1992), is a U.S. legal case in which Atari Games engaged in copyright infringement by copying Nintendo's lock-out system, the 10NES.

Atari, after unsuccessful attempts to reverse engineer the lock-out system, obtained an unauthorized copy of the source code from the United States Copyright Office and used it to create its 10NES replica, the Rabbit.

"[1] Thus, Atari was denied the fair use exception to copyright infringement, due to the illicit way they obtained Nintendo's source code.

Several legal scholars have concluded that the main difference between the cases was that Atari had lied to obtain an unauthorized copy of Nintendo's code.

Legal scholars have argued that reverse engineering has since been curtailed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000, upsetting the balance established in the Atari and Accolade cases.

[7] In 1982, the number of Atari games on the market grew from under 100 to over 400 by the end of the year, and experts began to warn of an oversupply.

[10][11] To limit the flood of games that led to the 1983 crash as well as bootlegging problems seen in Asia, Nintendo created the proprietary 10NES system, a lockout chip that would only allow the NES to play a cartridge with an authorized "key".

[10] According to Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi, "Atari collapsed because they gave too much freedom to third-party developers and the market was swamped with rubbish games.

[24] In addition to complying with the 10NES lockout system, Atari agreed to a standard term where their games would be exclusive to Nintendo for two years.

[24] Nintendo responded in November 1989, counter-suing Atari for unfair competition, as well as infringing both its copyright and patent for its cartridge authentication system.

[24] The lawsuit finally reached a settlement in 1994, with Atari Games paying Nintendo for damages and use of several intellectual property licenses.

[29] Although Nintendo succeeded in court due to Atari's foul play, the company faced a trend of litigation over unfair business practices and other monopolistic behavior.

"[38] Intellectual property lawyer S. Gregory Boyd notes that copyright has a longer duration than patent protection, limiting all rivals who might copy their technology for the next century.

[39] Multiple legal scholars have criticized the 2000 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for upsetting the balance struck in the Atari and Accolade cases.

[40][41] In the Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Joe Linhoff criticized the DMCA for including anti-circumvention rules that make it impossible for competitors to create alternative compatible platforms.