Apple owns copyrights in iOS, the operating system software used for Apple devices like the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch. Corellium offers a software platform called CORSEC that simulates various mobile device operating systems, including iOS, to enable mobile app developers to test the security and integration of their app software by mimicking how it will run on actual mobile devices. While iOS is designed to run on Apple devices, CORSEC simulates the iOS operating system on non-Apple hardware, such as a desktop computer. CORSEC takes iOS software that Apple makes available to the public for free, and modifies it to (1) enable it to run on non-Apple devices, and (2) add features useful for security research, such as a file browser and the ability to see and halt running processes. As a result, CORSEC provides app developers and security researchers with virtualization software that contains a mixture of Apple's code and Corellium's code, which displays the following user interface to CORSEC users:
Apple sued Corellium for infringement of Apple's copyright in the iOS software and in the icons and wallpapers that make up the graphical user interface displayed by iOS. At the district court, Corellium moved for summary judgment, arguing that its use of Apple's iOS was fair use. Focusing primarily on the claim of infringement of the iOS code, the district court agreed and granted summary judgment for Corellium; Apple appealed.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit (just ten days before the Supreme Court's blockbuster fair use opinion in Warhol v. Goldsmith) affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Corellium's use of iOS was protected by the fair use doctrine. In determining whether Corellium's use of iOS constituted fair use, the court evaluated the four factors laid out in 17 U.S.C. § 107: (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted work used; and (4) the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the original.
Under the first factor, the court held that Corellium's use of iOS was moderately transformative, because Corellium's software alters iOS by adding features that are not available on the iOS operating system, gives researchers the ability to examine and understand iOS or iOS-based applications in advanced new ways, and creates a virtual phone as opposed to a physical phone. Therefore, the court held that the first factor favors fair use.
Second, the court found that while iOS embodies a great deal of creativity, iOS is farther from the core of copyright than works like paintings, movies, and books. The court noted that iOS is primarily functional and is meant to run consumer electronic devices. Therefore, the court held that the second factor also favors fair use.
Third, the court found that Corellium's copying of iOS was in proportion to its purpose of providing security research products, because security research requires the use of the entire work to run a virtualization environment, and using any less would create a risk of vulnerabilities going undetected. In evaluating this factor, the court noted that Corellium's virtualized iOS did not offer core features that most users would want on their iOS devices, such as making phone calls, sending texts, taking photos, or downloading apps. Accordingly, the court found that Corellium's use of iOS was proportional and necessary to achieve Corellium's transformative purpose, and that the third factor also favors fair use.
Fourth, the court found that Corellium's product would not cause any substantial harm to iOS's market, because it makes for a poor substitute for iOS on a real iPhone. The court noted that customers of the Corellium product cannot make phone calls, send texts, take photos, navigate with GPS, connect to Bluetooth devices, or download apps from the App Store and that Corellium's use would, therefore, not cause any substantial harm to the iOS market. The court also found that Corellium's product does not substantially harm Apple's derivative market for security products, because Corellium's product "open[s] up the door for further research into operating systems" and thus has a "further purpose or different character" compared to Apple's iOS. Although Apple claimed that there is a market for iOS and iOS derivatives used for security research (and pointed to iOS security research tools that Apple itself offers), the court found that the Copyright Act does not give creators, like Apple, a monopoly over transformative (as opposed to merely derivative) uses of their works. Therefore, because there is no substantial harm to iOS's market or its derivative market, the fourth factor also favors fair use.
The court concluded that the fair use factors, weighed together, favor Corellium and therefore affirmed the district court's decision that Corellium had not infringed Apple's copyright in iOS.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Corellium Inc., No. 21-12835 (11thCir. May 8, 2023).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
