750 Words For Kim Woods

Accolade vs Sega

1. Analyze this case from the perspective of each of the theories of private property described in this chapter (i.e., from the perspective of Locke’s theory of private property, the utilitarian theory of private property, and the marxist theory of private property). Which of these views do you most agree with and which do you think is more appropriate to this case?

a. From the perspective of Locke’s theory of private property: John Locke Natural Rights Theory says that an action is correct from a moral point of view if it respects the natural rights of human beings. In reference to Accolade versus Sega, it is apparent that the right of the Sega labors that produces the codes for the game were deprived of his or her knowledge. Accolade had trespassed Sega’s private property rights since their (Sega Company) labors were the one who created the device and software. Therefore, Sega had the right to own their copyright of its new genesis console and intellectual property. When Accolade copied or cracked the code without Sega’s permission, they were violating the Sega’s natural property rights. This obviously leads to conclusion that Accolade had infringed upon Sega’s private property rights.

 

b. From the perspective of Utilitarian theory of private property: The Utilitarianism Theory, the which states an action, is correct from a moral point of view if the sum total of benefits produced by the action are greater than the sum total of benefits produced by any other action that could have been performed in its place. In this case, Sega would lose incentive to create new ideas beneficial to the marketplace but it was morally acceptable to Accolade to get hold of the code. By Sega keeping the code, they would have formed a monopoly on games that are compatible with the Sega Genesis system. A monopoly in any market as we know does not conform to any of the moral theories. Therefore, by Accolade infiltrating the market they were Able to create competition in the market by creating an oligopoly (a market dominated by a small number of participants who are Able to Collectively exert control over supply and market). From this, we can conclude that the sum benefits would exceed the burdens from Accolade's action. The benefits in this case greatly outweigh the downside of the decision.

 

c. From the perspective of Marxist Theory of private property: This theory states an action is correct from a moral point of view if it involves similarly treating individuals who are Similar in relevant respects and dissimilarly individuals who are dissimilar in relevant respects in proportion to Reviews their dissimilarity. The question that needs to be answered will be, is the action will lead to a distribution of benefits and burdens? When Comparing Accolade and Sega as Similar companies in markets the answer is yes for a few reasons.

For Accolade and Sega both have the artistic burden of coming up with ideas to produce games, and both will be compensated equally if the market system holds true. However when it comes to the code it self, Accolade probably spent just as much time and effort paying its engineers to reserve the secret code as Sega spent time and effort in creating the secret code for the Genesis system. In conclusion, it seems that Sega actually gains more benefit from its added sale of the system on top of Reviews their games while Accolade only receives revenues games, making this action morally acceptable.

Based from our point of view, the most suitable theory for this case is utilitarian property of rights because this theory leads to advancing the economy through perfect competition. They change the monopoly situation that created by Sega company become oligopoly situation. Therefore, in the end of this case, We think the decision from the court to overturn the earlier decision and being essentially agreed with Accolade.

2. Do you agree that Accolade had “really stolen” Sega’s property? Explain why or why not.

From our point of view, we see that Accolade really stole Sega’s property. We have several reasons that will prove our argument: 1) Sega had not been given Accolade a license to make games for its consoles, and Sega got no profit from sales of Accolade’s games.  2) Sega had made a special private security codes for its game and they already put many effort on it, but unfortunately Accolade decided to reverse engineer

“Genesis” which already passed the barrier. We can see that the reason Sega create “Genesis” at the first place, is to eliminate the uses of other games that is not created by Sega. It is more like Sega wants to have more privacy on their product, since Accolade gives no income to Sega.  

Those several activities listed above are not really unethical in business environment. However, Sega’s also do some things that unethical from make code in the Genesis that only work if using Sega’s games because Accolade only make games for Sega’s console and the code will make Accolade have no income or in other word kill the business if all people tend to use Genesis not the old version of Sega’s console that can work on Accolade’s games.  

Based on the article, it is said that many engineers believe that reverse engineering, particularly decompiling, is inherently unethical. However, if we look further, what Accolade did actually have a big impact on Sega’s selling performance of Genesis. Accolade reverse engineering of Sega’s Genesis securities code in order for the Accolade’s games to able to be played with Genesis console. Thus, people tend to buy Genesis and the code itself is public interface. So in conclusion did not really stole Sega’s property since it has benefits for Sega itself as long Accolade not make any games that same as Sega’s games.  

3. In your judgement, did accolade go too far in trying to discover the underlying source code of Sega’s programs? Does a company have a right to reverse engineer any product it wants?

In our judgement, Accolade not goes too far in trying to discover the underlying source code of Sega’s programs for Sega’s console called Genesis, as long accolade not make any game that same as Sega’s game. Reverse engineering that Accolade does for discovered Sega’s new console code actually can increase Genesis sells because Accolade only make games for only Sega’s Console. Because Genesis sells to public and use by public so Genesis code can call as public interface because the code is the only things that can make a game access or can be use the console and that is why the code is cannot have copyright.  

Base on J. Reinhart wrote, Accolade raises four arguments in support of its position that disassembly of the object code in a copyrighted computer program does not constitute copyright infringement or we can call reserve engineering. First, it maintains that intermediate copying does not infringe the exclusive rights granted to copyright owners in section 106 of the Copyright Act unless the end product of the copying is substantially similar to the copyrighted work. Second, it argues that disassembly of object code in order to gain an understanding of the ideas and functional concepts embodied in the code is lawful under section 102 of the copyright Act, which exempts ideas and functional concepts from copyright protection. Third, it suggests that disassembly is authorized by section 117 of the copyright Act, which entitles the lawful owner of a copy of a computer program to load the program into a computer. Fourth Accolade contends that disassembly of object code in order to gain an understanding of the ideas and functional concepts embodied in the code is a fair use that is privileged by section 107 of the copyright Act.

Base on our knowledge and our point of view, company have a right to reverse engineer any product it wants as long not violate any international or they country act or regulation. Somehow reverse engineering can help company to develop their product, but as far as I know reverse engineering can legal if the product that the company made process of the production and part not exactly same as the product that have been reverse engineered.  

In this case such as reverse engineering can be used if the a system required interface another system or system have a requirements that make the system cannot use that system. Reserve engineering also can do for improve documentation shortcomings, obscene, software modernization, product security analysis, bug fixing, creation of unlicensed or unapprove product, academic and learning purposes, competitive technical intelligence, saving money, and repurposing.

Base on United States of America Copyright Act, section 103 on F part about Reverse Engineering states: 1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion

of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. 2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. 3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section. 4) For purposes of this subsection, the term interoperability means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

And base on EU Directive 2009/24, on the legal protection of computer programs, governs reverse engineering in the European Union. The directive on number 15 states: The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of it is form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited

circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the right holder. An objective of this exception is to make it is possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program.