WPC !D+82 \-kWLϭqlQS$@#{2_ fs~sf{-mόk=8\=bg_QmM ؖPSjyV5&cnky<"*o+>&.B|fTt"hĴ$ZhwwAҿ^gK*HB@tnkx}xXg&Vy^QC 4(+z1a]5|_A|HII ʕ.@ ^e?3magPMJqѴl}-*m}dΧ{_ɦ@bl;{iy4矧2p7&1Yљ㴂G?,efU.# %#UN# 0$$$ m$w@$%nX$%|& 0 &4'' 0-'UN) 0N) 0 )&*E.f. . .. R. R7/ R/ R/ R-0 R0 R0 B$#1 R@1 1m1 R1Q2 R3i3 0c5z5M79b ; 1mEdE 0wF]bGzHa9JMJ 0ASM mM 0UM 0iN {-iN:O 0}S 0MT D+T 0"U 0JU AM V 0VV 0VTWY {-Z 0[ {-|\ R] {-]&(_jNczf&2i 0DXmm&5os[smt;v xyfTzaVzjzj{b}  } {-#} {-P~&}&UNɇUNʼnUN؋T&UNzsȎd;UNesUN&tUN:UN.|x"UNl}UN7UN%sUNި,jUN|ʭUN\UNPUN7UNaUN4s}rUNx`UNؾm&zUN UN[UNUN]EUNUN>UNDzUN ZUNFFUN h$ = h7Cb zUNUNUNUNTUNGdUNsGUNUNUNUN^UN0}~UNIUN7UN UNj>UNUNDUN$UNUNUNUNsUNoxUN5mUN]>UNUN7UN? z UN zU UN UN UN UNW  UNWUNUNUNUNIQUNPUN W UN"S"UN$Tf$UN&d'UNl(s(UN-*{*UNA--UN50UN00UN2}2UNn44UN\66UN/8}8UNc9j9UN=UNi==UNI??UN=BBUN$DrDUNFNFUN!HsoHUNIx0JUNKmKUNcM]MUNOUN\OOUNRzSUNzTzTUNBWWUN.Y|YUN|ZZ {[UN[[UN\\UN^^UN`T`UN9cdcUNds9eUNffUNijUNlUNmPmUN"o}poUNp;qUNr)sUNttUNuj0vUNyUNy6zUN{|UN~ UNUN͂UNsUNaxUN'muUN]0UNUNۋ)UN1zUNzGUNUNUNUNI UNNUN 0<6X9`(CourierX(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(u2q$  !XX]XXX9XX]  U z>Ӏ{|}?Ӏ?Ӏ?Ӏ3|x<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@3 Ha`$2Line Printer 16.67cpiH H@;@ (Z$XXXXXXXH))  q*XX]XXX9XX]  ,,536411.WPD,r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     (hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(v3L$  !XX]XXX9XX]  (u2q$  !XX]XXX9XX]    L(XX]XXX9XX]  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+\FooterAttorneyNameCourtTitle1B,d0\MAA'露LCourtTitle2B,d0\MAA'露PartyName2B,d0\MAAD露PartyTitle2,d0\MAADh露PartyName3B,d0\MAADG露PartyTitle3B,d0\MAAD0露@CrossActionB,d0\MAAD0露 dCaseNo = B,d0\MAAD0露'.#R37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)PartyTitle1B,d0\MAA'露Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Dates B,d0\MAAD0露  q)XX]XXX9XX]  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  v9REPLYBRIEFINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#9v #(;$2R  0  .3  0    D$XX]XXX9XX] `   17    &~V&9Itisunclearhowamisstatementoflawinarandomelectronicpost,takenoutofcontext,that  includesreferencestopreviousconversationsandpredatesDeCSShasanybearingontheexistenceornonexistenceofCaliforniacontactsbyPAVLOVICH.  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   6    99&~V&9Incasesofspecificjurisdiction,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdepends  onanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation(Sammons \ Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432).#9&&~V##99#  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   1    &~V&9PAVLOVICHagreedtothis specialdiscoverywithoutconcedingjurisdiction,anddespitethe  factthatplaintiffwasnotentitledtoanydiscoverysinceithadnotyetserveditstradesecretstatementunderC.C.P.2019(d).  '  0 .   "MacPacCourtS2MacPacOfficeSan JoseDMacPacJurisdictionSANTA CLARA&MacPacDivision>MacPacClientTitleDefendantDMacPacClientNameANDREW BUNNERDMacPacPlaintiffTitlePlaintifftMacPacPlaintiffNameDVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC.FMacPacDefendantTitleDefendantspMacPacDefendantNameANDREW THOMAS MCLAUGHLIN, et al.4MacPacCaseNoCV 786804nMacPacDocTitleXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(MacPacDocFooterMacPacDateMacPacTimeMacPacDept(MacPacDiscovery"MacPacMotion MacPacTrial4MacPacCrossActionNone*MacPacDateFormat*MacPacMixedCase02MacPacSelectedCount1PMacPacSelectedNamesLevy, Allonn E.|2MacPacRespectSubmit14MacPacSigTypeStandardJMacPacSigningAttyLevy, Allonn E.MacPacSaveNameAllonn E.|Levy|ALLONN E.|LEVY|AEL|187251||||1|4MacPacFACNo39083-64-0$MacPacSigName(MacPacOtherDate'.&ǣ37=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) Z D$XX]XXX9XX] `   3    &~V&9SeePlaintiffsOppositiontodefendantPAVLOVICHsmotiontoquashservice,hereinafter  referredtoas OPPat2:26;pp.34(O3$0  2R  a  .3  0` (#(# S D$XX]XXX9XX] `   21    99&~V&9JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th1045.#&~V&&&~V# p D$XX]XXX9XX] `   23    &~V&9CoreVent,alsocitedbyplaintiff,heldthatalthoughtheeffectsofaSwedishpublicationwere  feltinCalifornia,therewasnobasisforjurisdiction.TABLE A  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   22    &~V&9ItisnoteworthythatinJ.D.O.,theplaintiffwasanindividual.Courtshaveheldthatthe   effectstestdoesnotapplywiththesameforcetoacorporationasitdoestoanindividual becausea \  corporationdoesnotsufferharminaparticulargeographiclocationintheSamesensethatanindividualdoes.(Cybersell,supraat420,citingCoreVent,supra,at1486).Therefore,sinceDVDCCAis  incorporated,any effectstestanalysismustbetempered.(e$8 `  U(,N$8 ` 0 ` (#` (# ` (@91$8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     8 0 T(XXXXX XX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27 ,8*4 || T28(T}$8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#  (3$  !XX]XXX9XX]   d 'dxd(u2q$  !XX]XXX9XX]  ("$ Figure    $<=;A<< c(u2q$  !XX]XXX9XX]  (h$8 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(# h  J D$XX]XXX9XX] `   2    &~V&9Apparentlythe likemindedopensourcehooligansseekingtodedicatetheirtimetospreading  copyrightedworksandengagedinpurposeful,unlawfulconductwouldincludemultimilliondollarconglomeratesVALinux,RedHat,IBM,Corel(makersofWordPerfect)andcountlessothers.Notsurprisingly,plaintiffsoffernoevidentiarysupportfortheirbaselessaccusations. q)XX]XXX9XX]  X%  %r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     N(v(2$  !XX]XXX9XX]   `   0  r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     HPartyName1B,d0\MAA'露r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     K  U(XXXXX)IXX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+ ` D$XX]XXX9XX] `   12    &~V&9DVDCCAdoesnotseektorestrainPAVLOVICHSpublicationofDeCSSinCalifornia,but  ratherworldwide.&~V&&&~VThereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoaCaliforniaresidentthat \ causedDVDCCA'sallegedharm.Indeed,whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedtoreachthisparticularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim!theirclaimisbasedonthefactthattheinformationwaspublishedanywhere.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromorrelatestoPAVLOVICHscontactwiththisparticularforum.#&~V&&&~V># p D$XX]XXX9XX] `   24    &~V&9TheopenprojectwhichallegedlypostedDeCSSwasalooseassociationofpeople,whom  PAVLOVICHdoesnotpersonallyknow(exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknowwherethoseindividualsaredomiciled(exhibitAatpp.19:1921),norwhohoststheLividlist(exhibitAat2122.ThegoaloftheLividgroupwastocreatebettersupportforvideoplayback(exhibitAat23:1015),nottoharmapartyinCalifornia.  U(XXXXX)IXX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+(%$  1    D$XX]XXX9XX] `   15    &~V&9PAVLOVICHfurtherstatedthathedoesnotunderstandhowplacingamovieontoaharddrive  willharmthemotionpictureindustry(exhibitAatp.61:715).#9&&~V#  jX(XXXXXXX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+ i D$XX]XXX9XX] `   18    &~V&9PAVLOVICHwasatbestsuspiciousthatsuchalicensewasavailable.Heneverknewfor  certainthatalicensewasrequired(exhibitAp.25:1720). c D$XX]XXX9XX] `   20    &~V&9PAVLOVICHtestifiedthatthepurposeoftheLIVIDgroupwastodevelopanopensource  DVDplayer(exhibitA,p.28:19),nottoharmSiliconValley  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   7    &~V&9Infact,PAVLOVICHtestifiedthattheLIVIDprojectwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHwasnotabletodoanythingontheprojectforlongperiodsoftime(exhibitAp.52:211).#9&&~V#  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   16    &~V&9PAVLOVICHindicatedthathedidnotknowifmotionpicturecompanieswereinvolvedinthe  creationoftheDVDstandard(exhibitA,p.93:2124).#9&&~V# q*X^X]XXX^9XX]  ,,536411.WPD,԰TABLE B eq'XX]XXX9XX]  @'D TABLEOFCONTENTS  @*D(Continued)##L%Page   D$XX]XXX9XX] `   25    &~V&9Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluenceoverthe  informationcontainedinaLividwebsite.PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite. 3569@Xr2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     ]r2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX     `     \  jX(XXXXXXX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+  jX(XXXXXXX  hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEo&h 0A   T1    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9|| T10|| T11|| T12|| T13|| T14|| T15|| T16|| T17|| T18|| T19|| T20|| T21|| T22|| T23|| T24|| T25|| T26|| T27|| T28P.+(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  q)X`X]XXX`9XX]  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  `v9REPLYBRIEFINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#`9v #(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XbX]XXXb9XX] `   1    b&~V&9PAVLOVICHagreedtothis specialdiscoverywithoutconcedingjurisdiction,anddespitethe  factthatplaintiffwasnotentitledtoanydiscoverysinceithadnotyetserveditstradesecretstatementunderC.C.P.2019(d).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular J D$XdX]XXXd9XX] `   2    d&~V&9Apparentlythe likemindedopensourcehooligansseekingtodedicatetheirtimetospreading  copyrightedworksandengagedinpurposeful,unlawfulconductwouldincludemultimilliondollarconglomeratesVALinux,RedHat,IBM,Corel(makersofWordPerfect)andcountlessothers.Notsurprisingly,plaintiffsoffernoevidentiarysupportfortheirbaselessaccusations.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XX]XXX9XX] `   4    &~V&9Itiswellsettledthataplaintiffbearstheburdenofprovingjurisdiction(FloveyorInt.Ltd.V.  Superiorcourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792). Z D$XhX]XXXh9XX] `   3    h&~V&9SeePlaintiffsOppositiontodefendantPAVLOVICHsmotiontoquashservice,hereinafter  referredtoas OPPat2:26;pp.34  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   5    &~V&9NotwithstandingPlaintiffsincorrectassertionthat Californiamayexercisespecificjurisdiction  overnonresidentdefendantswhenthestatehasamanifestinterestinprovidingitsresidentswithaconvenientforumforredressinginjuriesinflictedbyoutofstateactors,thecorrectstandardforassertingjurisdictionconsistentwithDueProcessisnottrulyindisputeandisfullysetforthinPAVLOVICHsmovingpapers.#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XjX]XXXj9XX] `   4    j&~V&9Itiswellsettledthataplaintiffbearstheburdenofprovingjurisdiction(FloveyorInt.Ltd.V.  Superiorcourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XlX]XXXl9XX] `   5    l&~V&9NotwithstandingPlaintiffsincorrectassertionthat Californiamayexercisespecificjurisdiction  overnonresidentdefendantswhenthestatehasamanifestinterestinprovidingitsresidentswithaconvenientforumforredressinginjuriesinflictedbyoutofstateactors,thecorrectstandardforassertingjurisdictionconsistentwithDueProcessisnottrulyindisputeandisfullysetforthinPAVLOVICHsmovingpapers.#l9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XnX]XXXn9XX] `   6    n99n&~V&9Incasesofspecificjurisdiction,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdepends  onanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation(Sammons \ Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432).#n9&&~V##n99#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   14    &~V&9Asdiscussedabove,andinmovingpapers,inascertainingtheexistenceofspecificjurisdiction,  aCourtmayonlyproperlyconsiderforumrelatedactivitiesthatrelatetothespecificcauseofactionat \ hand(J.D.O.,supra,at1058,citingGordyv.DailyNews95F.3d829,835(9thCir.1996),itmaynot 0 consideractivitiesthatrelatetoharmbythirdpartiesnotapartytotheparticularaction. n D$XX]XXX9XX] `   19    &~V&9Asindicatedabove,inassessingspecificjurisdiction,thisCourtisnotpermittedtoconsider  effectsunrelatedtothesinglecauseofactioninthiscase.  D$XrX]XXXr9XX] `   7    r&~V&9Infact,PAVLOVICHtestifiedthattheLIVIDprojectwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHwasnotabletodoanythingontheprojectforlongperiodsoftime(exhibitAp.52:211).#r9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular s D$XtX]XXXt9XX] `   8    t&~V&9Asindicatedpreviouslyandinmovingpapers,PAVLOVICHhadneverheardofDVDCCA  priortothefilingofthesubjectcomplaint.#t9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XvX]XXXv9XX] `   9    v&~V&9DVDCCAsassertionthattheeffectstestinPanavisionwassatisfiedbecausetheheartofthe  motionpictureindustrywasinCaliforniaisplainlywrong.#v9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular { D$XyX]XXXy9XX] `   10    y&~V&9IfplaintiffswereinfactCaliforniamotionpicturestudios,andtheycouldshowthattheywere  harmedbyPAVLOVICHsactivities,theargumentsmightbemoretenable. D$XX]XXX9XX] `   11    &~V&9Seepart Cinfra.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular D$XX]XXX9XX] `   11    &~V&9Seepart Cinfra. ` D$X|X]XXX|9XX] `   12    |&~V&9DVDCCAdoesnotseektorestrainPAVLOVICHSpublicationofDeCSSinCalifornia,but  ratherworldwide.&~V&&&~VThereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoaCaliforniaresidentthat \ causedDVDCCA'sallegedharm.Indeed,whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedtoreachthisparticularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim!theirclaimisbasedonthefactthattheinformationwaspublishedanywhere.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromorrelatestoPAVLOVICHscontactwiththisparticularforum.#|&~V&&&~V>#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$X~X]XXX~9XX] `   13    ~&~V&9TheCybersellCourtalsorejectedtheplaintiffsargumentthattheCaldereffectstestshould  supplyjurisdiction(Idat420).#~9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   14    &~V&9Asdiscussedabove,andinmovingpapers,inascertainingtheexistenceofspecificjurisdiction,  aCourtmayonlyproperlyconsiderforumrelatedactivitiesthatrelatetothespecificcauseofactionat \ hand(J.D.O.,supra,at1058,citingGordyv.DailyNews95F.3d829,835(9thCir.1996),itmaynot 0 consideractivitiesthatrelatetoharmbythirdpartiesnotapartytotheparticularaction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   15    &~V&9PAVLOVICHfurtherstatedthathedoesnotunderstandhowplacingamovieontoaharddrive  willharmthemotionpictureindustry(exhibitAatp.61:715).#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   16    &~V&9PAVLOVICHindicatedthathedidnotknowifmotionpicturecompanieswereinvolvedinthe  creationoftheDVDstandard(exhibitA,p.93:2124).#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   17    &~V&9Itisunclearhowamisstatementoflawinarandomelectronicpost,takenoutofcontext,that  includesreferencestopreviousconversationsandpredatesDeCSShasanybearingontheexistenceornonexistenceofCaliforniacontactsbyPAVLOVICH.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XX]XXX9XX] `   18    &~V&9PAVLOVICHwasatbestsuspiciousthatsuchalicensewasavailable.Heneverknewfor  certainthatalicensewasrequired(exhibitAp.25:1720). s D$XX]XXX9XX] `   8    &~V&9Asindicatedpreviouslyandinmovingpapers,PAVLOVICHhadneverheardofDVDCCA  priortothefilingofthesubjectcomplaint.#9&&~V#  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   9    &~V&9DVDCCAsassertionthattheeffectstestinPanavisionwassatisfiedbecausetheheartofthe  motionpictureindustrywasinCaliforniaisplainlywrong.#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular n D$XX]XXX9XX] `   19    &~V&9Asindicatedabove,inassessingspecificjurisdiction,thisCourtisnotpermittedtoconsider  effectsunrelatedtothesinglecauseofactioninthiscase.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular c D$XX]XXX9XX] `   20    &~V&9PAVLOVICHtestifiedthatthepurposeoftheLIVIDgroupwastodevelopanopensource  DVDplayer(exhibitA,p.28:19),nottoharmSiliconValley p D$XX]XXX9XX] `   23    &~V&9CoreVent,alsocitedbyplaintiff,heldthatalthoughtheeffectsofaSwedishpublicationwere  feltinCalifornia,therewasnobasisforjurisdiction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular S D$XX]XXX9XX] `   21    99&~V&9JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th1045.#&~V&&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   22    &~V&9ItisnoteworthythatinJ.D.O.,theplaintiffwasanindividual.Courtshaveheldthatthe   effectstestdoesnotapplywiththesameforcetoacorporationasitdoestoanindividual becausea \  corporationdoesnotsufferharminaparticulargeographiclocationintheSamesensethatanindividualdoes.(Cybersell,supraat420,citingCoreVent,supra,at1486).Therefore,sinceDVDCCAis  incorporated,any effectstestanalysismustbetempered.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular p D$XX]XXX9XX] `   24    &~V&9TheopenprojectwhichallegedlypostedDeCSSwasalooseassociationofpeople,whom  PAVLOVICHdoesnotpersonallyknow(exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknowwherethoseindividualsaredomiciled(exhibitAatpp.19:1921),norwhohoststheLividlist(exhibitAat2122.ThegoaloftheLividgroupwastocreatebettersupportforvideoplayback(exhibitAat23:1015),nottoharmapartyinCalifornia.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   25    &~V&9Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluenceoverthe  informationcontainedinaLividwebsite.PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular eq'XX]XXX9XX]  @'D TABLEOFCONTENTS  @*D(Continued)##L%Page  { D$XX]XXX9XX] `   10    &~V&9IfplaintiffswereinfactCaliforniamotionpicturestudios,andtheycouldshowthattheywere  harmedbyPAVLOVICHsactivities,theargumentsmightbemoretenable.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular+@HTT6@T- -  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   13    &~V&9TheCybersellCourtalsorejectedtheplaintiffsargumentthattheCaldereffectstestshould  supplyjurisdiction(Idat420).#9&&~V#  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   5    &~V&9NotwithstandingPlaintiffsincorrectassertionthat Californiamayexercisespecificjurisdiction  overnonresidentdefendantswhenthestatehasamanifestinterestinprovidingitsresidentswithaconvenientforumforredressinginjuriesinflictedbyoutofstateactors.thecorrectstandardforassertingjurisdictionconsistentwithDueProcessisnottrulyindisputeandisfullysetforthinPAVLOVICHsmovingpapers.#9&&~V# ^)XXXXX9XX  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular ^*XXXXX9XX  ,,536411.WPD,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  ^)XXXXX9XX  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  9REPLYBRIEFINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#9 #(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   1    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHagreedtothis specialdiscoverywithoutconcedingjurisdiction,anddespitethe  factthatplaintiffwasnotentitledtoanydiscoverysinceithadnotyetserveditstradesecretstatementunderC.C.P.2019(d).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular J D$XXXXX9XX `   2    &Nz &9Apparentlythe likemindedopensourcehooligansseekingtodedicatetheirtimetospreading  copyrightedworksandengagedinpurposeful,unlawfulconductwouldincludemultimilliondollarconglomeratesVALinux,RedHat,IBM,Corel(makersofWordPerfect)andcountlessothers.Notsurprisingly,plaintiffsoffernoevidentiarysupportfortheirbaselessaccusations.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular Z D$XXXXX9XX `   3    &Nz &9SeePlaintiffsOppositiontodefendantPAVLOVICHsmotiontoquashservice,hereinafter  referredtoas OPPat2:26;pp.34(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XXXXX9XX `   4    &Nz &9Itiswellsettledthataplaintiffbearstheburdenofprovingjurisdiction(FloveyorInt.Ltd.V.  Superiorcourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   5    &Nz &9NotwithstandingPlaintiffsincorrectassertionthat Californiamayexercisespecificjurisdiction  overnonresidentdefendantswhenthestatehasamanifestinterestinprovidingitsresidentswithaconvenientforumforredressinginjuriesinflictedbyoutofstateactors.thecorrectstandardforassertingjurisdictionconsistentwithDueProcessisnottrulyindisputeandisfullysetforthinPAVLOVICHsmovingpapers.#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   6    99&Nz &9Incasesofspecificjurisdiction,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdepends  onanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation(Sammons \ Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432)#9 &&Nz##99#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   7    &Nz &9Infact,PAVLOVICHtestifiedthattheLIVIDprojectwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHwasnotabletodoanythingontheprojectforlongperiodsoftime(exhibitAp.52:211).#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular s D$XXXXX9XX `   8    &Nz &9Asindicatedpreviouslyandinmovingpapers,PAVLOVICHhadneverheardofDVDCCA  priortothefilingofthesubjectcomplaint.#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   9    &Nz &9DVDCCAsassertionthattheeffectstestinPanavisionwassatisfiedbecausetheheartofthe  motionpictureindustrywasinCaliforniaisplainlywrong.#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular { D$XXXXX9XX `   10    &Nz &9IfplaintiffswereinfactCaliforniamotionpicturestudios,andtheycouldshowthattheywere  harmedbyPAVLOVICHsactivities,theargumentsmightbemoretenable.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular D$XXXXX9XX `   11    &Nz &9Seepart Cinfra.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular ` D$XXXXX9XX `   12    &Nz &9DVDCCAdoesnotseektorestrainPAVLOVICHSpublicationofDeCSSinCalifornia,but  ratherworldwide.&Nz & &&NzThereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoaCaliforniaresidentthat \ causedDVDCCA'sallegedharm.Indeed,whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedtoreachthisparticularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim!theirclaimisbasedonthefactthattheinformationwaspublishedanywhere.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromorrelatestoPAVLOVICHscontactwiththisparticularforum.#&Nz & &&Nz>#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   13    &Nz &9TheCybersellCourtalsorejectedtheplaintiffsargumentthattheCaldereffectstestshould  supplyjurisdiction(Idat420).#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   14    &Nz &9Asdiscussedabove,andinmovingpapers,inascertainingtheexistenceofspecificjurisdiction,  aCourtmayonlyproperlyconsiderforumrelatedactivitiesthatrelatetothespecificcauseofactionat \ hand(J.D.O.,supra,at1058,citingGordyv.DailyNews95F.3d829,835(9thCir.1996),itmaynot 0 consideractivitiesthatrelatetoharmbythirdpartiesnotapartytotheparticularaction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   15    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHfurtherstatedthathedoesnotunderstandhowplacingamovieontoaharddrive  willharmthemotionpictureindustry(exhibitAatp.61:715).#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   16    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHindicatedthathedidnotknowifmotionpicturecompanieswereinvolvedinthe  creationoftheDVDstandard(exhibitA,p.93:2124).#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   17    &Nz &9Itisunclearhowamisstatementoflawinarandomelectronicpost,takenoutofcontext,that  includesreferencestopreviousconversationsandpredatesDeCSShasanybearingontheexistenceornonexistenceofCaliforniacontactsbyPAVLOVICH.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XXXXX9XX `   18    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHwasatbestsuspiciousthatsuchalicensewasavailable.Heneverknewfor  certainthatalicensewasrequired(exhibitAp.25:1720).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular n D$XXXXX9XX `   19    &Nz &9Asindicatedabove,inassessingspecificjurisdiction,thisCourtisnotpermittedtoconsider  effectsunrelatedtothesinglecauseofactioninthiscase.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular c D$XXXXX9XX `   20    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHtestifiedthatthepurposeoftheLIVIDgroupwastodevelopanopensource  DVDplayer(exhibitA,p.28:19),nottoharmSiliconValley(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular S D$XXXXX9XX `   21    99&Nz &9JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th1045.#&Nz & &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   22    &Nz &9ItisnoteworthythatinJ.D.O.,theplaintiffwasanindividual.Courtshaveheldthatthe   effectstestdoesnotapplywiththesameforcetoacorporationasitdoestoanindividual becausea \  corporationdoesnotsufferharminaparticulargeographiclocationintheSameesensethatanindividualdoes.(Cybersell,supraat420,citingCoreVent,supra,at1486).Therefore,sinceDVD  CCAisincorporated,any effectstestanalysismustbetempered.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular p D$XXXXX9XX `   23    &Nz &9CoreVent,alsocitedbyplaintiff,heldthatalthoughtheeffectsofaSwedishpublicationwere  feltinCalifornia,therewasnobasisforjurisdiction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular p D$XXXXX9XX `   24    &Nz &9TheopenprojectwhichallegedlypostedDeCSSwasalooseassociationofpeople,whom  PAVLOVICHdoesnotpersonallyknow(exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknowwherethoseindividualsaredomiciled(exhibitAatpp.19:1921),norwhohoststheLividlist(exhibitAat2122.ThegoaloftheLividgroupwastocreatebettersupportforvideoplayback(exhibitAat23:1015),nottoharmapartyinCalifornia.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   25    &Nz &9Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluenceoverthe  informationcontainedinaLividwebsite.PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular e^'XXXXX9XX  @'D TABLEOFCONTENTS  @*D(Continued)##L%Page (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   6    99&~V&9Incasesofspecificjurisdiction,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdepends  onanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation(Sammons \ Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432)#9&&~V##99#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   5    &~V&9NotwithstandingPlaintiffsincorrectassertionthat Californiamayexercisespecificjurisdiction  overnonresidentdefendantswhenthestatehasamanifestinterestinprovidingitsresidentswithaconvenientforumforredressinginjuriesinflictedbyoutofstateactors.thecorrectstandardforassertingjurisdictionconsistentwithDueProcessisnottrulyindisputeandisfullysetforthinPAVLOVICHsmovingpapers.#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   6    99&~V&9Incasesofspecificjurisdiction,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdepends  onanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation(Sammons \ Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432)#9&&~V##99#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XiX]XXXi9XX] `   22    i&~V&9ItisnoteworthythatinJ.D.O.,theplaintiffwasanindividual.Courtshaveheldthatthe   effectstestdoesnotapplywiththesameforcetoacorporationasitdoestoanindividual becausea \ ' corporationdoesnotsufferharminaparticulargeographiclocationintheSameesensethatanindividualdoes.(Cybersell,supraat420,citingCoreVent,supra,at1486).Therefore,sinceDVD  CCAisincorporated,any effectstestanalysismustbetempered. q)XX]XXX9XX]  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular q*XX]XXX9XX]  ,,536411.WPD,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  q)XX]XXX9XX]  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  v9REPLYBRIEFINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#9v #(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   1    &~V&9PAVLOVICHagreedtothis specialdiscoverywithoutconcedingjurisdiction,anddespitethe  factthatplaintiffwasnotentitledtoanydiscoverysinceithadnotyetserveditstradesecretstatementunderC.C.P.2019(d).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular J D$XX]XXX9XX] `   2    &~V&9Apparentlythe likemindedopensourcehooligansseekingtodedicatetheirtimetospreading  copyrightedworksandengagedinpurposeful,unlawfulconductwouldincludemultimilliondollarconglomeratesVALinux,RedHat,IBM,Corel(makersofWordPerfect)andcountlessothers.Notsurprisingly,plaintiffsoffernoevidentiarysupportfortheirbaselessaccusations.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular Z D$XX]XXX9XX] `   3    &~V&9SeePlaintiffsOppositiontodefendantPAVLOVICHsmotiontoquashservice,hereinafter  referredtoas OPPat2:26;pp.34(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XX]XXX9XX] `   4    &~V&9Itiswellsettledthataplaintiffbearstheburdenofprovingjurisdiction(FloveyorInt.Ltd.V.  Superiorcourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   5    &~V&9NotwithstandingPlaintiffsincorrectassertionthat Californiamayexercisespecificjurisdiction  overnonresidentdefendantswhenthestatehasamanifestinterestinprovidingitsresidentswithaconvenientforumforredressinginjuriesinflictedbyoutofstateactors,thecorrectstandardforassertingjurisdictionconsistentwithDueProcessisnottrulyindisputeandisfullysetforthinPAVLOVICHsmovingpapers.#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   6    99&~V&9Incasesofspecificjurisdiction,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdepends  onanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation(Sammons \ Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432).#9&&~V##99#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XX]XXX9XX] `   7    &~V&9Infact,PAVLOVICHtestifiedthattheLIVIDprojectwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHwasnotabletodoanythingontheprojectforlongperiodsoftime(exhibitAp.52:211).#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular s D$XX]XXX9XX] `   8    &~V&9Asindicatedpreviouslyandinmovingpapers,PAVLOVICHhadneverheardofDVDCCA  priortothefilingofthesubjectcomplaint.#9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   9    &Nz &9DVDCCAsassertionthattheeffectstestinPanavisionwassatisfiedbecausetheheartofthe  motionpictureindustrywasinCaliforniaisplainlywrong.#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular { D$XXXXX9XX `   10    &Nz &9IfplaintiffswereinfactCaliforniamotionpicturestudios,andtheycouldshowthattheywere  harmedbyPAVLOVICHsactivities,theargumentsmightbemoretenable.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular D$X XXXX 9XX `   11     &Nz &9Seepart Cinfra.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular ` D$X XXXX 9XX `   12     &Nz &9DVDCCAdoesnotseektorestrainPAVLOVICHSpublicationofDeCSSinCalifornia,but  ratherworldwide. &Nz & &&NzThereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoaCaliforniaresidentthat \ causedDVDCCA'sallegedharm.Indeed,whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedtoreachthisparticularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim!theirclaimisbasedonthefactthattheinformationwaspublishedanywhere.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromorrelatestoPAVLOVICHscontactwiththisparticularforum.# &Nz & &&Nz>#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   13    &Nz &9TheCybersellCourtalsorejectedtheplaintiffsargumentthattheCaldereffectstestshould  supplyjurisdiction(Idat420).#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   14    &Nz &9Asdiscussedabove,andinmovingpapers,inascertainingtheexistenceofspecificjurisdiction,  aCourtmayonlyproperlyconsiderforumrelatedactivitiesthatrelatetothespecificcauseofactionat \ hand(J.D.O.,supra,at1058,citingGordyv.DailyNews95F.3d829,835(9thCir.1996),itmaynot 0 consideractivitiesthatrelatetoharmbythirdpartiesnotapartytotheparticularaction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   15    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHfurtherstatedthathedoesnotunderstandhowplacingamovieontoaharddrive  willharmthemotionpictureindustry(exhibitAatp.61:715).#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   16    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHindicatedthathedidnotknowifmotionpicturecompanieswereinvolvedinthe  creationoftheDVDstandard(exhibitA,p.93:2124).#9 &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XXXXX9XX `   17    &Nz &9Itisunclearhowamisstatementoflawinarandomelectronicpost,takenoutofcontext,that  includesreferencestopreviousconversationsandpredatesDeCSShasanybearingontheexistenceornonexistenceofCaliforniacontactsbyPAVLOVICH.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XXXXX9XX `   18    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHwasatbestsuspiciousthatsuchalicensewasavailable.Heneverknewfor  certainthatalicensewasrequired(exhibitAp.25:1720).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular n D$XXXXX9XX `   19    &Nz &9Asindicatedabove,inassessingspecificjurisdiction,thisCourtisnotpermittedtoconsider  effectsunrelatedtothesinglecauseofactioninthiscase.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular c D$XXXXX9XX `   20    &Nz &9PAVLOVICHtestifiedthatthepurposeoftheLIVIDgroupwastodevelopanopensource  DVDplayer(exhibitA,p.28:19),nottoharmSiliconValley(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular S D$XXXXX9XX `   21     99 &Nz &9JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th1045.#&Nz & &&Nz#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$X"XXXX"9XX `   22    "&Nz &9ItisnoteworthythatinJ.D.O.,theplaintiffwasanindividual.Courtshaveheldthatthe   effectstestdoesnotapplywiththesameforcetoacorporationasitdoestoanindividual becausea \  corporationdoesnotsufferharminaparticulargeographiclocationintheSameesensethatanindividualdoes.(Cybersell,supraat420,citingCoreVent,supra,at1486).Therefore,sinceDVD  CCAisincorporated,any effectstestanalysismustbetempered.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular p D$X$XXXX$9XX `   23    $&Nz &9CoreVent,alsocitedbyplaintiff,heldthatalthoughtheeffectsofaSwedishpublicationwere  feltinCalifornia,therewasnobasisforjurisdiction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular p D$X&XXXX&9XX `   24    &&Nz &9TheopenprojectwhichallegedlypostedDeCSSwasalooseassociationofpeople,whom  PAVLOVICHdoesnotpersonallyknow(exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknowwherethoseindividualsaredomiciled(exhibitAatpp.19:1921),norwhohoststheLividlist(exhibitAat2122.ThegoaloftheLividgroupwastocreatebettersupportforvideoplayback(exhibitAat23:1015),nottoharmapartyinCalifornia.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$X(XXXX(9XX `   25    (&Nz &9Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluenceoverthe  informationcontainedinaLividwebsite.PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular e^'X*XXXX*9XX  @'D TABLEOFCONTENTS  @*D(Continued)##L%Page (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular q)X-X]XXX-9XX]  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular q*X/X]XXX/9XX]  ,,536411.WPD,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  q)X1X]XXX19XX]  @D  1  ڄ  A ) xdEExA  1v9REPLYBRIEFINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION#19v #(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$X3X]XXX39XX] `   1    3&~V&9PAVLOVICHagreedtothis specialdiscoverywithoutconcedingjurisdiction,anddespitethe  factthatplaintiffwasnotentitledtoanydiscoverysinceithadnotyetserveditstradesecretstatementunderC.C.P.2019(d).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular J D$X5X]XXX59XX] `   2    5&~V&9Apparentlythe likemindedopensourcehooligansseekingtodedicatetheirtimetospreading  copyrightedworksandengagedinpurposeful,unlawfulconductwouldincludemultimilliondollarconglomeratesVALinux,RedHat,IBM,Corel(makersofWordPerfect)andcountlessothers.Notsurprisingly,plaintiffsoffernoevidentiarysupportfortheirbaselessaccusations.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular Z D$X7X]XXX79XX] `   3    7&~V&9SeePlaintiffsOppositiontodefendantPAVLOVICHsmotiontoquashservice,hereinafter  referredtoas OPPat2:26;pp.34(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$X9X]XXX99XX] `   4    9&~V&9Itiswellsettledthataplaintiffbearstheburdenofprovingjurisdiction(FloveyorInt.Ltd.V.  Superiorcourt(1997)59Cal.App.4th789,792).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$X;X]XXX;9XX] `   5    ;&~V&9NotwithstandingPlaintiffsincorrectassertionthat Californiamayexercisespecificjurisdiction  overnonresidentdefendantswhenthestatehasamanifestinterestinprovidingitsresidentswithaconvenientforumforredressinginjuriesinflictedbyoutofstateactors,thecorrectstandardforassertingjurisdictionconsistentwithDueProcessisnottrulyindisputeandisfullysetforthinPAVLOVICHsmovingpapers.#;9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$X=X]XXX=9XX] `   6    >99>&~V&9Incasesofspecificjurisdiction,thejurisdictionalsufficiencyofthedefendant'scontactsdepends  onanassessmentofthe'relationshipamongthedefendants,theforum,andthelitigation(Sammons \ Enterprises,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)205Cal.App.3d1427,1432).#>9&&~V##=99#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$X@X]XXX@9XX] `   7    @&~V&9Infact,PAVLOVICHtestifiedthattheLIVIDprojectwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHwasnotabletodoanythingontheprojectforlongperiodsoftime(exhibitAp.52:211).#@9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular s D$XBX]XXXB9XX] `   8    B&~V&9Asindicatedpreviouslyandinmovingpapers,PAVLOVICHhadneverheardofDVDCCA  priortothefilingofthesubjectcomplaint.#B9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XDX]XXXD9XX] `   9    D&~V&9DVDCCAsassertionthattheeffectstestinPanavisionwassatisfiedbecausetheheartofthe  motionpictureindustrywasinCaliforniaisplainlywrong.#D9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular { D$XFX]XXXF9XX] `   10    F&~V&9IfplaintiffswereinfactCaliforniamotionpicturestudios,andtheycouldshowthattheywere  harmedbyPAVLOVICHsactivities,theargumentsmightbemoretenable.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular D$XHX]XXXH9XX] `   11    H&~V&9Seepart Cinfra.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular ` D$XJX]XXXJ9XX] `   12    J&~V&9DVDCCAdoesnotseektorestrainPAVLOVICHSpublicationofDeCSSinCalifornia,but  ratherworldwide.K&~V&&&~VThereisnoallegationthatitwasaspecificpublicationtoaCaliforniaresidentthat \ causedDVDCCA'sallegedharm.Indeed,whetherPAVLOVICH'sallegedrepublicationhappenedtoreachthisparticularforumisirrelevanttoDVDCCA'sclaim!theirclaimisbasedonthefactthattheinformationwaspublishedanywhere.Thus,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiff'sclaimarisesfromorrelatestoPAVLOVICHscontactwiththisparticularforum.#J&~V&&&~V>#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$XMX]XXXM9XX] `   13    M&~V&9TheCybersellCourtalsorejectedtheplaintiffsargumentthattheCaldereffectstestshould  supplyjurisdiction(Idat420).#M9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XOX]XXXO9XX] `   14    O&~V&9Asdiscussedabove,andinmovingpapers,inascertainingtheexistenceofspecificjurisdiction,  aCourtmayonlyproperlyconsiderforumrelatedactivitiesthatrelatetothespecificcauseofactionat \ hand(J.D.O.,supra,at1058,citingGordyv.DailyNews95F.3d829,835(9thCir.1996),itmaynot 0 consideractivitiesthatrelatetoharmbythirdpartiesnotapartytotheparticularaction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XQX]XXXQ9XX] `   15    Q&~V&9PAVLOVICHfurtherstatedthathedoesnotunderstandhowplacingamovieontoaharddrive  willharmthemotionpictureindustry(exhibitAatp.61:715).#Q9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XSX]XXXS9XX] `   16    S&~V&9PAVLOVICHindicatedthathedidnotknowifmotionpicturecompanieswereinvolvedinthe  creationoftheDVDstandard(exhibitA,p.93:2124).#S9&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XUX]XXXU9XX] `   17    U&~V&9Itisunclearhowamisstatementoflawinarandomelectronicpost,takenoutofcontext,that  includesreferencestopreviousconversationsandpredatesDeCSShasanybearingontheexistenceornonexistenceofCaliforniacontactsbyPAVLOVICH.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular i D$XWX]XXXW9XX] `   18    W&~V&9PAVLOVICHwasatbestsuspiciousthatsuchalicensewasavailable.Heneverknewfor  certainthatalicensewasrequired(exhibitAp.25:1720).(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular n D$XYX]XXXY9XX] `   19    Y&~V&9Asindicatedabove,inassessingspecificjurisdiction,thisCourtisnotpermittedtoconsider  effectsunrelatedtothesinglecauseofactioninthiscase.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular c D$X[X]XXX[9XX] `   20    [&~V&9PAVLOVICHtestifiedthatthepurposeoftheLIVIDgroupwastodevelopanopensource  DVDplayer(exhibitA,p.28:19),nottoharmSiliconValley(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular S D$X]X]XXX]9XX] `   21    ^99^&~V&9JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.4th1045.#]&~V&&&~V#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D$X`X]XXX`9XX] `   22    `&~V&9ItisnoteworthythatinJ.D.O.,theplaintiffwasanindividual.Courtshaveheldthatthe   effectstestdoesnotapplywiththesameforcetoacorporationasitdoestoanindividual becausea \  corporationdoesnotsufferharminaparticulargeographiclocationintheSameesensethatanindividualdoes.(Cybersell,supraat420,citingCoreVent,supra,at1486).Therefore,sinceDVD  CCAisincorporated,any effectstestanalysismustbetempered.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular p D$XbX]XXXb9XX] `   23    b&~V&9CoreVent,alsocitedbyplaintiff,heldthatalthoughtheeffectsofaSwedishpublicationwere  feltinCalifornia,therewasnobasisforjurisdiction.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular p D$XdX]XXXd9XX] `   24    d&~V&9TheopenprojectwhichallegedlypostedDeCSSwasalooseassociationofpeople,whom  PAVLOVICHdoesnotpersonallyknow(exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknowwherethoseindividualsaredomiciled(exhibitAatpp.19:1921),norwhohoststheLividlist(exhibitAat2122.ThegoaloftheLividgroupwastocreatebettersupportforvideoplayback(exhibitAat23:1015),nottoharmapartyinCalifornia.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular  D$XfX]XXXf9XX] `   25    f&~V&9Forpurposesofthismotiononly,PAVLOVICHconcedesthathehadinfluenceoverthe  informationcontainedinaLividwebsite.PAVLOVICHisnotthe owneror operatorofthesite.(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular eq'XhX]XXXh9XX]  @'D TABLEOFCONTENTS  @*D(Continued)##L%Page (@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular q)XmX]XXXm9XX]  X%  %(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(u3q$  !XX]XXX9XX]   !XX]XXX9XX]  TRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TzTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TzzTRY3' Final3' 3' Final3'TzC ,'. ǣ&#"'.C77XXdd7T7TGTET[TCTZԛ XX     `       ݜzBl+zzz  z֛zzz.S*w1ddd Xdd Xdd X%%w,d ,dd +    Ӝz&B_B0BBzzBz39261640ALLONNE.LEVY(BarNo.187251)HUBERSAMUELSONAPC  210NorthFourthStreet,Suite400SanJose,CA95112Telephone:(408)2957034Facsimile:(408)2955799%  %: Attorneysfor% # Defendant%#j ԛ̜% F MATTHEWPAVLOVICH%F ԛ       0 $$   Ӝ %  SUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA%ԛ $  ̜%  COUNTYOFSANTACLARA%}   .x%%.%  DVDCOPYCONTROLASSOCIATION,INC.%, `  %  Plaintiff%N, ` vs.̜%  ANDREWTHOMASMCLAUGHLIN,etal.%, `  %  Defendants%.%  %- lT ))))))))))))) 4* М% ! SuperiorCourtCaseNo.CV786804%!ԛ̜ REPLYBRIEFINSUPPORTOF , MOTIONTOQUASHSERVICEOFSUMMONSFORLACKOFJURISDICTION  / МD,A ) xdEAxD, 0 [NotageneralappearanceC.C.P.418.10]Date:  August29,2000 3 Time:  9:00a.m. 4 Dept.:  2 5 % % %%ԛ lT6 .x.Ҝ   @@DD/D  2ǣ  I  .3   6 INTRODUCTION   T <8    ` DefendantMATTHEWPAVLOVICH(hereinafter PAVLOVICH)submitsthisreplymemoranduminsupportofhispendingmotiontoquashserviceofprocess.Defendantsmotion,andallattendantpapersandactions,areintendedtoserveasaspecialappearancepursuanttosection418.10oftheCaliforniaCodeofCivilProcedure.Furthermore,DefendantneitherconsentsnorsubmitstothejurisdictionofthisCourt,instead,contestingjurisdictionbywayofthismotion. `  2ǣ  A  .3  0 Prefatorystatement  D+,'F % %   ` Inanefforttodemonstratetotheplaintiffsthatnobasisforjurisdictionexists, ,(H defendantPAVLOVICHvoluntarilyz*a2zzz L%  1      ׀agreedtoanextensivejurisdictionaldepositionand   documentproductionrequest.AlthoughthediscoveryyieldednocontactswithCaliforniaandnoactivitiespurposefullyaimedatCalifornia,plaintiffpersistsinopposingthismotion.Initsopposition,plaintiffhasconcededorignoredcogentdefenseargumentsregardinglackofjurisdictionandinsteadoptedtoprovideasmokescreenofrhetoric,unfoundedaccusations,anduntenablelegalargumentsinanefforttocreatejurisdictionalcontactswherenoneexist.PlaintiffopensbylambastingtheentirezA c 4  zz z L%  2      ׀ opensource x `  movementz-$f$6$$zz$z L%  3      ,withoutcitingascintillaofevidencetosupportitsconclusoryrhetoric;   suggestsanincorrectbasisforjurisdictionalanalysis(OPPat5:912);andoffershyperboleandinnuendoinplaceofactualminimumcontactswithCalifornia.ThedefenseurgestheCourttolookpastplaintiffsblusterandholdthatplaintiffhasfailedtomeetitsburdenze i 8 W zz z L%  4      ׀ofprovingsufficientjurisdictionalcontactsonthepartofPAVLOVICH. H0  ` Intheinterestofrelativebrevity,PAVLOVICHincorporatesbyreferenceallargumentspresentedinmovingpapers,andwillendeavornottorepeatthoseargumentshere.    2ǣ  II  .3   p ARGUMENT        ` Plaintiffhasproperlyconcededthelackofgeneraljurisdictionbynotraisingtheissueinitsopposition,thereforethisbriefwillnotaddressissuesofgeneraljurisdiction. 8 $ Ontheissueofspecificjurisdiction,plaintiffhasfallenwoefullyshortofsatisfyingitsburdenofprovingtheexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionz{}gk:}}}{{{zzz L%  5      ׀overPAVLOVICH.   `  2ǣ  A  .3  0 Plaintiffhasputforthnosolidevidenceofpurposefulcontactor  purposefulavailmentofthebenefitsofCalifornia. #  % %  ` Inordertosatisfythisprongofthejurisdictionaltest,Plaintiffmustshowthatdefendanthasdeliberatelydirectedhis/heractivitiesattheresidentsoftheforumstateor    hasdeliberatelyavailedhimself/herselfofthebenefitsandprotectionsofthestate x `  (Hansonv.Denckla(357U.S.235,253(1958).Forexample,inthecaseofMcGeev.   InternationalLifeIns.Co.355U.S.220(1957),citedbyPlaintiff,thedefendant   insurancecompanydidbusinesswithaCaliforniaresident,mailedareinsurancecertificatetothedecedentinCalifornia,andacceptedpremiumsbymailfromtheCaliforniaresident.Nosuchpurposefulacts,directedatCaliforniahavebeenidentifiedbyPlaintiffsz|)m<|||zzz L%  6      .   ` PlaintiffsattemptedrelianceonthecaseofCalderv.Jones465U.S.783(1984), hP anditswellknown Caldereffectstestissimilarlyunavailing.InCalder,thedefendant  sold600,000magazines(morethaninanyotherstate)inCalifornia,frequentlytraveledtoCalifornia,madephonecallstoCaliforniatoobtaintheinformationthatwentintothearticlewhichwasthesubjectofthelawsuit,calledtheCaliforniaplaintiffsinCaliforniatosolicitacommentaboutthesubjectarticle,anddeclinedtoprintaretractionrequestsentbytheCaliforniaplaintiffs(Id,at783786). !&  ` Bystarkcontrast,here,PAVLOVICHwasastudentwh% , enthissuitwasinstituted,hisnewlyformedbusinesshasnothingtodowiththiscase(seedepositionof $ * PAVLOVICHattachedasexhibit AtothedeclarationofAllonnE.Levy,hereinafter exhibitAatpp.1112)andhasnoconnectionwithanyonefromCalifornia(exhibitAatp.44:412;48:2225).Additionally,P% j AVLOVICHhadnoknowledgeofplaintiffDVDCCAsexistence,muchlessitslocation,priortothefilingoftheinstantlawsuit(exhibitA,atp.91:2225).Also,plaintiffhasnotcontestedthefactthatPAVLOVICHhasneitheroperated,norhadsolecontroloverany LiIvViIdDwebsitezQq?zzz L%  7      ׀thatmayhavecontained    DeCSS(seedeclarationofPAVLOVICHfiledJune6,2000,hereinafterreferredtoas PAVDEC1"atp.2:1527).AlsonotindisputeisthefactthatPAVLOVICHdidnotdevelopanypartofDeCSS(exhibitA,p.56:2324)andthatDeCSSwasnotutilizedintheLIVIDproject(exhibitA,p.57:913).Itissimilarlyuncontrovertedthat Neitherthesite,northeinformationonthesite,wasspecificallydirectedatcitizensofCalifornia(PAVDEC1atp.2:2326)andthatnopartofthepostingcamefromanyknownCaliforniacontact. ` Inshort,PAVLOVICHdidnotinteractwiththeplaintiff(asisthecaseinCalder, hP McGee,PanavisionInterl,L.P.v.Toeppen,141F.3d1316(9thCir.1998)andother   effectscases),didnotdirectactivitiesatCalifornia,anddidnotpurposefullyinteractwithCaliforniansinconjunctionwiththeinstantcase. `  2ǣ  B  .3  0 Plaintiffhasfailedtoshowanynexusbetweenitssolecauseofaction pX# andDefendantPAVLOVICH 24 8 $ % %  ` Plaintiffisatechnologylicencingentity(OPPatp.3:1618).Itisasmallandfairlyobscurez s A  zz z L%  8      ׀organizationchargedwithlicensingCSStechnology.Itisnotamovie  $ ) producer,orastudio,anditislocatedinMorganHillCalifornia!notHollywood.ThusanygeneralknowledgePAVLOVICHhadaboutamovieindustryspresencein @'(#- California,oraComputerindustrypresenceinCaliforniaisofnoconsequence!toholdotherwisewouldcreateapermanentlegalforumforeverysingledisputetangentiallyrelatedtoeitherindustry. ` Again,thefactsathandruncountertocaseswhereCourtshavefoundjurisdictionbasedon effects.TheSupremeCourtinCaldernoted: X @ 8 ` petitionersarenotchargedwithmereuntargetednegligence.Rather,theirintentional,andallegedlytortious,actionswereexpresslyaimedatCalifornia...Petitioner[s]...knew[theiractions]wouldhaveapotentiallydevastatingimpactuponrespondent.AndtheyknewthebruntofthatinjurywouldbefeltbyrespondentintheStateinwhichshelivesandworksandinwhichtheNationalEnquirerhasitslargestcirculation. ` (#` (# Calderat789790. `H  =9SimilarlyinPanavision,supra,theCourtfoundjurisdictiononthebasisofthe  defendantstargetedextortionschemeaimeddirectlyatplaintiffzuCzzz L%  9      ׀Panavision(Idat1319). h TheschemeincludeddirectcontactwiththeCaliforniabusiness,relatingtothesubjectofthecase,andanattemptatobtaining$13,000inexchangeforPanavisionstrademarked  domainnames(Idat1319). 0  ` IftheCourtweretofollowthelogicputforthbyplaintiffs,insteadofthelawasoutlinedinCalderandPanavision,theresultswouldbeabsurd.Holdingthatmere P8 knowledgeofanindustrypresenceinaparticularforumprovidesjurisdictionforanydisputeremotelytouchingonthatindustryssubjectmatterwouldoffendDueProcessandleadtoanobliterationoftraditionaljurisdictionalrequirements.Forexample,byDVDCCAslogic,aFloridaDVDwarehouse,couldsueitsColoradoDVDsupplier,overacontractdispute,inCalifornia,solongastheColoradoSupplierknewthatthemotionpictureindustryoperatesinCalifornia.Sucharesultrunscountertocommonsenseandcountertoestablishedlegalprecedent. ` TheonlymannerinwhichplaintiffcanproperlyfulfilltheeffectstestinthiscaseisifitcouldshowthatPAVLOVICHsknewhisactivitywouldaffectaCaliforniaparty! `*H&1 afactualimpossibilityinthiscasesincePAVLOVICHdidnotknowoftheexistenceoftheonlypartyzwEzzz L%  10      ׀andbecausePAVLOVICHissimplychargedwithbeingarepublisherof  informationzx8z8G8 8zz8z L%  11      .Itiswellsettledthatpersonaljurisdictiondoesnotextendtoanon 8  residentdefendantbyvirtueof"random,fortuitousorattendant..."contactsoverwhichthedefendanthadnocontrol(BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,471U.S.462,47576,485 X @ (1985))99.#99E#ԀHere,PAVLOVICHdidnttargetaCaliforniaplaintiff,hesimplyhadsome    inputintoapassivewebsitethathadinformationDVDCCAwishestorestrainzI{I zzz L%  12      .Asthe x `  CourtinCybersellv.Cybersell130F.3d414,418(9thCir.1997)noted: Creatingasite,   likeplacingaproductintothestreamofcommerce,maybefeltnationwideorevenworldwide!but,withoutmore,itisnotanactpurposefullydirectedtowardtheforumstatez } L  zz z L%  13      .   `   2ǣ  1  .3  0  Plaintiffsallegationsofdamaging effectsonthemotion H0 industryisuntenablesincetheindustryhasconcededthatthereisnopiracyassociatedwithDeCSS UJ %%  ` AssumingarguendothatDVDCCAhad standingzo  N  zz z L%  14      toarguethattheCalifornia hP motionindustrywasaffectedbyPAVLOVICHsallegedpublicationofDeCSS,itwouldbeestoppedfromdoingsobytheindustrysownadmissionsthatnosucheffectshaveoccurred.InthecaseofUniversalStudios,Inc.V.Reimerdes,00Civ.277(S.D.N.Y   2000),plaintiffs(theeightmajormotionpicturestudios)amendedtheircomplainttodropanyclaimfordamagesrelatedtoDeCSS(seeportionsoftrialtranscriptfromUniversal  Studios,Inc.V.Reimerdes,supra,attachedasexhibit BtothedeclarationofAllonnE. 8  Levy,hereinafter exhibitBatpp.713714).Similarly,MichaelShamos,anexpert(exhibitBatpp.1823)retainedbythemotionpictureindustryconcededthatotherthanhisowntests,paidforbythestudios,heknowsofnoonewhohascopiedaDVDusingtheDeCSSprogramavailableontheweb(exhibitBatp.128129;129:925;130:18)similarcommentsweremadebyotherMPAAwitnesses(exhibitBatpp.399435;pp.237344(qualificationasexpert);p.294:825). ` Finally,althoughDVDCCAappearstosuggestpiracyisaharmattributabletoDeCSS,theyoffernoevidencetosupporttheirconclusion.Infact,duringhisdeposition,PAVLOVICHindicatedthataccordingtohisknowledge,copyingapurchasedDVDontoaharddrivezMPzzz L%  15      ׀eitherasabackuporto spaceshiftviewingtoadifferentmachine  constitutedlegal fairuse(exhibitAatp.70:1725)andnotpiracyzR88R88zz8z L%  16      . hP  `   2ǣ  2  .3  0  ReverseEngineeringisnotillegal;thereisnoevidenceof   effectsonthe computertechnologyindustryasawhole +U p%%  ` PlaintiffalsoappearstoarguethatjurisdictionexistsbecauseaPAVLOVICHpoststatesthatreverseengineeringisillegal(OPPatp.8:2124).Thisargumentisparticularlytroublingsincereverseengineeringisnotillegalz(Tzzz L%  17      ׀(Cal.Civ.Code3426.1(a)).This 8 $ appearstobetheonlyreferenceevenremotelyrelatedtoplaintiffscontentionthatPAVLOVICHknewthatthe computertechnologyindustrydoesbusinessinCaliforniaamongotherplaces.SimilarlyunavailingisplaintiffsobservationthatPAVLOVICH $ * wasawarethatcertainDVDtechnologywasavailablefromanunknownentity,inanunknownlocation,atanunknowntimezOVzzz L%  18      .Therelevantfactsaresimple:PAVLOVICH  didnotknowthatDVDCCAexistedatthetimeoftheallegedlywrongfulconduct,couldnotknowthatDVDCCAdidbusinessinCalifornia,andcouldntdirectconductatit. ` WhileDVDCCAtrumpetsthefactthatPAVLOVICHwasawarethatthecomputerindustryexistsintheSiliconvalley(andelsewhere),itoffersnofactstosupporttheconclusionzp88X88zz8z L%  19      ׀thatthisobservationsupportsgrantsCaliforniajurisdictionover x `  PAVLOVICHzPZzzz L%  20      .    `  2ǣ  C  .3  0 TheCourtsholdinginJ.D.O.z/\zzz L%  21      ׀isdirectlyonpoint  _ `H  % % 99 ` IntherecentcaseofJewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,  theCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourt'sdenialofadefendant'smotiontovacatedefaultjudgmentandquashserviceofprocess.InJ.D.O.,theoutofstateDefendantwas  allegedtohavepublishedinformationonaworldwidewebsitewhichbecamethesubjectofalawsuit.TheJ.D.O.defendantalsousedtheU.S.mailtocontactaCalifornia 0 resident,hadpreviouslyresidedinCalifornia,contractedwithaCaliforniaInternetserviceprovider(ISP)tohosttheWebsitethatcontainedthepublishedinformationthatwasthebasisofthelawsuit,andappearstohaveknowntheCaliforniaplaintiff.#99`#99 !  ` Inperformingacompletejurisdictionalanalysis,includinggeneraljurisdiction,specificjurisdictionandthe effectsz2