I would not say the EEA is "obviously un-applicable". As rayiner noted, it is a subtle matter of phrasing in the law. When Congress updated the letter of the l

I would not say the EEA is "obviously un-applicable". As rayiner noted, it is a subtle matter of phrasing in the law. When Congress updated the letter of the law they merely rephrased "included in a product that is produced for or placed in", which the court found to be not applicable to code not directly sold on the market, to "a product or service used in or intended for use in".[1] I'm not sure how well that one paragraph in an Internet forum summarizes it, but that's literally the only change that Congress made to declare his actions illegal (should they happen again). And it was at the behest of the judge who overturned the conviction, who specifically noted a problem with the phrasing of the law while noting that he fully expected Congress meant to include these actions in the criminal code. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051