Editing Reverse engineering vs illegal hacking (section)

===What counts as legal reverse engineering===

The U.S. legal system has repeatedly upheld the right to reverse engineer in certain contexts, particularly when the intent is to enable interoperability or understand how something works. Notable court decisions include:

*'''Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.''' (1992): The Ninth Circuit ruled that disassembling code to understand how to make compatible software was fair use.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) |url=https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/segaenters-accolade-9thcir1992.pdf}}</ref>

*'''Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.''' (2000): The court affirmed that reverse engineering to create a competing product (a PlayStation emulator) was legal & transformative.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.,
203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000 |url=https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/sony-connectix-9thcir2000.pdf}}</ref>

*'''Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components''' (2004): The Sixth Circuit ruled that Static Control could reverse engineer printer firmware to enable third-party toner cartridges. The court pointed out that interoperability trumped DMCA anti-circumvention claims.<ref name="lexmark">[[wikipedia:Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc.|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc.]]</ref>

*'''Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies''' (2004): The Federal Circuit held that creating universal garage door remotes through reverse engineering was legitimate, establishing that DMCA violations must connect to actual copyright infringement.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The CHAMBERLAIN GROUP,
INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant–Appellee.
No. 04–1118.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit |url=https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Chamberlain_Group_v_Skylink_Technologies.pdf}}</ref>

*'''DSC Communications v. DGI Technologies''' (1995): Courts held that disassembling firmware to create compatible microprocessor cards constituted fair use, establishing that functional elements accessed only through disassembly can be lawfully copied.<ref>{{Cite web |title=DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 1183 (N.D. Tex. 1995) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/898/1183/1464449/}}</ref>

*'''Assessment Technologies v. WIREdata''' (2003): The Seventh Circuit ruled that reverse engineering to access public domain data trapped within copyrighted software is permissible, preventing copyright from creating "locks" on non-copyrightable information.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Assessment Technologies of Wi, Llc, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Wiredata, Inc., Defendant-appellant, 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/350/640/625754/}}</ref>

Legal reverse engineering generally includes:
*Analyzing software you own for repair or maintenance
*Studying protocols to make devices work with third-party tools
*Extracting firmware from your own hardware
*Building alternate apps that communicate with your devices
*Publishing technical findings that don't contain copyrighted code
*Good faith security research under DMCA exemptions