Are you a lawyer because Apple stopping third parties from using their service being in any way illegal sounds extremely hard to believe

> The CFAA prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization, but fails to define what “without authorization” means.

- From the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Other way around. If anything, it sounds to me like Beeper Mini was acting illegally by accessing Apple’s servers in a way they didn’t give permission for.

The CFAA is ripe for abuse. I’m not saying applying it here would be just or not, only that Apple likely wasn’t the one acting illegally.

I think that’s certainly an argument that Apple would make. However, it seems that this app was simply sending requests and receiving responses that there was no code injection or compromise of Apple servers, or of credentials, or anything of that sort.

Yes, they didn't violate the law as you think it ought to be written.

They may very well have violated the law as it is actually written.

It's also entirely possible that no law has been violated by anyone at all. What Beeper Mini did is probably not illegal. What Apple did in response is probably not illegal.

Not particularly relevant due to lawsuits involving game cheating, where the circumstances are very similar.

Beeper is lucky they weren't sued under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause, as they clearly were bypassing the technological measures Apple uses to prevent genuine devices from connecting to iMessage & Apple services.

The DMCA protects copyright, not APIs. If iMessage was a DVD then this would be a point.

I wonder if any of the encryption stuff Apple uses would give them an argument, like convincing their system to generate keys.

I think you’re likely right though. If they had such a claim I think their lawyers would have been on it instantly.

That’s why I mentioned the CFAA. Accessing servers without someone’s permission is the exact kind of thing people have gotten very stiff punishments for under the CFAA in the past. It’s basically the main reason I know the law exists, stories about peoples ridiculous punishments for relatively benign things.

Sure it’s useful for real things. I bet you can prosecute ransom under it. Or hacking to break into a rival company.

But it’s also great for when someone embarrasses a politician with stuff that they published on their own website and “something has to be done”.

Wouldn’t it be the users, rather than Beeper Mini, that are doing the accessing?

Beeper mini includes a hosted service to receive APNS notifications (meant for Apple software)

So I would summarize it as the corporate entity connecting to an Apple API and using it in undocumented ways that they reverse engineered, intercepting messages meant only for Apple software, doing so without prior permission, for purpose to selling access to services which would normally be covered by an Apple EULA.

It is not quite like a smaller word processor wanting to be able to import Word documents - without tying into Apple's service, Beeper Mini has zero value.

That’s fair, but compare it to SMS. What if Apple blocked SMS messages sent via cellular carriers, which are also using their services (software on phones, etc.) Then suppose it wasn’t malicious SMS or spam, but legitimate messages sent using a competitor’s product (e.g. from all Samsung phones).

There's a bunch of reasons why this is unlikely to be tortious interference, but one of the obvious ones is the contractual Terms & Conditions that apply between Apple and its users; I doubt Beeper is liable here, but if interference was a thing, my bet (not a lawyer!) is that the liability would point the other direction.

My read of GP's comment was that the claim of tortious interference would be by Beeper against Apple (for interfering with Beeper's relationship with Beeper's customers).

Apple is not preventing anyone from downloading beeper, or giving beeper money, or running beeper software. They are exercising control over their own servers.

My understanding of tortious interference is that it is broader than actually preventing others from using a service. Even just saying things to dissuade them from doing business with a company can qualify.

Really weird that a disinterested third party like Apple would even make loud public statements about Beeper.

Blocking interpretability could be illegal, especially as they near market dominance

iMessage is nowhere near market dominance. As evidenced by the ease of use and popularity of alternatives such as SMS/Whatsapp/Signal/Wechat/etc

I agree. The obsession with "blue bubbles" is something I only hear about from tech writers. No one I communicate with in the real world has ever mentioned it. Supposedly teenagers care about this, but that seems like a poor basis for anti-trust action.

At the same time, I miss the era of rich third party client ecosystems for things like AIM or MSN messenger. Blocking interoperability is a bummer for innovation.

>Supposedly teenagers care about this,

Android vs iPhone is definitely a thing people in their 20s and 30s even use to judge others. I have polled quite a few family/friends, and it is near unanimous that it is a dealbreaker in dating, mostly because they assume there is a higher likelihood they will not mesh with the type of person the non iPhone user is.

>but that seems like a poor basis for anti-trust action.

Correct.

Apple would claim that you pay for the iMessage service as part of the purchase price of hardware and software. From this perspective it's not blocking interoperability, it's blocking theft.

Whether that argument holds is for governments and courts to decide, ultimately.

Yes. And I'm saying, were this a live issue (I don't think it is), the graver liability might be for Beeper interfering with Apple's contracts with its users.

In what way would Beeper's action cause Apple's customers to breach a contract with Apple? I would think most of the people who would purchase a service like this would be Android users, not iPhone users. Some of them might own Macs, but what would be the contract that the user would be breaching that would result in damage to Apple?

If they're "just Android users", they don't have iMessage accounts.

So your thinking is that these end-users have signed some sort of agreement with Apple, and that agreement says they won't use any unauthorized services to connect to Apple servers, or some such thing?

That's not "my thinking" so much as it is a fact.

If it’s a fact then it should be no trouble to share the relevant provision.

I was sharing that theory as a conjecture, since I have no reason to believe such a provision exists.

There’s certainly a contract there, but it’s not obvious how a customers compliance the terms and obligations create a profit for Apple. I think most outside observers would generally assume that Apple‘s profits come from the payments the customers make to Apple, when purchasing devices or making subscriptions. After all, the only people subject to, and breaching the terms of service are Apple customers who did pay for their phones, etc..

In a California interference case, Apple would need to prove:

1. An enforceable contract existed (check!)

2. Beeper knew about the contract (check!)

3. Beeper's actions intentionally caused a breach of that contract (check!)

4. An actual breach of Apple's Terms & Conditions occurred

5. Apple had damages

None of those elements have much to do with profit.

How are you going to make a case for tortious interference when the would be interferee is profiting by using the interferer’s resources without payment?

From beepers website, there’s no use of apples servers when iMessages are sent from a beeper user to a beeper user. Rather, they only pass through Apple when sent to an iPhone user and in that case it’s the iPhone user that’s utilizing apples resources. And in that case there’s an Apple device owner, who is paid for the right to use iMessage servers.

Well, obviously, if those messages aren't using Apple's servers, then Apple hasn't stopped them, so there's no interference.

Wow that’s a hell of a stretch, but A+ for effort I guess. By that logic, they’re only stealing 50% of Apple’s iMessage resources for iPhone users.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted – IAAL and this is definitely something worth considering. This particular type of law varies from state to state, and can be quite broad. I've talked with other lawyers about it in the past, and my understanding is that it's frequently asserted when companies make counterclaims in business litigation.

That doesn't mean it's a sure winner, just that it's a live question until more info is known. I imagine Apple would say they need to tighten up any parts of their system that could allow for spoofing or other security issues, and that was their 'legitimate' reason to make these changes.

I’m not a lawyer, but I do know how computers work. I’d bet the farm on the very safe assumption that any protocol change that blocks a third-party client at the very least can plausibly be claimed to be in service of security, and most likely be a legitimate claim in reality. It is probably being downvoted because it’s incredibly far-fetched.

I agree that this would be their argument. But as other commenters mention, this area could be a minefield for Apple due to their dominance in various markets. It's possible they wouldn't want to get sucked into a lawsuit about this, even if they thought they could win, since they might end up making statements that would have a larger detrimental effects in other cases/potential cases.

I think most or all states recognize that the defendant’s actions must not be justified or privileged. It’s hard to imagine how Beeper would meet that element on these facts.

Maybe (or maybe not) plausible, but I think it's irrelevant, because there's no way a small company like Beeper could beat Apple's lawyers at this game. It will end up bankrupting Beeper long before it would even matter.

This is unfortunate, but not untrue. Even just going through discovery on this issue would be quite expensive — and would be critical to proving Beeper's case.

That's like getting upset after getting bad dating advice from a vending machine.