7 ms·

I hate to be the one to bursts bubbles, but there’s no cause of action here under the current legislation. None. That is unless we’re talking about Beeper bein

I hate to be the one to bursts bubbles, but there’s no cause of action here under the current legislation. None. That is unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant. They have incurred criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass and civil liability by violating the the OS license agreement and ToS that both prohibit reverse engineering (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) not to mention the general copyright violations of reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo (pypush isn’t without proprietary Apple code). CCIPS would have a field day with this and if by some weird “blow up in your face fashion” they get their hands on the referral after the antitrust division of the DOJ is done shrugging at it, Beeper might get more than they bargained for. The only thing that could actually affect Apple in this, is if legislators pass new bills. The problem however is that this would have cascading effects across the industry, if not the economy as a whole, because there’s no way to legislate this in such a way that it would only affect Apple and Apple alone. Anything short of that makes for a fun fantasy that I’m sure some people will get off on, but a fantasy nonetheless.

Nextgrid 3y ago
Keep in mind that Beeper is a company (backed by some people wealthy enough to open themselves up to litigation against Apple) and most/all of the CFAA horror stories have been against defenseless individuals, so it might play out very differently as corporations are given much more leniency. Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Apple would have little to do with it as CFAA violations are a criminal matter. And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Even in a criminal matter, wouldn't Apple's description of their systems and services matter quite a lot on how that would go?
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      Apple would only have to report it, similar to how you report a regular trespass and provide some evidence like logs. Maybe, if LE is unable to connect the dots, explain how it was done so the prosecution can explain it well. But it’s significantly less intrusive than a civil case where a lot of discovery is involved.
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
This has been my gut feeling about the entire thing and I don't understand so much about: a) How Beeper thought they had a business model here b) How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move Apple's iMessage service is a privately owned, privately hosted, closed source protocol and always has been. You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise. That's just... what it is. You can dislike that, you can think it's anti-competitive and you might even have a case for it, I guess we'll see, but insofar as I can see it: iMessage is a closed source, walled garden, private protocol Apple uses to permit a higher tier of text messaging for owners of iDevices. There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices, and there's even less reason to be surprised in the slightest that, when a company was offering services to bypass those requirements and use the API without meeting Apple's requirements, that Apple would shut that shit right down.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. They're clearly not making the cost/resource usage argument otherwise it would be trivial for them to implement such a restriction. > There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? You'd probably be told no, that you can only access it via Apple's devices. Your options there are to access it via approved devices or use a different service. You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders. > The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. That's correct. They only want their hardware and software on all ends of this traffic. That is not inherently unreasonable or anti-competitive and is likely spelled out in the terms of service. > Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files? I think it would be a bad decision on the part of Microsoft to attempt that, as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office, but ultimately having proprietary file formats that are crypto-graphically secured is also not without precedence and also not inherently anti-competitive. At my current employer we sell specialized software for maintaining machinery, and our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money: the ability to open, save, and utilize our files is our entire business model so you're damn right it's secured. That's not anti-competitive either: if you don't like how we do our business, you are free to use a competitor's product. What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway. Edit: I'm being rate limited: > This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue No, it isn't, because iMessage is not the only way to text on an iPhone. It degrades gracefully into full compliance with SMS/MMS protocols to allow it to text Androids, Blackberries, or flip phones. > and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform No it is not, SMS/MMS is. If your iPhone is in a particularly bad data area, it will also SMS other iPhones absent it's ability to contact the iMessage service. > Interoperability should be a given IT IS.
stuartjohnson12 3y ago
> unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant Yes that's the point, Beeper are probably hoping Apple sues them for the reasons you describe. > criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass This is pretty tenuous. They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access. > violating the the OS license agreement and ToS [...] (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. > reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble. And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market. That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had.
- mikeryan 3y ago
  Your premise seems to be that they want Apple to sue them? That point is moot now.
- Frivolous9421 3y ago
  >CFAA violation for logging into your own iMessage account and using the service Not fucking likely
- nicce 3y ago
  > Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. The problem is that everything works through Apples private services, even if there is no DMCA things in the app. On top of that they are making business with that. Quite unfair use. What if I use Amazon’s private APIs for running my cloud. Even share it to others and charge even money from it?
  - stuartjohnson12 3y ago
lxgr 3y ago
I think you might be right about Beeper not having any legal right to iMessage interoperability. On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps?
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  > On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps? Prefacing this by saying that I’m not privy to what, if anything, Apple is cooking up. But such a case isn’t something you cobble together in an afternoon. In my experience a lead time for something like this is at least about a month, a week if it’s urgent and less if it’s really urgent and you seek an injunction (and then you try to flesh it out afterwards). But ideally you want to take your time so you can discuss your strategy both internally with higher ups as well as with outside counsel, collect exhibits and draft up a solid initial filing. Part of these discussions is also what kind of exposure you’ll have during discovery. Apple for example genuinely believes that Masimo used Apple’s internal confidential documents that Masimo received during discovery in the California trial to create the competing W1 smartwatch. It could be that they’re weary of having to share more internal information, especially since so much has already come out during the last couple of years full of cases. Or wary that Beeper would learn more about the inner workings of iMessage. I wouldn’t characterize it as a high priority matter with urgency either because they seem able and effective in blocking Beeper, with little loss in device sales as a result. A lot of effort is going towards the Apple Watch issue with Masimo that prevents them from selling the newest models. Lastly, while only of minor importance, it’s slightly more beneficial for Apple if Beeper would sue them while they keep successfully blocking Beeper than Apple suing Beeper. All in all, it’s a lot of weighing pros and cons, even when you’re in the right. That’s one of the reason why there are so many settlements, because it often is cheaper, faster and easier than a whole trial.
rezonant 3y ago
Invoking the CFAA for messaging interoperability is a pretty dystopian take. If it were as open and shut as you think it is, then why didn't AOL use the CFAA against Microsoft for doing exactly what Beeper is doing in MSN Messenger?

Nextgrid 3y ago

Keep in mind that Beeper is a company (backed by some people wealthy enough to open themselves up to litigation against Apple) and most/all of the CFAA horror stories have been against defenseless individuals, so it might play out very differently as corporations are given much more leniency. Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.

turquoisevar 3y ago
Apple would have little to do with it as CFAA violations are a criminal matter. And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Even in a criminal matter, wouldn't Apple's description of their systems and services matter quite a lot on how that would go?
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Apple would only have to report it, similar to how you report a regular trespass and provide some evidence like logs. Maybe, if LE is unable to connect the dots, explain how it was done so the prosecution can explain it well. But it’s significantly less intrusive than a civil case where a lot of discovery is involved.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

This has been my gut feeling about the entire thing and I don't understand so much about: a) How Beeper thought they had a business model here b) How so many HN readers can justify flagrant misuse of private API's and servers as some sort of liberatory move Apple's iMessage service is a privately owned, privately hosted, closed source protocol and always has been. You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise. That's just... what it is. You can dislike that, you can think it's anti-competitive and you might even have a case for it, I guess we'll see, but insofar as I can see it: iMessage is a closed source, walled garden, private protocol Apple uses to permit a higher tier of text messaging for owners of iDevices. There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices, and there's even less reason to be surprised in the slightest that, when a company was offering services to bypass those requirements and use the API without meeting Apple's requirements, that Apple would shut that shit right down.

Nextgrid 3y ago
> You are not allowed to use it without an iPhone, an iPad, or a Mac and you never have been allowed to use it otherwise What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. They're clearly not making the cost/resource usage argument otherwise it would be trivial for them to implement such a restriction. > There is no reason at all to think you're entitled to access that service without using the aforementioned devices Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files?
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > What about for those who do own an Apple device and thus paid the "tax" to use iMessage, but want/need to use it on unapproved devices out of convenience? You'd probably be told no, that you can only access it via Apple's devices. Your options there are to access it via approved devices or use a different service. You cannot arbitrarily bypass requirements to use it how you want to use it and expect Apple to just organizationally shrug their shoulders. > The argument would be very different if Apple merely restricted the service to Apple IDs associated to a valid Apple device purchase, but that's not what they're doing. That's correct. They only want their hardware and software on all ends of this traffic. That is not inherently unreasonable or anti-competitive and is likely spelled out in the terms of service. > Would you also apply that argument to Microsoft Office files? Microsoft would sure love it if it would be forbidden to create/edit such files in anything but Microsoft software. Would you also want LibreOffice/OpenOffice/Apple's very own Pages/Numbers/Keynote to not be able to read such files? I think it would be a bad decision on the part of Microsoft to attempt that, as the file formats are already supported by other software and artificially restricting them to only Microsoft apps would only serve to drive users to Libre/Open office, but ultimately having proprietary file formats that are crypto-graphically secured is also not without precedence and also not inherently anti-competitive. At my current employer we sell specialized software for maintaining machinery, and our files are locked right down because that's how we make our money: the ability to open, save, and utilize our files is our entire business model so you're damn right it's secured. That's not anti-competitive either: if you don't like how we do our business, you are free to use a competitor's product. What you're not free to do is crack open our software and use it anyway. Edit: I'm being rate limited: > This is closer to a Telcom/Basic Utility law issue No, it isn't, because iMessage is not the only way to text on an iPhone. It degrades gracefully into full compliance with SMS/MMS protocols to allow it to text Androids, Blackberries, or flip phones. > and is the default way to text message on this "basic utility" platform No it is not, SMS/MMS is. If your iPhone is in a particularly bad data area, it will also SMS other iPhones absent it's ability to contact the iMessage service. > Interoperability should be a given IT IS.

stuartjohnson12 3y ago

> unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant Yes that's the point, Beeper are probably hoping Apple sues them for the reasons you describe. > criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass This is pretty tenuous. They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access. > violating the the OS license agreement and ToS [...] (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. > reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble. And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market. That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had.

mikeryan 3y ago
Your premise seems to be that they want Apple to sue them? That point is moot now.
Frivolous9421 3y ago
>CFAA violation for logging into your own iMessage account and using the service Not fucking likely
nicce 3y ago
> Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. The problem is that everything works through Apples private services, even if there is no DMCA things in the app. On top of that they are making business with that. Quite unfair use. What if I use Amazon’s private APIs for running my cloud. Even share it to others and charge even money from it?
- stuartjohnson12 3y ago

lxgr 3y ago

I think you might be right about Beeper not having any legal right to iMessage interoperability. On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps?

turquoisevar 3y ago
> On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps? Prefacing this by saying that I’m not privy to what, if anything, Apple is cooking up. But such a case isn’t something you cobble together in an afternoon. In my experience a lead time for something like this is at least about a month, a week if it’s urgent and less if it’s really urgent and you seek an injunction (and then you try to flesh it out afterwards). But ideally you want to take your time so you can discuss your strategy both internally with higher ups as well as with outside counsel, collect exhibits and draft up a solid initial filing. Part of these discussions is also what kind of exposure you’ll have during discovery. Apple for example genuinely believes that Masimo used Apple’s internal confidential documents that Masimo received during discovery in the California trial to create the competing W1 smartwatch. It could be that they’re weary of having to share more internal information, especially since so much has already come out during the last couple of years full of cases. Or wary that Beeper would learn more about the inner workings of iMessage. I wouldn’t characterize it as a high priority matter with urgency either because they seem able and effective in blocking Beeper, with little loss in device sales as a result. A lot of effort is going towards the Apple Watch issue with Masimo that prevents them from selling the newest models. Lastly, while only of minor importance, it’s slightly more beneficial for Apple if Beeper would sue them while they keep successfully blocking Beeper than Apple suing Beeper. All in all, it’s a lot of weighing pros and cons, even when you’re in the right. That’s one of the reason why there are so many settlements, because it often is cheaper, faster and easier than a whole trial.

rezonant 3y ago

Invoking the CFAA for messaging interoperability is a pretty dystopian take. If it were as open and shut as you think it is, then why didn't AOL use the CFAA against Microsoft for doing exactly what Beeper is doing in MSN Messenger?