Apple accused of using copyright law to harm security industry
Back in August, Apple filed a lawsuit against Corellium, a virtualization company that allows developers and researchers to use virtualized instances of iOS in a web browser. Apple accused Corellium of copyright infringement for illegally replicating the iOS operating system and its applications.
“Corellium serves up what it touts as a perfect digital facsimile of a broad range of Apple's market-leading devices–recreating with fastidious attention to detail not just the way the operating system and applications appear visually to bona fide purchasers, but also the underlying computer code. Corellium does so with no license or permission from Apple” reads the lawsuit.Corellium uses virtualization to help researchers identify security risks in software.
On October 29, Corellium responded saying that their use of Apple's code constitutes fair use and in fact supports the iOS ecosystem by making it easier for researchers to identify vulnerabilities. They also claimed that Apple owes them $300,000 for identified security bugs.
Daniel Cuthbert, head of cybersecurity research at Santander bank, said that his team used Corellium to test the bank’s apps on different iOS versions. “The real power and strength of Corellium is that it helps people write better apps by distributing and testing them in an automated fashion that doesn't depend on physical devices,” Cuthbert said. “Apple is hurting the business world more than they think.”
桑坦德银行(Santander bank)网络安全研究主管丹尼尔·卡斯伯特(Daniel Cuthbert)表示，他的团队使用Corellium在不同的iOS版本上测试了银行的应用程序。“Corellium的真正强大之处在于，它以不依赖于物理设备的自动化方式分配和测试应用程序，帮助人们编写更好的应用程序，”卡斯伯特说。“苹果对商界的伤害比他们想象的要大。”
On November 7, Corellium published a statement addressing the lawsuit. “This comes as a surprise to our team, given our long-standing relationship with Apple. Apple has been aware of our ground-breaking technology since the company was founded, and at any point in the past two years, Apple could have notified us of their concerns. We think Apple’s lawsuit is driven by its own business interests rather than a genuine belief that we violated any of its rights,” reads the statement.
Critics argue that Apple is shutting down independent security research for profit motives. iOS developer Jamie Bishop tweeted about Apple's latest filing, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent: “It effectively will set a precedent which makes unsanctioned research of Apple products ILLEGAL.
Department of Justice, United States Patent and Trademark Office, and National Institute of Standards and Technology Announce Joint Policy Statement on Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents
The Justice Department, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued a joint policy Statement regarding the treatment of standard-essential patents (SEP) where the patent holder has agreed to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (F/RAND) terms. This Statement replaces the 2013 policy statement on SEP remedies issued jointly by the Department of Justice and USPTO.
“Consistent with Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, our patent system rewards inventors with an exclusive right to practice their inventions for a limited time,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Today’s Policy Statement recognizes that when licensing negotiations fail, appropriate remedies for patent infringement, including injunctive relief, should be available to SEP holders. The availability of the full range of remedies is necessary in order to preserve competition and incentives for innovation, and for continued participation in standards-setting activities, which can produce substantial benefits for American consumers.”
To this end, the Statement clarifies that a patent owner’s promise to license a patent on F/RAND terms is not a bar to obtaining any particular remedy, including injunctive relief. The agencies make clear that no “special set of legal rules” apply to SEPs, and the courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and other decision makers are able to assess appropriate remedies based on current law and relevant facts. According to the Statement, “The particular F/RAND commitment made by a patent owner, the [standard development organization’s] intellectual property policies, and the individual circumstances of licensing negotiations between patent owners and implementers all may be relevant in determining remedies for infringing a standards-essential patent, depending on the circumstances of each case.”
为此，声明澄清，专利所有人承诺按F/RAND条款许可专利并不妨碍获得任何特定救济，包括禁令救济。这些机构明确表示，没有“一套特别的法律规则”适用于SEPs，法院、美国国际贸易委员会(U.S. International Trade Commission)和其他决策者能够根据现行法律和相关事实评估适当的补救措施。根据声明,“根据个案情况，在决定标准必要专利侵权救济时，专利所有者做出的特定的F/RAND承诺,标准开发组织制定的知识产权政策,和专利持有者和实施者之间的许可谈判的情况，这些都可能成为相关的考虑因素。”
The Statement follows the Justice Department’s withdrawal from the 2013 SEP policy statement, which had been construed incorrectly as suggesting that special remedies applied to SEPs and that seeking an injunction or exclusion order could potentially harm competition.
Singapore Joins Locarno Agreement as 58th Member
Singapore has joined the Locarno Agreement as the 58th member of the international classification system for industrial designs.WIPO Director General Francis Gurry on December 19, 2019, received Singapore’s instrument of accession to the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Singapore to the World Trade Organization and World Intellectual Property Organization, Hung Seng Tan. The Locarno Agreement will enter into force in Singapore on March 19, 2020.
新加坡加入了《洛迦诺协定》，成为工业品外观设计国际分类体系的第58个成员。世界知识产权组织总干事 Francis Gurry 于2019年12月19日收到了新加坡常驻世界贸易组织和世界知识产权组织代表洪森丹提交的新加坡加入《洛迦诺协定》的文书，该协定确立了工业品外观设计国际分类。《洛迦诺协定》将于2020年3月19日在新加坡生效。
About the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs
The Locarno Agreement establishes a classification for industrial designs (the Locarno Classification). Intellectual property offices indicate in official documents and publications relating to the deposit or registration of industrial designs the numbers of the classes and subclasses of the Classification into which the goods that constitute the industrial designs belong.
The Locarno Classification comprises:
•A list of classes and subclasses;
•An alphabetical list of goods which constitute industrial designs, with an indication of the classes and subclasses into which they fall;