Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubatuga | Hacker News Reader

Truly a jaw dropping blog post, as the top comment currently states, Apple may be legally required to at the very least, comment on this situation.

View on HN

> Apple may be legally required to at the very least, comment on this situation.

"Required" to comment? By whom and for what reason?

Sending a cease and desist to Cellebrite for shipping their DLLs in their product I imagine.

Obviously there may be some backchannel, but that is probably how it would go if you assume Apple and Cellebrite have no relationship.

They could send such a C&D, and they may be inclined to for the sake of public perception, but what would "legally require" them to do so?

If they ignore cellebrite using their stuff they may have waived their right to be upset about someone else doing the same thing.

Copyright law isn't the same thing as Trademark law. Copyrights don't expire because the rightsholder failed to enforce their rights, only trademarks do.

Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit.

The principles of laches may still apply and provide a defence for Cellebrite if Apple makes an "unreasonable delay".

Would they have a relationship? Cellebrite is an ant to Apple. Why would Apple risk credibility and security by helping them?

Because Apple cares a lot about their security, and the perception of security, and they have a lot of lawyers with nasty teeth. Using stolen unlicensed Apple technology to hack people's iOS devices is like eating a bear cub in front of mama bear.

>"Required" to comment? By whom and for what reason?

By stockowners who might not like their valuable IP used in this way or by this company without permission?

Don't confuse the thing where a company has to defend its trademarks to keep them with copyrights (which do not require active defense to maintain).

This, if Apple does pursue it, is a copyright matter, not trademark.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com