What was the main legal question in Sega v. Accolade?

Whether copying code to understand unprotected functional elements—through reverse engineering—can be fair use under Section 107.

Did the court allow reverse engineering?

Yes. If disassembly is the only way to access unprotected elements and the goal is legitimate, the use can be fair.

Which fair use factors were important here?

Purpose (competitive interoperability), nature of software (contains functional elements), amount copied (entire program, but necessary), and market effect (limited).

Was Accolade’s purpose considered exploitative?

No. The court saw it as a legitimate attempt to compete by making compatible games, not to pirate Sega’s expression.

Why is this case still cited?

It supports fair use for reverse engineering to achieve interoperability—key for software, consoles, and modern APIs.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

301

Sega Enterprises, Inc. v. Accolade, Inc. (1992) – Fair Use & Reverse Engineering Explained

Sega Enterprises, Inc. v. Accolade, Inc. (1992)

Fair use and reverse engineering for software interoperability, explained in easy English.

Ninth Circuit (US) 1992 977 F.2d 1510 Copyright · Fair Use 6–8 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 2025-11-01

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

CASE_TITLE

Sega Enterprises, Inc. v. Accolade, Inc. (1992)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS

Sega v Accolade, fair use, reverse engineering, software interoperability

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: copyright disassembly, Section 107, market effect, Ninth Circuit

Quick Summary

This case is about fair use and reverse engineering. Accolade copied Sega’s object code, converted it to source code, learned how Sega’s system worked, and then wrote its own code so its games could run on Sega consoles. The Ninth Circuit said this could be fair use because the goal was interoperability, not piracy.

The court weighed all four Section 107 factors and found that copying was justified to reach unprotected functional elements that cannot be studied without disassembly.

Issues

Does reverse engineering that involves copying code to understand unprotected functional elements qualify as fair use?

Rules

Fair Use (17 U.S.C. § 107): purpose and character of use, nature of the work, amount used, and market effect.
If disassembly is the only way to access unprotected parts and the goal is legitimate (e.g., interoperability), copying can be fair.
Software contains functional elements; protection is lower than for pure literary works when function and ideas are intertwined.

Facts (Timeline)

Citation: 977 F.2d 1510

Sega’s Platform

Sega made consoles and games.

Accolade’s Goal

Accolade developed its own games and wanted them to run on Sega consoles.

Reverse Engineering

Accolade copied object code and converted it to source code to learn functional elements needed for compatibility.

District Court

Injunction against Accolade: stop publishing and recall existing games.

Appeal

Accolade appealed to the Ninth Circuit, claiming fair use.

Arguments

Appellant (Accolade)

Copying was intermediate and necessary to access unprotected elements.
Purpose was interoperability, a legitimate, non-exploitative goal.
Market harm was limited; gamers buy multiple titles.

Respondent (Sega)

Complete disassembly copied the entire program, weighing against fair use.
Copying risks substituting Sega’s market and control over its platform.
Reverse engineering skirts the protections of copyright.

Judgment

The Ninth Circuit held that when disassembly is the only practical way to reach unprotected functional elements and the purpose is justified, the copying can be fair use.

Purpose/Character: Competitive but legitimate—seeking compatibility, not exploitation.
Nature: Software mixes expression with function; protection is lower for functional parts.
Amount: Entire program was copied, but that step was necessary to learn the unprotected elements.
Market Effect: Limited. Gamers buy many titles; interoperability expands options.

Ratio

If reverse engineering is necessary to access unprotected functional elements and the aim is legitimate (like interoperability), intermediate copying can be fair use.

Why It Matters

Supports interoperability and competition in software and gaming.
Clarifies fair use for intermediate copying during reverse engineering.
Influences how courts see functional elements inside copyrightable software.

Key Takeaways

Reverse Engineering

Copying can be allowed when it is the only way to study unprotected functional elements.

Interoperability

A legitimate goal that supports fair use analysis.

Section 107

All four factors are weighed; necessity matters.

Market Effect

Limited harm where consumers typically buy multiple compatible titles.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “FIT-M” — Functional elements · Interoperability aim · Temporary copying · Market effect limited.

Spot the Goal: Is the purpose compatibility, not cloning?
Check Necessity: Is disassembly the only way to reach unprotected parts?
Weigh §107: Purpose, nature, amount (necessary), and market impact.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is reverse engineering that copies code to reach unprotected functional elements a fair use?

Rule

Apply Section 107’s four factors to intermediate copying for interoperability.

Application

Accolade’s purpose was legitimate; software has functional elements; complete copying was necessary; market harm limited.

Conclusion

Intermediate copying for interoperability can be fair use; Accolade prevails on fair use.

Glossary

Reverse Engineering: Studying a product to learn how it works. Here, disassembling object code to understand functional elements.
Interoperability: Making different systems or programs work together, like a third-party game on a console.
Intermediate Copying: Copying not for distribution, but as a step to study or transform, often considered in fair use analysis.
Functional Elements: Parts that perform tasks or operations; not protected like pure expression.

FAQs

It copied Sega’s object code, converted it to source code, studied the system’s unprotected functions, and then wrote its own compatible code.

Because copying the whole program was necessary to reach unprotected elements. The court treated it as intermediate copying for a legitimate aim.

No. The court said the harm was limited because consumers typically buy multiple game titles, not just one.

Necessity + legitimacy drive the result: if reverse engineering is needed for interoperability and not exploitation, fair use is possible.

```

Comment

Nothing for now