5 ms·

> Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if t

> Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if they really expect that outcome (and more importantly, if they have the financial resources to litigate)

Nextgrid 3y ago
Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit. However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions. If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit. However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom. If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        Fair enough. I'm obviously just speculating here and my knowledge of the US legal system is hearsay. However, it seems that Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple, and lots of media coverage over the issue) without any lawyers being involved.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple Media attention, yes. Policy support, no.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        Wouldn't this count: https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/beeper-mini-broken-antitrust/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/beeper-mini-broken-antitrust/ ?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        It looks like a sounding document—you put it out and see who calls. If quality voters call in support, it gains momentum. If it’s crickets, or only people messaging why they like the status quo, it’s dropped.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      > I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Beeper could definitely be prosecuted by the Feds. Aaron Swartz is probably the most famous example of someone being prosecuted using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was merely accessing a web server without permission and wasn't even trying to turn a profit.

Nextgrid 3y ago

Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit. However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions. If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit. However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom. If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Fair enough. I'm obviously just speculating here and my knowledge of the US legal system is hearsay. However, it seems that Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple, and lots of media coverage over the issue) without any lawyers being involved.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple Media attention, yes. Policy support, no.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        Wouldn't this count: https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/beeper-mini-broken-antitrust/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/beeper-mini-broken-antitrust/ ?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        It looks like a sounding document—you put it out and see who calls. If quality voters call in support, it gains momentum. If it’s crickets, or only people messaging why they like the status quo, it’s dropped.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    > I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Beeper could definitely be prosecuted by the Feds. Aaron Swartz is probably the most famous example of someone being prosecuted using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was merely accessing a web server without permission and wasn't even trying to turn a profit.