Changes

Mainly as In the United States, the Ninth District Court ruled in favor of emulation several times. They originally established the legality of competing software products in [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/593285/sega-enterprises-ltd-a-japanese-corporation-v-accolade-inc-a result / Sega v. Accolade], which was about console-compatible cartridges having to make use of two United States landmark casesa trademark they were not licensed to use. In that case, they found Sega at fault for misusing their trademark to limit competition. The code to use it is was considered functional in nature and could not be considered legal to reverse engineer copyrighted if it granted Accolade's cartridges access and emulate any thus interoperability. Reproducing the functionality of a systemis a matter of ''patent'' law, not copyright. More specifically <blockquote>''"If disassembly of copyrighted object code is per se an unfair use, there the owner of the copyright gains a de facto monopoly over the functional aspects of his work--aspects that were rulings which allowed commercial emulators expressly denied copyright protection by Congress. '''In order to profitenjoy a lawful monopoly over the idea or functional principle underlying a work, the creator of the work must satisfy the more stringent standards imposed by the patent laws. Sega does not hold a patent on the Genesis console. Two commercial '''"''</blockquote> A key distinction about competition as a matter of copyright law said: <blockquote>''"[[PlaystationAn]] emulators: [attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine."''</blockquote> These two factors were similarly upheld in [wikipediahttps:Bleem!|Bleem//www.courtlistener.com/opinion/767633/sony-computer-entertainment-inc-a-japanese-corporation-sony-computer/ Sony v. Connectix], which was about the researching of the PlayStation's BIOS to create an emulator that didn't need one. <blockquote>''"[Because] the Virtual Game Station is transformative, and [[wikipedia:Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station|Connectix does not merely supplant the PlayStation console, the Virtual Game Stationis a legitimate competitor in the market for platforms on which Sony and Sony-licensed games can be played. [...]] allowed Sony understandably seeks control over the ability to market for devices that play ps1 games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly."''</blockquote> <blockquote>''"If Sony wishes to obtain a lawful monopoly on pcthe functional concepts in its software, it must satisfy the more stringent standards of the patent laws. This Sony has not done."''</blockquote> Shortly after this decision, the [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/768996/sony-computer-entertainment-america-inc-a-delaware-corporation-v-bleem/ Sony v. Bleem] case evaluated whether using video game screenshots to market the emulator was considered copyright infringement. Bleem's use was considered fair, something as the screenshots were beneficial in helping users understand the emulator being compatible with the games themselves. <blockquote>''"Although Bleem is most certainly copying Sony didn't like s copyrighted material for the commercial purposes of increasing its own sales, such comparative advertising redounds greatly to the purchasing public's benefit with very little corresponding loss to the sound integrity ofSony's copyrighted material."''</blockquote> Additionally, and were sued by the perceived market impact that using the screenshots would have on Sony was considered a non-issue. <blockquote>''"Bleem's use of a handful of screen shots in its advertising will have no noticeable effect on Sony's ability to do with its screen shots what it chooses. If sales of Sony around consoles drop, it will be due to the early 2000Bleem emulator'stechnical superiority over the PlayStation console, not because Bleem used screen shots to illustrate that comparison. "''</blockquote> The results led caveat was that, had it been possible to modern legal standards regarding emulation as of todayavoid it, Bleem should've done so.  <!--blockquote>''"We are persuaded by the need fact checkfor Bleem to impose minimally upon Sony's copyright with respect to these screen shots because there is no other way to create a truly accurate comparison for the user."''</source--blockquote>