Federal judge dismisses Apple's claims that mobile device virtualization company Corellium violated copyright law with its software to run iOS on PCs

Corellium helps customers find bugs in Apple's mobile operating system. Apple aimed to shut it down. — Corellium, a security research firm sued …

Washington Post 2020-12-30 Reed Albergotti

Context & Ripple Effects

Apple’s 2019 suit alleged that Corellium unlawfully replicated iOS and Apple apps through its virtual-device software. The dismissal rejects that effort to use copyright claims to stop a tool Corellium markets for security testing.

The ruling became the central legal turning point in the dispute: a later appeals-court decision upheld the rejection of Apple’s claims, before the parties reached a settlement over the 2019 case.

First-order effects

Corellium can continue offering its virtual iOS environment to security-research customers without Apple’s copyright claims shutting down the product at this stage.
Apple loses its immediate copyright-law route for blocking Corellium’s iOS simulation software.

Second-order effects

Security researchers retain access to a commercial iOS testing environment, reducing Apple’s ability to control which third parties can simulate its operating system for bug finding.
Apple’s litigation strategy faces a higher bar against virtualization vendors; the later appellate affirmation reinforces the lower-court outcome.

Third-order effects

The dispute establishes a durable fault line between platform owners’ control of proprietary software and security vendors’ use of virtualized environments for research, with copyright claims offering limited leverage when the use is found transformative.
The eventual settlement suggests that commercial terms, rather than a definitive shutdown through copyright litigation, may become the practical way such conflicts are resolved.

The trend: Security-testing vendors are pressing for room to virtualize closed platforms, while platform owners seek narrower ways to retain control over their software ecosystems.

Discussion

@migueldeicaza Miguel de Icaza on x
The natural next step: Amazon offer iOS on the cloud, and you can remote login to your secured iOS devices on your cloud. I am surprised by the ruling, but it opens a whole new world of businesses out there (both monetizing iOS and monetizing all sorts of other software) https://…
@reedalbergotti Reed Albergotti on x
This just in: @CorelliumHQ wins its copyright battle against Apple, a pretty surprising defeat in what was a very David v Goliath battle. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
Apple losing the Corellium case just highlights how tough it's going to be to argue their case vs antitrust action, Epic Games, Cydia and whatever else pops up next year. There are many things Apple (and its pundits) assume to be true that just won't survive scrutiny
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
Oh wow. Federal judge throws out Apple's copyright infringement claim against @CorelliumHQ, referring to some of Apple's claims as “puzzling, if not disingenuous”. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@josephfcox Joseph Cox on x
Chris Wade, cofounder of iOS virtualization company Corellium, pardoned by Trump https://www.whitehouse.gov/... https://twitter.com/...
@lorenzofb Lorenzo on x
Turns out step 4 was to win a legal case against Apple. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@lanceulanoff Lance Ulanoff on x
Wonder if Apple's next step will be to find a way to make such bare bones iPhone virtualization impossible https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@zackwhittaker Zack Whittaker on x
“This is a very positive signal demonstrating that it may not be so easy for Apple to try to bully those who do things that Apple does not approve of.” — @chronic https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@0xcharlie Charlie Miller on x
This is good news but apparently there is still a criminal case pending https://twitter.com/...
@lorenzofb Lorenzo on x
Unlikely startup success story: Step 1: Build your product in part by using stolen iPhone prototypes that make it easier to reverse engineer iOS. Step 2: Get sued by Apple for copyright infringement. Step 3: Win a Forbes award. Step 4: 🤔 https://www.vice.com/... https://twitter.c…
@padresj Fr. Robert R. Ballecer on x
The weirdest part of this lawsuit is that Apple claimed users of the emulation should have been legally bound to report any bugs they find to Apple. In other words, Apple wanted the users of another company's software to work for Apple... For free. 🤔 https://www.reuters.com/...
@msuiche @msuiche on x
Congratulations to @CorelliumHQ for demonstrating that even if you get sued by a $2Tn company when you are just a startup you can still win. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@osxreverser @osxreverser on x
Apple just increased the price they will have to pay for Corellium if they really want to put it out (assuming DMCA case doesn't create trouble). Genius move! 😂😂😂😂 😂😂
@gartenberg Michael Gartenberg on x
Pretty big loss for Apple in terms of what it could open up in the future. But this is just round one. https://www.theverge.com/...
@ifenixx @ifenixx on x
Apple has lost their legal battle against Corellium! https://twitter.com/...
@grhmc Graham Christensen on x
@pwnallthethings This has long prevented people from visualizing macOS on standard PC hardware. I guess it applies there, too?
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
Now just need SCOTUS to push Oracle's similarly obnoxious “Making software that is API-compatible with ours is actually copyright infringement” assertion through a shredder and then life will be grand.
@emtgray Mark Gray on x
For those watching the Apple v. Corellium copyright case, the district court issued a summary judgment opinion today. The court found fair use applied to Apple's copyright claims, but the DMCA circumvention claim will go to trial. Order: https://www.courtlistener.com/ ... https:/…
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
DMCA claim survives summary judgment stage. So that's still a thing. But the copyright claim trying to exclude binary emulation from fair use was, despite less press (DMCA has a bad rep), equally if not more alarming.
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
And if the logical conclusion of your lawsuit is Windows being a terms of service change away from overnight bankrupting VMware to force everyone to use Azure, and turning security testing of compiled binaries into lawsuits, then sorry, your lawsuit is bad and you should feel bad
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
Might as well have backronym-ed “AFL” to “automatic federal lawsuit” in that scenario. Was such a dangerously broad claim.
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
This is a big deal for security research in particular, but also other parts of tech. Apple's case was an insanely broad assertion that emulating iOS firmware on something that's not Apple's own hardware violates iOS copyright, rather than covered by “fair use”.
@pwnallthethings @pwnallthethings on x
Imagine if that argument had prevailed. That emulation of a binary, even for wildly different purposes, such as security testing that binary, is a litigable copyright infringement.

Chronicles