Sample Legal Abstract Publication:Ars Technica Author: John Brodkin Date: August 16, 2019 Title: Apple Sues Company That Sells “Perfect Replicas” of iOS Without a License” URL:...

Sample Legal Abstract Publication:Ars Technica Author:John Brodkin Date:August 16, 2019 Title:Apple Sues Company That Sells “Perfect Replicas” of iOS Without a License” URL:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/apple-sues-virtual-iphone-vendor-that-helps-hackers-find-ios-bugs/ Copy of Apple’s original lawsuit (PDF) available: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634.1.0.pdf Amended filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/441298959/Apple-Versus-Corellium-Amended-Filing Facts Corellium is a company that sells access to virtual machines that run copies of iOS. .Corellium offers access to these copies of iOS via a cloud service and through private installations on a customer's premises. The private installations cost $1 million per year. According to Apple, Corellium does so without license or permission from Apple. Plaintiff’s Claim Direct and contributory copyright infringement. Defendant’s Claim No answer as of date of article publication. Issue of Law Can Corellium qualify for Apple’s assertion that it does not pursue good faith security research for violations of its copyrights? Does Corellium have any defense to Apple’s claims of direct and contributory copyright infringement? Apple notes that, copyright notwithstanding, it is committed to security research, and that it has never pursued legal action against a security researcher. Apple offers up to $1 million per security report to researchers through its bug bounty programs. Apple has also announced that it will provide custom versions of the iPhone to legitimate security researchers to allow them to conduct research on Apple devices and software. According to Apple, Corellium makes no effort to confine use of its product to good-faith research and testing of iOS. Apple claims that Corellium “ is indiscriminately marketing the Corellium Apple Product to any customer …[and] Corellium is not selectively limiting its customers to only those with some socially beneficial purpose and/or those who promise to use Apple's copyrighted works, through the Corellium Apple Product, only in lawful ways …”. Additionally, Apple notes that the current case is not a question of whether only certain portions of the copyrighted works have been infringed upon, because Corellium explicitly markets its product as one that allows the creation of "virtual" Apple devices. Applicable Law Direct copyright infringement – computer programs and graphical user interface elements - 17 U.S.C. § 501 Contributory copyright infringement- 17 U.S.C. § 501 Amended complaint – Circumvention of copyright protection systems - 17 U.S.C. § 1201 Holding None yet Impact on IT Although this is a copyright infringement case, it has serious implications for cybersecurity because the product in question is marketed to anyone — including including foreign governments and commercial enterprises — for any purpose whatsoever. Apple’s amended complaint asserts that Corellium’s product is primarily designed to circumvent copyright as described in Section 1201 of the DMCA. Critics of the lawsuit claim that this invocation of Section 1201 is an abusive attempt to stifle competition and security research. Sample Legal Abstract Publication: Insurance Journal Author: Jonathan Stempel Date: October 6, 2020 Title: ‘Judge Orders Cisco to Pay $1.9 Billion in Cyber security Patent Lawsuit’ URL: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/10/06/585432.htm Copy of the original law suit filed by centripetal Networks Inc, Virginia, available at, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2018cv00094/383474/202/ Amended filing: N/A Facts Cisco systems Inc is into cyber security solutions and is pioneer in the cyber security solutions in the global scale. As of now the centripetal networks Inc has sued on Cisco Systems over the infringement of its intelligent network security solutions. More Threat intelligence software and firewall hardware to protect cyber networks solutions of Centripetal Networks Inc were subjected to breach and copied by Cisco systems updates and they were floated as their own technical solutions. This is the issue of concern and the Centripetal networks Inc of Virginia sued over the Cisco for the compensation for the losses incurred due to the malpractice of Cisco. Plaintiff’s Claim Plaintiff Centripetal network Systems Inc claimed that there is direct infringement of the intelligent property rights. Defendant’s Claim Defendant claimed that all the technical solutions stated in the legal focus are their own properties and they were developed by indigenous experts of Cisco systems Inc. Issue of Law The issue is whether the Cisco Systems do qualify for the allegation of the Centripetal networks Inc, whether there is genuine violation of the intelligent rights of the Centripetal Networks Inc? Is there is any evidence for the same? Whether the Cisco Systems does have any defense to protect their own stand in the issue? If Cisco does not stand for the defense and if could not able to prove its genuinity, then it is obviously liable for the breach and so will be subjected to the legal actions in accordance with the provisions for the copyright infringement. The defendant claimed that the disputed terms in the context of the proxy system, generation based on one or more rules over the case, correlations based on the plurality of the log entries, dynamic security policies, and the in the context of configuration are in vain and the plaintiff’s claims of litigation of the breach of the infringement are just not feasible and applicable. The total patents claimed to have been breached by Cisco include patent 205, 806 patent, 176 patent, 193 patent and the 856 patent as well. However the court ruled that the claims of the plaintiff in about 4 different patents are valid and they did breached the security intelligence patent rights and the issues is an infringement and Cisco is accountable for total 4 patent issues in the current context. Cisco claimed that all of its patents were genuine and all its network device solutions are free of any infringement. However after critical evaluation and professional insights, the court ruled that preponderance of evidence is existing in each of the claims in the patents of 856, 176, 493 and 806. However with respect to the patent 206, the court ruled that there is no any infringement of the copy rights and there is no any evidence supporting the claim. Applicable Law Direct copyright infringement – computer programs and graphical user interface elements - 17 U.S.C. § 501 Holding Including prejudgment interest and Injunction, court ruled that there is total compensation of $1,903,239,287.50 to be paid by Cisco to the centripetal systems Inc. Impact on IT The decision from the trial court is a recent decision however the amount of compensation being sentenced is about to create a strong discipline and caution in the Cyber network systems. Cisco Inc is not totally satisfied with the court decisions and indicated that the said patents are already brainchild of Cisco innovations several years ahead of these claims. It is more likely that the Cisco Systems will go for the appeal over the court ruling. However still the court ruling has set a warning that it is not going to be an easy walkthrough for those organizations who do breach the infringements in the coming years.