Not sure why you think HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn is relevant here?
The facts of that case are not analogous to the matter at hand.
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn primarily deals with scraping publicly available data and the definition of "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA. And to a lesser degree selectively banning competitors. ToS violation was a generic argument and not the contentious part.
Meanwhile Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. is current standing law on reverse engineering clauses in ToS and EULAs, while the matter at hand has nothing to do with publicly accessible data, no exceeding of authorized access and no data scraping.
> The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are.
That would be Beeper, no question about it. They had to agree to the OS license agreement that prohibits reverse engineering and the ToS for Apple Media Services that also prohibit reverse engineering, before they could get to the parts that needed the reverse engineering they did.
The users didn’t do any reverse engineering, although they would be in violation of the terms that state iMessage (and other Apple services and software) is only licensed to be used on Apple devices.
But that’s small fry in comparison to reverse engineering, repackaging and reselling Apple’s service without a license to do so.
> I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference.
Tortious interference has more to do with affecting a relationship you’re not a party to.
This is more of an intentional tort, like conversion, although in this instance that would be more of a “side-dish” claim.
After all why go through that trouble and prove damages when you’ve got more suitable options with statutory damages.
The facts of that case are not analogous to the matter at hand.
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn primarily deals with scraping publicly available data and the definition of "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA. And to a lesser degree selectively banning competitors. ToS violation was a generic argument and not the contentious part.
Meanwhile Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. is current standing law on reverse engineering clauses in ToS and EULAs, while the matter at hand has nothing to do with publicly accessible data, no exceeding of authorized access and no data scraping.
> The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are.
That would be Beeper, no question about it. They had to agree to the OS license agreement that prohibits reverse engineering and the ToS for Apple Media Services that also prohibit reverse engineering, before they could get to the parts that needed the reverse engineering they did.
The users didn’t do any reverse engineering, although they would be in violation of the terms that state iMessage (and other Apple services and software) is only licensed to be used on Apple devices. But that’s small fry in comparison to reverse engineering, repackaging and reselling Apple’s service without a license to do so.
> I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference.
Tortious interference has more to do with affecting a relationship you’re not a party to. This is more of an intentional tort, like conversion, although in this instance that would be more of a “side-dish” claim.
After all why go through that trouble and prove damages when you’ve got more suitable options with statutory damages.