either attention or money makes some sense. But considering that many folks with Android phones might also have Mac laptops or subscribe to Apple Music, it doesn’t seem impossible that Apple could allow for interoperability across devices and clients and that lawmakers could encourage this.
- etchalon 3y agoThe key phrase in your comment is "Apple could allow". If Apple wants to strike a business deal with Beeper, that's Apple's call. If they don't, they don't.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago> Shutting down a competitor business draws scrutiny. Let's say I own a lemon orchid and it's known around the area people are welcome to come pick a few as they want, but we primarily sell wholesale. One day, John down the road (who doesn't own an orchid$ decides he wants to sell lemons wholesale too. He proceeds to recruit pickers and they start combing through my open orchid stripping trees to sell. As a reaction to this behaviour - which I clearly didn't intend for, but did technically allow - am I being anti-competitive? Would you classify this as "shutting down a competitors business"?
- givemeethekeys 3y agoIn your case, your entire lemon operation is being threatened. It's possible that Apple feels this way - that people wouldn't buy iPhones if they could just use Android phones to iMessage their friends.
- freejazz 3y ago>In your case, your entire lemon operation is being threatened. It's threatened because the product is being stolen
- jncfhnb 3y agoYour analogy is bad and engaging with it makes the conversation worse, not clearer.
- turquoisevar 3y agoJurisprudence does not only establish that clauses that prohibit reverse engineering are enforceable, it clearly establishes that those clauses supersede the reverse engineering exception in the DMCA, see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)[0] And both Apple’s OS licenses and Apple’s MediaToS, both of which require agreement before being able to reach the parts that were reverse engineered, explicitly prohibit reverse engineering. But the civil liability isn’t the most interesting part of this story. The interesting part is that this referral to the DOJ can blow up in Beeper’s face in a violent way. While there’s nothing the antitrust division of the DOJ can do here no matter how badly the congressional critters misrepresent the situation in the letter, CCIPS can definitely pursue computer trespass charges as defined in the CFAA due to Beeper’s unauthorized access of Apple’s servers. 0: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d.1317.01-1109.01-1108.html https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d...