stand for the proposition that any form of copyright infringement is privileged as long as it is done as part of an effort to explore the operation of a product that uses copyrighted software.” DSC Communications Corp. v. Pulse Communications, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed.Cir.1999). Where the accused infringer’s copying is part of the ordinary operation of the accused product, fair use does not apply. Id.; see also Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc. 902 F.2d 829, 843-45 (11th Cir.1990) (affirming grant of summary judgment of infringement in favor of the plaintiffs and holding that the defendant’s copying of the plaintiffs copyrighted cable descrambling software is not fair use); Allen-Myland, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 746 F.Supp. 520, 533-35 (E.D.Pa.1990) (<HOLDING>); Compaq Computer Corp. v. Procom Tech., Inc.,
holding that unauthorized use of faa supplemental type certificate was more than simple copying of intellectual property holding that substantial verbatim copying by a copy service of materials to be used in coursepacks for college students was not fair use holding that copying all or substantial portions of microcode was not fair use holding that fair use is an affirmative defense holding that nominative fair use is an affirmative defense to a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion similar to the fair use defense