I never said they were, and still exposed 2 more lies by antiRepublican, where were you? He keeps claiming the hackers who cracked OSX can't be criminal, since it's a copyright infringement case. Low and behond, the DMCA ("C" is for "copyright") does in fact allow for criminal prosecution, and I found a criminal case against Russians for only cracking the code and only distributing the crack, not the software that was cracked, another lie he claimed couldn't happen.
You better learn to keep up, or your chances of ever becoming a half way decent lawyer are toast. I'm sure you're more interested in being a defense lawyer than seeing justice done, but if you can't even see how pitifully antiRepublican has defended himself, you have no chance of actually defending anyone else.
In any case, you literally picked the wrong case. The law in play is correct--you've finally got that right (for a change).
Specifically, the parts involved are sections 1201.2(a) and (c), which prohibits "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that is primarily designed to circumvent a copy protection.
However, the law does not define "copy protection." I can, in theory, form a front company, write a little C program that basically says "Foo," write another little program that basically says "Hello World," claim that the Hello World program is really a copy protection on my original program, thereby making anybody using "Hello World" in technical violation of this statute.
Second, it was (and is) legal pretty much everywhere in the world. Just not for Joe American--and that's only because of a vague clause in the DMCA, which itself is seen by many conservatives as being facially unconstitutional (at the bare minimum). Yet, the Federal Government itself violates its own act by buying the software in question.
Is it a legal challenge? Probably. An exercise in hypocrisy? Definitely.
Further, I see no evidence that antiRepublicrat is defending Russian hackers. What he did was point out that the DOJ was prosecuting a guy whose products are a.) legal practically everywhere else in the world, and b.) software that the government itself has purchased and currently uses. Hardly a fair shake for the guy who wrote the software--under a law that has been constitutionally shady from the get-go.