Apple to pursue copyright claims against Corellium in appellate court

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2021
Apple on Tuesday filed a notice of appeal in its copyright infringement lawsuit against Corellium, a case that was partially settled last week.

Corellium


Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the notice appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit a final judgment entered into the docket earlier today regarding Apple's claims of copyright infringement.

Specifically, the appeal targets a summary judgment (now part of the final judgment) reached in December 2020. At the time, U.S. District Court Judge Rodney Smith ruled in favor of Corellium and against Apple on the tech giant's claims of direct infringement.

"Weighing all the necessary factors, the Court finds that Corellium has met its burden of establishing fair use. Thus, its use of iOS in connection with the Corellium Product is permissible," Judge Smith wrote in December.

Apple is able to appeal the ruling only as it relates to injunctive relief, leaving the door open for a ruling that would force Corellium to shut down its iOS and iTunes virtualization product.

A Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim carried forward and was scheduled to go to trial on Aug. 16, but both parties agreed to settle that portion of the case last week.

Apple's notice of appeal was first reported by Reuters.

Apple's lawsuit was originally filed in 2019 when the iPhone maker claimed Corellium's emulation products infringe on copyrights covering iOS, iTunes and other technologies. Corellium markets a set of virtualized versions of Apple's iPhone and other products to developers and security researchers, customers who license access to search for bugs, flaws and vulnerabilities.

Last week, Corellium COO Matt Tait took to Twitter to defend Apple's recently announced child sexual abuse material protections, arguing that potential expansion of the system through database modification -- a major concern for privacy advocates -- is an unlikely risk.

On Monday, the software company announced a new "Open Security Initiative" designed to help validate vendor security and privacy claims. The project aims in part to assist developers in the verification of Apple's CSAM system.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,469member
    One day after Corellium announces they will sponsor research into the new on-iPhone CSAM initiative and the security and privacy behind it? Huh. 
    elijahgxyzzy-xxx
  • Reply 2 of 12
    Is Apple being sincere or are they trying to hide things?
    xyzzy-xxx
  • Reply 3 of 12
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,168member
    centaur said:
    Is Apple being sincere or are they trying to hide things?
    This outfit is profiting off of Apple’s IP and not paying for it. Even if their intentions are good it’s still Apple’s IP.
    rob53viclauyycaderuttertycho_macuserStrangeDayswatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 4 of 12
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,701member
    lkrupp said:
    centaur said:
    Is Apple being sincere or are they trying to hide things?
    This outfit is profiting off of Apple’s IP and not paying for it. Even if their intentions are good it’s still Apple’s IP.
    and Apple is benefitting from their work. 
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingamelijahgxyzzy-xxxCloudTalkin
  • Reply 5 of 12
    gatorguy said:
    One day after Corellium announces they will sponsor research into the new on-iPhone CSAM initiative and the security and privacy behind it? Huh. 
    Still up to your usual bullshit.

    Apple is the one who has made it possible for third parties to do this research and perform audits on their CSAM system, not Corellium.

    Apple appealing this case does nothing to hamper the countless other researchers who will no doubt also be looking into how CSAM scanning works.

    The most reasonable explanation is there’s a time limit on the appeal or some other procedural
    matter that happened to coincide with this announcement. Or, more likely, Corelliums lawyers knew there was a deadline and made their announcement to coincide with it to try and make Apple look petty.

    But hey, you do you.


    Updated: Knew it. The final judgement was only just published today (December was a summary judgment) so the timing has nothing to do with Corellium and everything to do with the final judgement.
    edited August 2021 aderuttertycho_macuserlkruppwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 6 of 12
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    lkrupp said:
    centaur said:
    Is Apple being sincere or are they trying to hide things?
    This outfit is profiting off of Apple’s IP and not paying for it. Even if their intentions are good it’s still Apple’s IP.
    It's not at Apple's expense, in fact it's rather to Apple's benefit.  This hostile legal pursuit would be far better solved with a licensing agreement.
    xyzzy-xxx
  • Reply 7 of 12
    That's just mad ...
  • Reply 8 of 12
    MplsP said:
    lkrupp said:
    centaur said:
    Is Apple being sincere or are they trying to hide things?
    This outfit is profiting off of Apple’s IP and not paying for it. Even if their intentions are good it’s still Apple’s IP.
    and Apple is benefitting from their work. 
    Lol, ok.
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 12
    crowley said:
    lkrupp said:
    centaur said:
    Is Apple being sincere or are they trying to hide things?
    This outfit is profiting off of Apple’s IP and not paying for it. Even if their intentions are good it’s still Apple’s IP.
    It's not at Apple's expense, in fact it's rather to Apple's benefit.  This hostile legal pursuit would be far better solved with a licensing agreement.
    Umm… so when a company says: “want to try your product out on 100 iOS devices? cool. well, do NOT buy them from Apple for $600-$1k a pop… we have stolen their IP & can sell you 100 virtual iOS devices for like $10 a pop. since we didn’t pay them a penny, it’s 100% profit for us!”, that BENEFITS Apple??!!
    Sounds crazy to me… care to defend your assertion?
    lkruppStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 12
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,007member
    gatorguy said:
    One day after Corellium announces they will sponsor research into the new on-iPhone CSAM initiative and the security and privacy behind it? Huh. 
    There shouldn't have been much doubt that Apple was going to appeal the decision regarding its copyright claims.

    But even if there was such doubt, Apple indicated a couple of days ago in a different fling (i.e. its joint filing with Corellium stipulating to the dismissal of certain claims) that it was going to appeal the copyright claims decision. That filing asked the court to enter a final judgment so that Apple could file its notice of appeal.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,469member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    One day after Corellium announces they will sponsor research into the new on-iPhone CSAM initiative and the security and privacy behind it? Huh. 
    There shouldn't have been much doubt that Apple was going to appeal the decision regarding its copyright claims.

    But even if there was such doubt, Apple indicated a couple of days ago in a different fling (i.e. its joint filing with Corellium stipulating to the dismissal of certain claims) that it was going to appeal the copyright claims decision. That filing asked the court to enter a final judgment so that Apple could file its notice of appeal.
    I saw that this morning. More than one Apple-centric site indicated confusion about Apple seemingly backtracking on its settlement agreement announced a week ago.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/10/apple-drops-corellium-lawsuit/
    It wasn't until late yesterday that the other filings were published and became more widely known today. The picture is clearer now. 
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 12 of 12
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,007member
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    One day after Corellium announces they will sponsor research into the new on-iPhone CSAM initiative and the security and privacy behind it? Huh. 
    There shouldn't have been much doubt that Apple was going to appeal the decision regarding its copyright claims.

    But even if there was such doubt, Apple indicated a couple of days ago in a different fling (i.e. its joint filing with Corellium stipulating to the dismissal of certain claims) that it was going to appeal the copyright claims decision. That filing asked the court to enter a final judgment so that Apple could file its notice of appeal.
    I saw that this morning. More than one Apple-centric site indicated confusion about Apple seemingly backtracking on its settlement agreement announced last week. It wasn't until late yesterday that the other filings were published and became more widely known today.
    I saw the other filing a couple of days ago. A few days before that the court had, acting on its own initiative, ordered the parties to make such a filing. Regardless, I don't think it was ever likely that Apple wasn't going to appeal the copyright infringement decision. It has good reasons not to want to leave the court's fair use reasoning floating around  out there. Apple certainly wants something more definitive and more consistent with its own arguments on the issue, and for that it needs to file an appeal. It may lose; but that's a chance it's willing to take. To believe it wouldn't, I'd have had to seen an actual court filing in which it stipulated to a dismissal of the copyright infringement claims.

    I would add that, I've found that reporting on legal issues and legal processes is generally pretty poor. There are some legal blogs that do a good job. But reporting from most sites that aren't dedicated to legal issues just isn't very good. It often seems not to understand the crux of the legal issues, or gets important details wrong, or mischaracterizes reasoning or decisions or the implications thereof. That's not a criticism of particular sites, but of legal reporting in general. And often such reporting is largely  restatement of what other sites - e.g., Reuters or AP - have reported, where those other sites got stuff wrong, left out important details, or lacked fundamental insight. 
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.