ABSTRACT
In January, 1989, the European Community Commission issued a proposed directive that appeared to prohibit virtually all forms of reverse engineering. In response to Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association's and Software Publishers Association's lobbying activities, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) entered the fray. The CCIA represented the views of plug-compatible and open systems vendors such as Amdahl, Storage Technology Corporation, and Unisys. In response to Accolade's and CCIA's Section 102 argument, Sega v. Accolade contended that "Mince 'human perceptibility' is not a condition to copyright protection, 'human imperceptibility' cannot be a defense to infringement." Sega complained that Accolade was free riding on its extensive investment, but the Supreme Court had rejected the sweat-of-the-brow rationale for copyright protection. The Federal Circuit began its analysis of disassembly with a recital of the policy of copyright: granting authors exclusive rights in their expression to provide them with the incentive "to share their creative works with society.".
