[Nextgrid]

Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit.

However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions.

If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.

[JumpCrisscross]

This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.

[Nextgrid]

I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit.

However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom.

If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.

[JumpCrisscross]

Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.

[Nextgrid]

Fair enough. I'm obviously just speculating here and my knowledge of the US legal system is hearsay.

However, it seems that Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple, and lots of media coverage over the issue) without any lawyers being involved.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple

Media attention, yes. Policy support, no.

[Nextgrid]

Wouldn't this count: https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/beeper-mini-broken-antitrust/ ?

[GeekyBear]

> I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here.

Beeper could definitely be prosecuted by the Feds.

Aaron Swartz is probably the most famous example of someone being prosecuted using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was merely accessing a web server without permission and wasn't even trying to turn a profit.

[lxgr]

The question is: Would they really?

There are many instances of "adversarial interoperability" (somebody else already mentioned screen scraping of online banking for budget management tools already in a different thread), and I haven't seen the CFAA being thrown at the responsible parties all that often.

I'd be quite curious to see precedent being set here, but I doubt it'll happen. Apple has much more to lose than to gain from that:

They can play cat and mouse on the tech side as long as they want, but with all the attention and scrutiny of a lawsuit, I could see a small chance of Apple ending up having to open up their service for interoperability.

[GeekyBear]

> The question is: Would they really?

If they're willing to prosecute some kid who wasn't even trying to make a profit off of his access to a web server, why wouldn't they prosecute a company for trying to sell hacked access to someone else's servers?

Also, there have been many prosecutions under this law. Aaron's case is just the most infamous example.

[prmoustache]

This is totally different.

Beeper is trying to use an api to send message to users. They are not getting nor trying to get shell access to apple servers.