Apple Loses Lawsuit Against Corellium

Apple looses lawsuit

Apple Corellium Lawsuit

Corellium secures a huge legal decision against the iPhone manufacturer, Apple. Corellium is a security testing company that sued by Apple.

Apple Sued Corellium

A federal judge in Florida threw out Apple’s arguments that Corellium had breached copyright law with its software. Incidentally, it is the same Software that helps security researchers find vulnerabilities and security gaps in Apple’s devices. 

This is a major decision that has wide-reaching consequences for iPhone security research and copyright law.

The judge in the case ruled that the development of virtual iPhones by Corellium was not a breach of copyright. And the company intended to help improve the protection of all iPhone users with this method. For customers, Corellium was not producing a competing commodity. Instead, for a relatively limited number of clients, it was a research instrument.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment immediately. It also claimed that if the software fell into the wrong hands, the components of Corellium could be harmful because security bugs found by Corellium could be used to hack iPhones. 

Apple also argued that Corellium was indiscriminately selling its service, an argument that Corellium refused.

Brief History of Corellium

Amanda Gorton and Chris Wade co-founded Corellium back in 2017. The company offers its clients the ability to run virtual iPhones on desktop computers. 

The software of Corellium makes the use of physical iPhones containing advanced software to poke and prod iOS, the mobile operating system of Apple, unnecessary. According to court documents, Apple originally tried to purchase Corellium in 2018. 

Apple sued Corellium last year when the merger talks failed. Thereafter, arguing its virtual iPhones, which contain only the bare-bones functions required for security study, constitute a breach of copyright law. 

In order to build the software, Apple also alleged that Corellium circumvented Apple’s security controls, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That statement was not thrown out and may have another sitting in the court.

Exit mobile version