Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisMarshallNY | Hacker News Reader

The article seems a bit shrill.

I can understand advocacy, but as lostgame says, Corellium is basically riding Apple's coattails.

If they were helping Apple, then I doubt Apple would be suing them.

I understand the way that Apple thinks on this. It isn't "bullying." It's brand protection. I worked for years for a corporation with a legendary brand, and they went to great lengths to protect the integrity of that brand.

Part of protecting the integrity is to prevent others from diluting it; even if what they do is net positive, monetarily, it may damage the brand. A company that values its brand can't let that happen.

Branding is a very different world from what most tecchies do. The priorities are drastically different, and a lot harder to "pin down."

A well-curated brand can be unbelievably valuable, though. Apple's brand is one of the top five brands in the world.

View on HN

> If they were helping Apple, then I doubt Apple would be suing them.

I think it's pretty telling that Apple tried to acquire them, but only decided to sue them after their offer was rejected. Seems like Apple really does like their product, and thinks people would find it useful, and is just sore they can't have full control over it.

Get the suit underway, then make a new buyout offer, this time for a lot less $$$...

I think that would definitely make a case for an anti-slapp case against apple if they did that. Trying to buy, then suing already seems to make it look like a slapp suit.

Making an offer to buy the company can actually help apple if their suit continues.

> If they were helping Apple, then I doubt Apple would be suing them.

There are a number of security researchers who use Corellium to find bugs in iOS. Corellium themselves have submitted vulnerabilities using Apple’s bug bounty program.

Corellium may have developed an excellent product technically, and they might be selling a useful service, but they still infringed Apple's intellectual property.

It's up to Apple to decide if they want to make a virtualized iOS available for security researchers on the web.

How exactly did they infringe on Apple’s property? Does VirtualBox get in trouble if you run pirated Windows on it?

They run virtualised iOS for you without having licensed it from Apple.

From what I can tell, Corellium heavily modifies iOS. Parallels and whatnot run unmodified Mac (not i)OS.

That’s pretty hairy stuff. Technically cool, but definitely sketchy.

> Corellium heavily modifies iOS. Parallels and whatnot run unmodified Mac (not i)OS.

Not quite. The optional "modifications" are pretty much the small byte patches in the kernel and bootloader which are normally done in a jailbreak. It is similar to how "Parallels Tools" is automatically loaded; Not entirely required, but makes the experience better.

If that’s the only way you can pirate Windows, then I think Microsoft would definitely go after them.

Corellium isn’t really a piracy product. Think of it like an emulator that you can load ROMs into.

Since when does VirtualBox crack Windows for you?

This isn’t really “cracking” iOS, getting it to boot is more providing it with the hardware and services it needs to start up. Some people have gotten quite far just by patching qemu.

Did you read the Apple filing? They specifically claim that corellium patches their licensing mechanisms.

Perhaps they’re wrong, but I doubt that they’d lie.

If you can get a working ISO, virtualbox will run it. Hardware doesn't tend to care what's running on it, virtualized hardware is no different.

What is your point?

Are they selling an iOS virtualization software or a virtual IOS instance ? If the later then the analogy isn’t accurate if the former then I suppose you are correct (if the compatibility laws override the iOS license)

Edit people in the rest of the thread are saying that a modified iOS is provided by them

As far as I know, Corellium has hardware to boot an iOS image you provide and will provide you access to it. Some commenters have mentioned that Corellium downloads the image for you but I’m currently weighing it against hearsay from people who used it previously.

I’ve used it and at the time it would download the IPSW for you. I’m not sure if there was an option to use your own IPSWs. Also, it is important to note that they would charge you for different features so being able to use your own IPSWs could circumvent this pricing model. Of course their boot loader could enforce Apple signing policy but then it would only be able to run Apple code.

I haven't read Apple's complaint, but from TFA, it doesn't appear that Corellium is being sued for distributing an unauthorized derivative work of iOS, but for violating the DMCA's prohibition against breaking digital locks.

So whether or not they're unlawfully redistributing iOS is irrelevant to the case. The DMCA crap is the interesting bit. And if Apple decides to sue for simple copyright infringement, Corellium could turn their product into bring-your-own-IPSW, with instructions/patches/whatever to modify the image so it'll run on their emulator.

Well jailbreaking is also breaking digital locks.

As for the copyright thing, yes, they could ask the user to upload the ipsw (but still i don't see the difference between user doing it and them doing it, it'll end up in the same place), but there would be no need for modification instructions. Modifications are done dynamically, they're not pre-applied into a custom ipsw.

It's the user that chooses if they want Android or iOS and which versions of them. Corellium downloads the firmwares from the official sources, in this case apple.com. Modifications are applied dynamically. Jailbreaks modify iOS, they don't distribute a modified iOS. Same thing with Corellium. It modifies iOS after downloading it from apple.com.

It still baffles me how so many technical people in the US use Apple products despite all of this.

False beliefs about privacy, security, and speed combined with outdated beliefs about usability.

Then there's a lot of stuff that isn't obvious, on the surface. Maybe some back-channel negotiations fell through, or they did the whole "Ask forgiveness; not permission" thing about something. Just because Guy Kawasaki used to say it, doesn't mean that Apple still rolls that way.

I'll bet this isn't just about IP. I strongly suspect that it's about the brand.

If the rumors that Corellium is working with governments and shady people looking for bugs, apple is likely trying to squash and damage that market for security sake. They probably tried to just buy them as the easier path, and then they get all the companies financial records to review for damage control. Suits at least stop the company.

Cool, but an alternative will probably be made in the following months or wreks from the ashes of Corellium if you're correct, except that it won't be public this time, and they might not ever know about it. Security wise, that's the worst move they could do.

If it's about the brand and not the IP, then Apple would be abusing copyright, no?

Would you be opposed to companies like MongoDB or ElasticCo suing Amazon for reselling their products as a service when they explicitly said it was against their license?

Nope, if it’s upheld the license is legit.

Same reason I don’t fault Apple for suing companies who make products to run iOS / MacOS on non-Apple hardware.

> If they were helping Apple, then I doubt Apple would be suing them.

A company or person doesn't have to be helping some other corporation increase profits to be morally or legally in the clear. iFixit also isn't helping Apple, that doesn't mean 3rd party repairs should be illegal. In fact, whether they're hurting or helping Apple should be entirely immaterial.

Why should “public interest” and a judge in the case take someone’s BRAND issues into account? If that’s the case, doesn’t that prove that it has nothing to do with dmca and copyright issues?

> If they were helping Apple, then I doubt Apple would be suing them.

They're helping their security but damaging their reputation. (Corellium makes finding bugs and developing jailbreaks easier. People exposing bugs will make other clueless people think iOS's security is bad, therefore damaging Apple's reputation). Apple chose to keep their reputation because who cares about security when everyone thinks security is good?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com