US senators have urged the DOJ to probe Apple’s alleged anti-competitive conduct against Beeper.

  • ben
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Genuinely curious, what’s the law against reverse engineering an API? I can maybe see the argument for charging for the service, but beeper mini is planning to integrate other services as well so I don’t know if that’ll really hold water.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      They can reverse engineer it and run it as their own service with their own infrastructure. But that doesn’t mean they can then start accessing Apple’s implementation and using Apple’s resources without permission.

      • ben
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        If they function identically to a normal client though what’s the issue? As an example Google indexes pages all over the web without the explicit permission of those websites, that requires them to read the page and make requests to someone else’s infrastructure.

        What part exactly here is illegal?

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The websites in question getting crawled and indexed are generally open and available for anyone to browse. There are parts of the web that are gated off and require authentication and authorization to access. Imagine now that Google found a way to authenticate as you with your bank’s website and index your online banking portal. (It’s not a perfect analogy to what’s happening with Beeper, but I’m just using the one you laid out.)

          In a similar way, iMessage as a service requires authentication and authorization to use. It is not open for anyone to use. Beeper is doing something to spoof or otherwise fool Apple into giving the client access. This is the part that’s illegal. And potentially not just “file a lawsuit” illegal but criminally so.

          It doesn’t really matter why Apple doesn’t want Beeper or anyone else to use it. The fact that they simply don’t is all that matters.

      • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        What do you think an API is? They have reverse engineered the iMessage API and are using that to connect to the iMessage servers. It is literally impossible to do as you suggest (use entirely their own resources) because iMessage is centralized and cannot federate with any other server, even if one did exist.

        • paraphrand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They are saying they could run their own competing iMessage.

          Of course that’s not Beeper’s goal. But in this conversation, that was the point being made.

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          They have reverse engineered the iMessage API

          Yes, this part is legal and fine.

          and are using that to connect to the iMessage servers.

          This is not allowed because Apple doesn’t want to allow it. They own the infrastructure serving the API, they get to determine who is authorized to use it. They can block whoever they want. And technically speaking, using it in an unauthorized manner could even rise to the level of a criminal violation of the CFAA.

          It is literally impossible to do as you suggest (use entirely their own resources) because iMessage is centralized and cannot federate with any other server, even if one did exist.

          Partially correct. It is not impossible to do as I suggested, because I never suggested that they should have interoperability with iMessage.