[phire]

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, all this ruling means is that this example of an iOS virtual machine (for the purpose of security research) counts as fair use.

It doesn't exactly open the doors for everyone to run iOS in virtual machines.

[smoldesu]

From the ruling[0]:

> As to count one, we agree that Corellium is shielded by the fair use doctrine. First, Corellium’s virtualization software is transformative—it furthers scientific progress by allowing security research into important operating systems. Second, iOS is functional operating software that falls outside copyright’s core. Third, Corellium didn’t overhelp itself to Apple’s software. And fourth, Corellium’s product does not substantially harm the market for iOS or iOS derivatives—so Apple’s own incentive to innovate remains strong.

The important part here is that it proves Apple does not have the defacto right to claim infringement on iOS. If your emulator is transformative, offers functionality beyond default iOS, doesn't abuse their services and doesn't threaten the iOS market (eg. iPhones) it should be considered lawful. The interpretation is still open on the infringement of their wallpapers, icon and "contributory infringement", but this spells in pretty plain text that emulating iOS is fair game. Put another way, even a company that sells iOS emulators to hackers was found to not be in direct violation of Apple's iOS copyright.

[0] https://aboutblaw.com/7PK

[JimDabell]

All you are quoting is a description of how Corellium’s use qualifies as fair use, which is what the person responding to you said.

> The important part here is that it proves Apple does not have the defacto right to claim infringement on iOS. If your emulator is transformative, offers functionality beyond default iOS, doesn't abuse their services and doesn't threaten the iOS market (eg. iPhones) it should be considered lawful.

You are describing fair use. This isn’t establishing the precedent you think it is. Corellium said “hey, what we are doing is fair use” and the court agreed, describing why it was fair use. That’s all. The description of how it counts as fair use is not opening anything new up, that’s just the four factors of fair use that have been there all along.

[judge2020]

How did they determine that it didn't affect the iPhone market? As I understand it, companies definitely buy tons of iphones set up on docks next to workstations to ensure everyone in the office can work on ios apps on real hardware, since the ios simulators aren't always foolproof and don't consider handheld ux.

[smoldesu]

It looks like that's why they make the other two points - Corellium progresses common interests by advancing security research, and extends iOS with features Apple does not offer themselves.

This contention seems to rely on their third response, where they claim that Corellium hasn't "overhelped" themselves to copywritten material. This sorta makes sense - their reliance on Apple basically ends once they have the commercial iOS disk image. If they've proven that everything else was lawfully developed and reverse-engineered, it sounds like Corellium had a strong case on their hands.

[BoorishBears]

affect the iPhone market means affect Apple's ability to sell them in a meaningfully negative way. Companies buying extra hardware isn't that.

[Findecanor]

There has been at least one massive exploit that involved malware cloning Android phones to run a banking app in virtual machines on a server. Perhaps Apple just wants to prevent something similar happening with iOS.

(I edited this post, because I don't want to give any criminals reading this too many details.)