Editing Sega (section)

====Sega versus Accolade====
In 1992, Sega lost the [[wikipedia:Sega v. Accolade|Sega v. Accolade]] case, which involved independently produced software for the [[Sega Mega Drive]] console. Accolade had copied a small amount of Sega's code to achieve compatibility with the Mega Drive platform. The verdict set a precedent that copyrights do not extend to non-expressive content in software that a system requires to be present to run the software.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://cse.stanford.edu:80/class/cs201/projects-99-00/intellectual-property-law/reverse_engineering.htm |title=Reverse Engineering |work=Stanford University |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20030228235133/http://cse.stanford.edu:80/class/cs201/projects-99-00/intellectual-property-law/reverse_engineering.htm |archivedate=28 February 2003 |accessdate=4 August 2018}}</ref> The case in question stems from the nature of the console video game market. Hardware companies often sell their systems at or below cost and rely on other revenue streams such as in this case, game licensing. Sega was attempting to "lock out" game companies from making Mega Drive/Genesis games unless they paid Sega a fee (something its competition has done in the past). Their strategy was to make the hardware reject any cartridge that did not include a Sega trademark. If an unlicensed company included this trademark in their game, Sega could sue the company for trademark infringement. Though Sega lost this lawsuit, all later Sega systems seemed to incorporate a similar hardware requirement.