But you’ve failed to draw the parallel here between Apple and their intellectual property being reverse engineered by a third party who’s motivations remain unknown, and Beeper who bought the reverse engineering code/process from that third party for the purpose of interoperability. Which I believe I said before but perhaps wasn’t clear about. Proving in court that the original engineer of this exploit did so for the purposes of interoperability, or if the intent was to make money will seemingly be between Apple, the courts, and that entity.
Apple device users are subject to the EULA. Beeper and their customers may or may not be depending on if they are Apple device users. There is some gray area here as far as the messaging because my understanding based on the articles I have read is that Beeper is calling their App “Beeper Mini”, and are simply marketing it as what it is. A way for Android users to interface with Apple iMessage users. They aren’t calling it iMessage for Android. They are calling it Beeper Mini. That being said, the tagline is “iMessage on Android” and yes it does bill itself as enabling Android users to send and receive imessages. The important thing to note here is they go on to say that it’s a stand alone app built to send and receive “blue bubble messages” on Android. They don’t claim it’s an apple product, just that it works with apple products (I’m reading directly from their website here).
The reflection in news sources isn’t the greatest point to be made specifically because news outlets have a history of creating taglines, nicknames and nomenclature for things that the original entity behind the story has no real say in. Serial killers are a good example. News networks are notorious for naming serial killers despite law enforcement avoiding giving them monikers like “golden state killer” etc.
I agree with you that Beeper is implementing a paid system and that this was always the intention. I believe I said that as well in my original statement. However I’m still trying to connect the dots as to how Apple has grounds against Beeper specifically. Surely they may potentially have grounds against the original exploiter. But against Beeper? Have they actually stolen Apple’s intellectual property?
I wouldn’t know a lot of things about Apple if I didn’t occasionally peruse communities like this one. There is only so much context you can get from Android users (even people who use both, or neither) about Apple products. I wouldn’t for instance understand why the original Beeper was such a big deal to some Apple users, until someone explained in a different thread that they like being able to answer messages from their work phone or work station (not an apple product), throughout their work day. I’ve worked in places where cell phones were absolutely not allowed, so I could see how this could be a big deal.
There is no ”parallel” to draw here. The fact of the matter is that Beeper reverse engineered a proprietary protocol and then charged money for a solution offering a feature that’s typically exclusive to Apple’s hardware. The original engineer is irrelevant here as he relinquished all ownership rights to his code to Beeper as part of their sales agreement, so from the courts’ perspective Beeper is the one that did the reverse engineering (because they own the rights to that code).
Beeper and their customers may or may not be Apple users
There is no “gray area” here either. The way Beeper Mini was able to send iMessages is by fabricating the identity of a fake Apple device on Apple’s servers. Even if the device is fake, under the agreement of the EULA this is still an “Apple device” that is being used. This is the same for Beeper Mini’s subscribers who had to register their phone numbers with iMessage — the only way to do that is with an already validated Apple device. As users of Apple’s services through a validated Apple device, they fall under the terms of the EULA.
Of course, that’s if we outright ignore the problem of the Apple device being fake. Circumventing device identity verification with a forged identity is a clear violation of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act); this fact alone also makes the DMCA’s exemptions completely void.
This isn’t the case with something like Hackintosh, where its owners still purchased Apple hardware and software and thus are fully entitled to use them as they see fit. Android users purchased no Apple hardware, no Apple software, and are exploiting Apple’s servers through a fake Apple device.
There is no way you can reasonably spin “faking an Apple device’s identity” to be anything related to interoperability. The whole thing was able to work because it successfully fooled Apple into thinking it was talking to a real Apple device — like a hacker breaking into a company’s servers because they injected the right malicious code to make the servers think they had the right authorization.
The reflection in news sources…
is precisely because Beeper marketed their app and brand to give you “blue bubbles on Android.” “Blue bubbles” is a term well established in the common public to mean “iMessage.” The subscription agreement straight up states that subscribers can send iMessages from an Android device as one of the features of that subscription. The general public perceived the app as “iMessage for Android;” there is seriously no contention here to be made.
You even state in the previous paragraph that Beeper’s own tagline for their app is “iMessage on Android” and then immediately contradict yourself by saying news outlets make up random taglines, despite them pulling those words straight from Beeper themselves.
They are using iMessage to bolster their Beeper brand. That is copyright infringement.
Have they actually stolen Apple’s intellectual property?
Yes. They purchased all ownership rights to an iMessage implementation and are the proper legal owners of it. Combine that with the fact that a reverse engineered implementation of a proprietary service produces code that looks very similar to the original code, and that they keep marketing this app as bringing an Apple-exclusive feature to Android… you have yourself a crystal clear case of copyright infringement.
But you’ve failed to draw the parallel here between Apple and their intellectual property being reverse engineered by a third party who’s motivations remain unknown, and Beeper who bought the reverse engineering code/process from that third party for the purpose of interoperability. Which I believe I said before but perhaps wasn’t clear about. Proving in court that the original engineer of this exploit did so for the purposes of interoperability, or if the intent was to make money will seemingly be between Apple, the courts, and that entity.
Apple device users are subject to the EULA. Beeper and their customers may or may not be depending on if they are Apple device users. There is some gray area here as far as the messaging because my understanding based on the articles I have read is that Beeper is calling their App “Beeper Mini”, and are simply marketing it as what it is. A way for Android users to interface with Apple iMessage users. They aren’t calling it iMessage for Android. They are calling it Beeper Mini. That being said, the tagline is “iMessage on Android” and yes it does bill itself as enabling Android users to send and receive imessages. The important thing to note here is they go on to say that it’s a stand alone app built to send and receive “blue bubble messages” on Android. They don’t claim it’s an apple product, just that it works with apple products (I’m reading directly from their website here).
The reflection in news sources isn’t the greatest point to be made specifically because news outlets have a history of creating taglines, nicknames and nomenclature for things that the original entity behind the story has no real say in. Serial killers are a good example. News networks are notorious for naming serial killers despite law enforcement avoiding giving them monikers like “golden state killer” etc.
I agree with you that Beeper is implementing a paid system and that this was always the intention. I believe I said that as well in my original statement. However I’m still trying to connect the dots as to how Apple has grounds against Beeper specifically. Surely they may potentially have grounds against the original exploiter. But against Beeper? Have they actually stolen Apple’s intellectual property?
I wouldn’t know a lot of things about Apple if I didn’t occasionally peruse communities like this one. There is only so much context you can get from Android users (even people who use both, or neither) about Apple products. I wouldn’t for instance understand why the original Beeper was such a big deal to some Apple users, until someone explained in a different thread that they like being able to answer messages from their work phone or work station (not an apple product), throughout their work day. I’ve worked in places where cell phones were absolutely not allowed, so I could see how this could be a big deal.
There is no ”parallel” to draw here. The fact of the matter is that Beeper reverse engineered a proprietary protocol and then charged money for a solution offering a feature that’s typically exclusive to Apple’s hardware. The original engineer is irrelevant here as he relinquished all ownership rights to his code to Beeper as part of their sales agreement, so from the courts’ perspective Beeper is the one that did the reverse engineering (because they own the rights to that code).
There is no “gray area” here either. The way Beeper Mini was able to send iMessages is by fabricating the identity of a fake Apple device on Apple’s servers. Even if the device is fake, under the agreement of the EULA this is still an “Apple device” that is being used. This is the same for Beeper Mini’s subscribers who had to register their phone numbers with iMessage — the only way to do that is with an already validated Apple device. As users of Apple’s services through a validated Apple device, they fall under the terms of the EULA.
Of course, that’s if we outright ignore the problem of the Apple device being fake. Circumventing device identity verification with a forged identity is a clear violation of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act); this fact alone also makes the DMCA’s exemptions completely void.
This isn’t the case with something like Hackintosh, where its owners still purchased Apple hardware and software and thus are fully entitled to use them as they see fit. Android users purchased no Apple hardware, no Apple software, and are exploiting Apple’s servers through a fake Apple device.
There is no way you can reasonably spin “faking an Apple device’s identity” to be anything related to interoperability. The whole thing was able to work because it successfully fooled Apple into thinking it was talking to a real Apple device — like a hacker breaking into a company’s servers because they injected the right malicious code to make the servers think they had the right authorization.
is precisely because Beeper marketed their app and brand to give you “blue bubbles on Android.” “Blue bubbles” is a term well established in the common public to mean “iMessage.” The subscription agreement straight up states that subscribers can send iMessages from an Android device as one of the features of that subscription. The general public perceived the app as “iMessage for Android;” there is seriously no contention here to be made.
You even state in the previous paragraph that Beeper’s own tagline for their app is “iMessage on Android” and then immediately contradict yourself by saying news outlets make up random taglines, despite them pulling those words straight from Beeper themselves.
They are using iMessage to bolster their Beeper brand. That is copyright infringement.
Yes. They purchased all ownership rights to an iMessage implementation and are the proper legal owners of it. Combine that with the fact that a reverse engineered implementation of a proprietary service produces code that looks very similar to the original code, and that they keep marketing this app as bringing an Apple-exclusive feature to Android… you have yourself a crystal clear case of copyright infringement.