| > They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access. Authorization in the legal sense of the CFAA is permission, plain and simple. The ToS and EULA explicitly only allow using the iMessage service on Apple hardware, so any other form without explicit permission by Apple is unauthorized. Spoofing device credentials to fool the server and gain an authentication blob definitely doesn’t fall under authorized access. But even with legitimately attained credentials you can still be in violation. Ex employees of a corporation, finding a device with credentials on it, etc. Whether they commit any further crime or not is irrelevant for criminal liability. > Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. The DMCA exception only applies to interoperability for legally acquired (e.g., licensed) software. But it doesn’t really matter but because ToS and license clauses that explicitly prohibit it overrule it, see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)[0] > Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble.
And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market.
That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had. This reads like a Gish gallop with a bunch of weak arguments that border fantasy. There is no “Apple in trouble” when it comes to iMessage and there are no signals. I don’t know where you get this from but I suggest seeking better sources on understanding legal standards and ramifications. 0: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d... |
In that case, breaking the ToS superceded the fact they were merely accessing public information.
The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are. I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference. I would love if Apple individually started suing their own customers though.