3 ms·
> I can’t imagine any company being okay with another company reverse-engineering their product and then charging for it, without at least paying for the infras
by GeekyBear 3y ago
> I can’t imagine any company being okay with another company reverse-engineering their product and then charging for it, without at least paying for the infrastructure they’re using.
How is this not a violation of the same Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that was used to prosecute Aaron Swartz for unauthorized access to a web server?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
- criddell 3y agoI've been wondering the same thing. Could Apple ask the DOJ (or whomever would be appropriate) to go after Beeper with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)? To my uneducated eyes, this looks like a pretty clear case of Beeper accessing Apple computers without authorization.
- airstrike 3y agoWorth noting that Swartz was never convicted, so the case doesn't really constitute a precedent, as tragic as the outcome was RIP Aaron Swartz