CORPRES TE001 Group 1 Case 3 Accolade Versus Sega

Crispo, Mikos Gangaramani, Hiren Si, Patricia Zhou, Yuan Yuan

Group 1

Case Study #3

“Accolade versus Sega”

TE001

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, and the Marxist theory of private property). Which of these views do you most agree with and which do you think is most appropriate for this case? 2. Do you agree that Accolade had “really stolen” Sega’s property? Explain why or why not. We agree that Accolade really stole Sega’s property. Based from how the case described the security features and codes that Sega had developed, it is most likely not accessible by other companies. Sega developed it that way that it was not like the interface standards that different companies usually agree on. When Accolade decided to reverse engineer Sega's Genesis and decompiled several games they already crossed the line. They stole information so they could market their own games. 3. In your judgment, did Accolade go too far in trying to discover the underlying source code of Sega’s programs? Does a company have aright to reserve engineer any product it wants?

Yes, Accolade, Inc. did go too far in that trying to discover Sega's program source

codes,

but

without

Sega's

consent,

the

company

reverse

engineered/disassembled Sega's game programs to obtain the source codes that would make their game programs work on "Genesis". Sega's new console. By reverse engineering Sega's copyrighted "secret codes", Accolade violated Sega's intellectual property right. Companies can reverse engineer products only if the product owner permits them to do so, since some

products have intellectual property rights like copyrights, trademarks, and patents Unauthorized disassembly or reverse engineering of these patented and copyrighted products may be a breach of law. The company doesn't have the right that in reverse engineering any product it wants because in the first place it’s not their product so they need a license or some kind of an agreement that will not prohibit them from doing so called “Reverse Engineering”. It is a violation as to the right to property and no one shall steal it. We think it will be best if the two companies worked together and contributed to the society, instead of bringing lawsuit for its own benefits. If they worked together as one it will be more productive and it is a win-win.