WPCh AYjƍdf[B-xlєW`wq4WDAS0\ 0ak%wtcj ~v# si.Z _$Ƴg Z3ណyx=g'p*;UYM~Yk-_>BO񂣏f޼6A:ڠ5vU`3uWO\-)_Kd?ub4><VIILߕkgF6bABZ!T4`Ⴙb kĊש%A@OE"hZ̛ 3(B!£df$Kbΐ3:ed,y5.҇&_ρݜ1Ѭp@n: =|FbI#uV}Y/< ɪyW(9N=F/A՜F]*x0Oz_kׂD.%lJ=6c~'< i##U/F% %% 0(%q% 0[d&U >&& 1u'E6( 0c8( 0w(b)b)) ) 0D)]4* 0* 1m.+ 0m+ 0--U?B//UN3 0C3 0A'4<h4"7w:4::=== 0UAA 0inA 0}A 0TB 0BBBBBBboCoCoCoCoCoCoCtwC|D gH"qJM>OQfRaR$RRRRR 0 l#T#TzTTTTTT 0D VMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVMVXXXXXXX BZZZZZZZZZZp]]]]I^^ Rd Re Rpe Re Rf Rff Rf R g R\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\g\gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg^ gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 72g gNgg mggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 0Dhhh 0DYhJade,,,,,,0< 9Z .Courier New RegularX($ gTXX h  541832.WPD#XQ,XT#(3$ !    0  .(\  p`&Times New Roman e'  @  XEXXXTABLEOFAUTHORITIES  @*#XQ,XXXE3# 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#!  D$    2    _XEXXXSuperiorCourtCaseNo.CV786804#XQ,XXXES#$&'((3$ !   S )  _  ӄ  3  ڀH0%4heading 3heading 3&            '   )&37=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)V:footnote texfootnote text  W\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW`:footnote reffootnote reference          D$    11    XEXXXAsindicatedbelow,theevidencedemonstratesthatPetitionerdidnotactuallyownor  operatetheLiVidwebsitethatallegedlyrepublishedtheDeCSScode.TheLiVidwebsitethat  allegedlycontainedDeCSSwasvoluntarilytakendown(seeAPP.p.67;Declarationof  PAVLOVICHat2:1327).#XQ,XXXED#\  `*Times New RomanTT  !  _Lj XX   Lj               1        ݀#XEX +#ComparetheInternetjurisdictioncasesof_Panavision_ԀInternationalL.P.v._Toepen_(9thCir  1998)141F.3d1316and_Cybersell_,Inc.v._Cybersell_,Inc.(9thCir.1997)130F.3d414.  AlthoughnoknownSupremeCourtdecisionhassoheld,thedistinctionsbetweenthesecases  wouldappeartoturnbasedontheilldefined expressaimingrequirement. XXE(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular($    (V$8    2 !  Lj XX   Lj               4        ݀#XEX #AtrueandcorrectcopyofPetitionersProofofService,NoticeofMotion,Pointsand  AuthoritiesinSupportofMotion,DeclarationofAllonnE.LevyinsupportofMotion,and  DeclarationofMatthewPavlovichinSupportofMotiontoQuashServiceofProcessisincluded  asExhibitBoftheseparatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiledwiththeAppellateCourt. XXE  !  Lj XX   Lj               5        ݀#XEX #AtrueandcorrectcopyofRealPartyinInterestsopposingpapers,whichincludePointsand  AuthoritiesinOppositiontoMotiontoQuashServiceandtheDeclarationofJonathanS.Shapiro  inOppositiontoMotiontoQuashService,isincludedasExhibitCoftheseparatelybound  appendixofexhibitsfiledwiththeAppellateCourt. XXEz%*ƁT)  !  Lj XX   Lj               6        ݀#XEX #AtrueandcorrectcopyofPetitionersReplyBriefinSupportofMotion,Replydeclarationof  AllonnE.LevyinSupportofMotion,andObjectionstoEvidenceSubmittedbyPlaintiffis  includedasExhibitDoftheseparatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiledwiththeAppellate  Court. XXE3|x 3 !  Lj XX   Lj               7        ݀#XEX #AtrueandcorrectcopyofthecourtsorderisincludedasExhibitEofAtrueandcorrectcopy  ofPetitionersReplyBriefinSupportofMotion,ReplydeclarationofAllonnE.LevyinSupport  ofMotion,andObjectionstoEvidenceSubmittedbyPlaintiffisincludedasExhibitDofthe  separatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiledwiththeAppellateCourt. XXE(,$8  0`     (@P$8  0`   0 ` `  ` (T$8  0`   0 ` ` 0  (hP$8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#-!- j D$    12    XEXXXTheevidenceshowshedoesnotownoroperateanysuchsite,thoughPAVLOVICHdid  haveinputintoawebsiteoperatedbytheLiVidgroup.SeeAPP.p.67;Declarationof  PAVLOVICHat2:1727.#XQ,XXXED# r !  Lj XX   Lj               16        ݀#XEX #Inyetanotherexample,theCourtinGoehringv.SuperiorCourt(1998)62Cal.App.4th894,  909notedtheconfusioninvolvedinthe expressaimingrequirementandtheCaldertest  generally.ThatCourthandledtheambiguitiesbyanalyzingthelevelofintentonthepartofthe  nonresidentdefendantin expresslyaimingcontactwiththeresidentplaintiff,butdidnot t clarifytheboundariesofCalder.  !  Lj XX   Lj               17        ݀#XEX #AlsocitingWolfv.CityofAlexandria(1990)217Cal.App.3d541;Kulkov.SuperiorCourt  (1978)436U.S.84,9495.  !  Lj XX   Lj               18        ݀#XEX #ComparetheInternetjurisdictioncasesofPanavisionInternationalL.P.v.Toepen(9thCir  1998)141F.3d1316andCybersell,Inc.v.Cybersell,Inc.(9thCir.1997)130F.3d414.  AlthoughnoknownSupremeCourtdecisionhassoheld,thedistinctionsbetweenthesecases  wouldappeartoturnbasedontheilldefined expressaimingrequirement.  !  Lj XX   Lj               19        ݀#XEX #ShouldtheCourtgrantsreviewasrequested,petitionerwillprovidefullbriefingandcase  citationsonthisissue. 4 !  Lj XX   Lj               20        ݀#XEX #Itiswellsettledthat random,fortuitousorattendantcontactswillnotsupportpersonal  jurisdiction(BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,(1985)471U.S.462,475476,485).  D$    8    XEXXXThepartieshavenotdisputedthefactthatthecomputercodeDeCSSisspeechfor  purposesofFirstAmendmentanalysis.#XQ,XXXEC#TABLE B  )  _@88)  3  ڄ  Ac ) xdExA  XEXX XEPETITIONFORREVIEW((2$ !      0   p D$    9    XEXXXDVDCCAhasprovidednodirectevidencethatMr.Johansenenteredthisagreement,or  thatheviolatedsuchanagreement.Instead,DVDCCAsimplyaversthatsuchagreementsare  usuallyagreedto.#XQ,XXXEC#(%$  1    D$    10    XEXXX APPstandsfortheAppendixtoExhibitsfiledintheAppellateCourt.Forthe  Courtsconvenience,allreferencestoexhibitswillincludeboththeAPPpagenumber,followed  bytheoriginaldocumentreference.ForexampleAPPpp.221;Complaintpp.120.#XQ,XXXED#  D$    3    XEXXXReferencestotheseparatelyboundAppendixofExhibits,filedconcurrentlywith  petitionerspetitionforwritofmandateintheAppellateCourtwillbedenotedas APP;See  complaintincludedasexhibitAoftheseparatelyboundappendixofexhibitsfiledwiththe  AppellateCourt.#XQ,XXXEC# d  D$    13    XEXXX&%XXETheopenprojectwhichallegedlypostedDeCSSwasalooseassociationofpeople,whom  PAVLOVICHdoesnotpersonallyknow(APP.p.170171;exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknow  wherethoseindividualsaredomiciled(APP.p.172;exhibitAatpp.19:1921),norwhohoststheLiVidlist ` (APP.pp.173174;exhibitAat2122).ThegoaloftheLiVidgroupwastocreatebettersupportforvideo 8 playback(APP.p.175;exhibitAat23:1015),nottoharmanypartyinCalifornia.#&%%&D##XQ,X%&c# f D$    14    XEXXX(SeePetitionersReplyPapersattachedasExhibitDtotheseparatelyboundAppendix  ofExhibits,hereinafterExhibitDatAPP.pp174175;DepositionofPAVLOVICHatpp.22  23)#XQ,XXXED#. ? D$    15    XEXXXRealPartydidprovidetwounauthenticateddocumentsthatitallegesareattributableto  Petitioner(seeDVDCCAsoppositionpapersattachedasExhibitCtotheseparatelybound  AppendixofExhibits,hereinafterExhibitC,atAPP.p.111114;DeclarationofShapiroat  exhibitC).PetitionerfiledobjectionstothisevidencepursuanttoEvidencecode350,412, t 702,800and15201523,(SeeExhibitDatAPP.pp.157158;ObjectionstoEvidenceatpp.12). ` Withoutwaivingsaidobjections,Petitionercontendsthatfarfromshowinganyintentionalact, L  theemailsshowPetitionersdisagreementwithDVDCCAscontentions(ExhibitCat 8  APP.p.114;DeclarationofShapiroatexhibitC).Thedocumentsalsoshowthatatsomepoint $ t priortothesurfacingofDeCSSontheweb(onOctober25,1999accordingtoDVDCCA;see  ` ExhibitAatAPP.p.14;Complaintat13:1722),Petitionerquotedsomeoneelsesincorrect  L  hearsaystatementthatReverseengineeringisillegalinmostplaces(ExhibitC,atAPP.p.112;  8  DeclarationofShapiroatexhibitC).Additionally,theOctober1,1999emailregardingreverse $  engineeringclearlystatesitrelatestosoftwaredriversandnottoanypartofCSSorDeCSS.#XQ,XXXED#CourtTitle2B,d0\MAA'露PartyName2B,d0\MAAD露PartyTitle2,d0\MAADh露PartyName3B,d0\MAADG露PartyTitle3B,d0\MAAD0露@CrossActionB,d0\MAAD0露CaseNo = B,d0\MAAD0露DocumentTitle,d0\MAAD0露LDates B,d0\MAAD0露pX*s  i)HU(3$ !  (3$ !  !  _TRY,3' FinalX3' Letter 3' Letter3'T  )(63 XEXXXwXXE 8Q,XXdd8AppellateCourtNo.H021961     #XEXwP#XXEINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHE  ̀STATEOFCALIFORNIA#XEX#wXXE   ( % s %s.x  .% t %t7MATTHEWPAVLOVICH,  <   `  % u Petitioner.%u <   ` vs. <  % v %vSUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATE < OFCALIFORNIAFORTHECOUNTY < OFSANTACLARA, <  `  % w Respondent. < 򀀀%w < DVDCOPYCONTROL < ASSOCIATION,INC., <  `  RealPartyinInterest. < % x %x򀀀- < )  <  ) <  ) <  ) <  ) <  ) < ) < ) <  ) <! ) <" ) <# ) <$ ) <% ) <& ) <' ) <( ) <) ) <*  <+ % y SupremeCourtNo.____________%y  < + TrialJudge:Hon.WilliamJ.Elfving <1 SantaClaraCountySuperiorCourt <2 TrialCourtCaseNo.CV786804 <3 % z %z % { %{  <7 .x.Ac ) xdE!A !<7    PETITIONFORREVIEWAFTERDECISIONBYCOURTOF !K8 APPEAL,SIXTHAPPELLATEDISTRICT "I9    Ac ) xdE#A #G: ` "US , ALLONNE.LEVY(BarNo.187251) %V < HUBERSAMUELSONAPC &V!= 210NorthFourthStreet,Suite400 'V"> SanJose,CA95112 (V#? Telephone: (408)2957034 )V$@ Facsimile: (408)2955799 *V%A AttorneysforPetitioner ,V'C Matthew__Pavlovich_     / #Lj w#w Lj#XEXw#wXXE  2   I  .3    PETITIONFORREVIEW  ^      ` TOTHEHONORABLECHIEFJUSTICEOFTHECALIFORNIA   SUPREMECOURT,ANDTHEASSOCIATEJUSTICESOFTHE   SUPREMECOURTOFCALIFORNIA:   ( ` MATTHEW_PAVLOVICH_,defendantandpetitioner,respectfully   petitionsforreviewfollowingthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeal,Sixth   AppellateDistrict,(perHon.EugeneM._Premo_,Acting_P.J._),filedon   October11,2000.      2   II  .3    ISSUESPRESENTEDFORREVIEW        ` ?1)0 ` WhetherjurisdictionisavailableinCaliforniaundertheCalder  effectstest,basedexclusivelyonInterneteffects,wherethereisno   evidenceof expressaimingdirectedataparticular,known, " Californiaparty.$ ` `  2)0 ` WhetherCaliforniamayexercisejurisdictionoveradefendantonthe &!" basisthat:Thedefendantkneworshouldhaveknownthathisacts (#$ wouldhaveaneffectonindustriesgenerallyreputedtoexistin *%& California( generalindustryeffects),wherenootherCalifornia  contactsexist.` `   `  2   A  .3  0 SUMMARYOFREASONSFORREVIEW      `  TheCaldereffectstesthasprovidedStateCourtswitha   frameworkwithinwhichtodevelopjurisdictionaljurisprudence.However,   asrecentCaliforniaCourtdecisionshavenoted,ithasalsocreatedever   increasingconfusionovertheprecisedefinitionofthe expressaiming   requirementandoftheboundariesoftheCaldertestingeneral.    ` TheambiguitiesintheCaldertesthaveledtoconfusionand  seeminglydivergentopinionsinnumerousInternetjurisdictioncases.  Indeed,heretheSixthAppellatedistrictfoundjurisdictionbasedsolely  uponInternetpublicationofinformationwhiletheSecondAppellatedistrict  foundnosuchjurisdictiononstrikinglysimilarfacts(JewishDefense  OrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72_Cal.App_.3d1427).  DivergentopinionsarealsofoundintheFederalCourtswhichhavedealt   withthesameissues_ L%  1      _. "  ` TheambiguityregardingtheexistenceofInternetbasedjurisdiction $  hasariseninthiscase,andwillcontinuetoariseastheadditionalnon  residentdefendants(totalingatleast17namedindividualnonresident  defendantsandanunknownadditionalnumberofidentifiedand  unidentifieddoedefendants)areserved.Additionally,thisissuewill   continuallyariseintheslewofotherInternetcasescurrentlywinding   throughthecourtsasindividualsandcompaniesendeavortosettleInternet   relateddisputes.    ` IfCourtsundertakeanexpansivereadingofthe expressaiming  requirementandtheCaldertestingeneral,bothInternetandnonInternet  caseswillrapidlyincreasethroughoutCalifornia.Newcaseswill  continuallybefiledbasedupontheholdingthatonlyforumrelated general  industryeffectsmustbepresenttosustainjurisdiction.Thiswillcreatea  burdenonboththecourtsystemandnonresidentdefendants.   ` Becauseofthewidenetcastbytheplaintiffsinthiscaseandbecause  ofthecontroversialsubjectmatterofthecase,mainstreamandindustry   specificpresshavefollowedthiscaseclosely.Assuch,thepublicposture " ofthiscasewillnecessarilyshapethemannerinwhichindustryand $  individualsmakefuturedecisionsregardingtheirinteractionontheInternet &"" !eitherchillingonlinespeechandcommerce,orpermittingittocontinue ($$ toexpand.ItisimperativethatthisCourtseizetheopportunitytoreview *&& thismatterandclarifythisimportantareaof_cyber_Ԅjurisdictional  jurisprudence.     2   III  .3     STATEMENTOFTHECASE t-$       ` ThisisanInternetrepublicationcasewhereinPetitioner,isalleged    tohavebeeninvolvedinthewebsiterepublicationofinformationalleged   tohavecontainedRealPartyinIntereststradesecrets.Theoriginal   developmentandpublicationoftheinformationisallegedtohave  originatedfromoneormoreresidentsofforeigncountrieswhopostedthe  informationontheInternet.   `  2   A  .3  0 PROCEDURALFACTS t''    ` Petitioner,MATTHEW_PAVLOVICH_Ԁ(hereafter_PAVLOVICH_Ԁ)is  adefendantintheunderlyingactionandisapartybeneficiallyinterested  herein.RespondentistheSuperiorCourtofSantaClaraCounty L%  2      ׀(hereafter ! Respondent).Realpartyininterest,DVDCopyControlAssociationInc. # (Hereinafter,RealPartyorDVDCCA)istheplaintiffintheaction % ! hereinafterdescribedandisapartybeneficiallyinterestedinthis '"# _proceeding.   ` OnDecember27,1999,RealPartyinInterest,DVDCCA,filedin  RespondentCourtagainstthisPetitioner,asdefendant,acomplaint  numberedCV786804allegingasinglecauseofactionmisappropriationof   tradesecrets(Civ.Code3426etseq.).Thetradesecretmisappropriation   causeofactionisbasedontheallegationthatPetitionerrepublished   informationthatisallegedtohavebeenmisappropriatedbyathirdpartyor   partiesandrepeatedlyrepublishedthroughouttheInternet.Petitionerisone  ofsome521namedandDoedefendantswhohavebeensuedforallegedly  republishingthisinformationontheInternet!manyofwhomarenon  residents.Numerousotherpublishersofthesameinformationhavenot  beensued.Plaintiffandrealpartyininterestisanotforprofittrade  associationwhosesolepurposeistolicensetheinformationknownasthe  ContentScramblingSystemorCSS.   ` RealpartyininterestallegesthatportionsofitsCSSTechnology   werewasmisappropriatedbyathirdpartyandpartiallyincorporatedintoa " newtechnologycalledDeCSS.Realpartyininterestallegesthatafterthe $  thirdpartycreatorofDeCSSpostedDeCSSontheInternet,Petitionerand &"" otherdefendantsdiscoveredtheinformationpostedontheInternet,and ($$ themselvesfurtherrepublishedtheinformationonvariousotherInternet *&& websites\ L%  3      .    XEXw XXE1'  1'      #XEX >#wXXE ` PetitionermadenogeneralappearanceinRespondentCourt.Rather,  onJune6,2000,PetitionerappearedspeciallyinRespondentCourt  (pursuanttotheprovisionsof418.10oftheCodeofCivilProcedure)by   filingamotiontoquashserviceofsummonsonthegroundsthatthe   RespondentCourtlackedjurisdictionoverthepersonofdefendant2*    wwwwwwww        @ L%  4     and   petitioner.Followingastipulatedjurisdictionaldepositionanddocument   production,onAugust18,2000,RealPartyinInterestfileditsopposition  paperstoPetitionersmotion*    XEXwXEXXXEXDXXXEXEXXXD         L%  5     #XEXhXE2#whXE.OnAugust22,2000,Petitionerhereinfiled  hisreplypapersinresponsetoDVDCCAsopposition*    XEXwXEXXXEXDXXXEXEXXXD        !  L%  6     .  X    XEXXXEXEXXXEXDXXXEXEXXXD  wXXE ` AhearingwasheldbyRespondentCourtonAugust29,2000at  approximately9:00a.m.inDepartmenttwooftheSantaClaraCounty  SuperiorCourt.AnorderdenyingPetitionersmotiontoquashserviceof  summonsforlackofjurisdictionwasservedbymailonallpartieson  August30,2000# L%  7      ׀(pursuanttoCal.RuleofCourt28(e)6,atrueandcorrect  copyoftheTrialCourtsdecisionisappendedasexhibit Atothis   petition,hereinafter exhibitA)..ApetitionforWritofMandateand   appendixofexhibitsweretimelyfiledwiththeSixthDistrictCourtof   AppealonSeptember11,2000.TheCourtofAppealissueditsdecision   denyingthepetitionforwritofmandateonOctober11,2000(pursuantto  Cal.RuleofCourt28(e)6,atrueandcorrectcopyoftheAppellateCourts  decisionisappendedasexhibit Btothispetition,hereinafter exhibitB).  Ӏ `  2   B  .3  0 JURISDICTIONALFACTS ti!@    ` Thisisaninformationrepublicationcasewhereintheplaintiff,  DVDCCA,seekstoenjoinPetitionerPAVLOVICHandsome521other   defendantsfromrepublishingapieceofcomputercodeidentifiedas " DeCSS.Whenimplementedbyauser,DeCSScanenableconsumersto $  playlawfullypurchasedDVDswithouttheuseofasoftwareDVDplayer  licensedbyrealpartyDVDCCA.DVDCCAoperatessolelyasthe  licensoroftheContentScramblingSystemor"CSS"technology.DeCSSis  particularlyusefulforusersofopensourcecomputeroperatingsystems   sincesuchsystemsdonotcurrentlyofferDVDplayerslicensedbyDVD   CCA.Anexampleofsuchanopensourcecomputeroperatingsystemis   thepopularLinux#Lj w #w LjԀoperatingsystem.    ` Plaintiffarguesthatitisentitledtorestrainthedefendantsrightto  republishthisspeech< L%  8      ׀byallegingthecodeitselfincludesmisappropriated  tradesecrets.DVDCCAspeculatesthataNorwegianindividualnamedJon  JohansenauthoredDeCSSbyreverseengineeringCSSafterclickinga  softwareagreementFh L%  9      ׀prohibitingsuchreverseengineering.DVDCCA  furtherallegesthatMr.JohansenthenpostedtheDeCSScodeonthe  Internet,worldwide.Petitionerherein,andothers,areallegedtohave  subsequentlyfoundDeCSSontheInternetandrepublishedit(seeAPPM, L%  10      .   pp.221;Complaintatp.13:1727;p.17:2428).DVDCCAbroughtthis  actiontoenjoinPetitionerandtheremaining500defendantsfrom  continuing L%  11      ׀torepublishtheDeCSSinformation(ExhibitAatAPP.p.20;  Complaintatp.19). ff&             5J     'EJ  ff `   2   1  .3  0  SitusandIdentificationofParties ti'K |     ` RealPartyinInterest,Plaintiff,DVDCCAisaDelaware z  corporationwithofficeslocatedinMorganHill,California,andisthe z  licensingentityforthetechnologyknownasCSS(APP.p.4;Complaintat z p.3:1217). z  ` Petitioner,Defendant,PAVLOVICHisanoutofstateresident z servedbyU.S.mailwhileastudentinIndianaandcurrentlyresidingin z Texas(APP.pp.6668;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHatpp.13).  z  `   2   2  .3  0  FactualSummary tivN c    ` 33Petitioner'sinvolvementinthiscaseislimitedtohisroleasan  , allegedrepublisheroftheDeCSScodewhileenrolledasafulltimestudent ", attheUniversityinIndiana(APP.p.6668;DeclarationofPAVLOVICH $,  2:15;2:827).PlaintiffhasallegedthatPetitionerPAVLOVICHis  responsiblefortheposting6 L%  12      ׀ofDeCSSonthe  "www.livid.on.openprojects.net"website(APP.p.6;Complaintatp.5:13  16). 33   Ѐ ` Inreality,PAVLOVICHdidnotownoroperateanysitethat   publishedDeCSS,howeverhedidconcedeforpurposesofthemotionto   quashthathehadinputiT L%  13      ׀onsuchawebsite(APP.p.67;Declarationof   PAVLOVICHat2:1727)operatedbyothers.SincePetitionerhadnothing  todowiththecreationofDeCSS,anyliabilityonthepartofPAVLOVICH  stemssolelyfromhisdiscoveryofapieceofcode(DeCSS)ontheInternet,  andhavinginputonawebsitethatallegedlyrepublishedthatcode.   ` TheLiVidgroupwhichallegedlypublishedtheDeCSScodewasa  looseassociationofvolunteerswhowereinvolvedinLinuxopensource  projectsinvolvingvariousformsofvideoplaybackm L%  14      .PAVLOVICH  testifiedthattheLiVidprojectwasr% [ unbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andthatPAVLOVICHdidnothingontheprojectforlong  periodsoftime(APP.p.180;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat52:211).The  evidencepresenteddemonstratesthattheDeCSScodewasnotutilizedin   theLiVidDVDplayer(APP.p.182;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat57:9   13),andPAVLOVICHplayednopartinthedevelopmentofDeCSS   (APP.p.181;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat56:2325).DVDCCAhas   providednoevidencetoshowthateitherLiVidorPAVLOVICH  intentionallydirectedactivitiestowardsaCaliforniapartyq L%  15      .   ` PetitionerPAVLOVICHhasnoconnectionwithCalifornia.  PAVLOVICHdoesnotresideinCaliforniaanddoesnothaveanyregular  clientsorworkinCalifornia(APP.pp6768;DeclarationofPAVLOVICH  atpp.23).Furthermore,PAVLOVICHhasnever:solicitedbusinessin  California;designatedaregisteredagentforserviceofprocessin  California;maintainedaplaceofbusinessinCalifornia;maintaineda  telephonelistinginCalifornia;maintainedabankaccountinCalifornia;or  evenvisitedCaliforniaforanybusinesspurpose(APP.p.68;Declarationof   PAVLOVICHat3:27).ThewebsiteDVDCCAattributesto   PAVLOVICHwasa"passive"websitethatdidnotinvolvetheinteractive   exchangeofinformationwithusers,didnotsolicitorengageinbusiness   activities,anddidnotsolicitcontactwithCaliforniaresidents(APP.pp.67;  DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:1827).Further,Petitionerdidnotknow  ofDVDCCA'sexistence,muchlessitssitusinCalifornia,priortothefiling  ofthislawsuitandhasneverdonebusinesswithDVDCCA(APP.p.68;  DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat3:79).Petitionerneitherdirectednor   expresslyaimedanyactivityorcontacttowardsCalifornia,muchlessany  activityorcontactspecificallyrelatedtothetradesecretcauseofactionthat  isthesubjectofthissuit(APP.pp.6668;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat   pp.13;ExhibitD,atAPP.pp.168169,178,179,180,185;Depositionof " PAVLOVICHatpp.1112,44:412,48:2225,52:211,91:2225). $   ` RealPartyinInterestdoesnotcontestthefactthatPAVLOVICHhas &"" hadnocontactwithCaliforniaorthefactthathedidnotknowtheidentity ($$ oftheonlyplaintiffinthiscase(SeeOppositiontoPetitionforWritof *&& Mandate,hereinafter OPP,generallyandatpp.1112).DVDCCAargues  thatthelackofexpressaimingdirectedatDVDCCAisirrelevanttothe  jurisdictionalanalysis(OPPatp.12)andthatjurisdictionmaybefound  solelybaseduponeffectsonthecomputerandmovieindustrieswhichare   reputedtoexistinCalifornia(OPPatp.1113).       2   IV  .3     ARGUMENT c       `   `  2   A  .3  0 COMPELLINGREASONSEXISTFORTHISCOURT  TOGRANTTHEPETITIONFORREVIEW e    ` PursuanttoCal.RuleofCourt29,thisCourtisempoweredtoreview  appellatedecisionsunderspecified,narrow,circumstances.Theseunusual  circumstancesareevidentintheinstantcase.   ` Thiscasepresentsimportantquestionsoflawinoneofthemost  criticalareasofStatelaw!thatofjurisdictionaljurisprudence.Atabase   level,jurisdictionalissuesariseineverysinglecase,soitisraretouncover " unresolvedquestionswithinthisareaoflaw.However,withthe $  widespreadacceptanceoftheInternet,Courtsarefacingdifferentsituations &!" thanthosepreviouslyseen,givingrisetonewquestionsoflawthatare (#$ destinedtorecurasInternetcasesbecomemoreprevalent. *%&  ` InthelandmarkcaseofCalderv.Jones,465U.S.783(1984),the  SupremeCourtheldthatjurisdictionmaybefound,withintheconfinesof  dueprocess,wherecertainintentionalactsare expresslyaimed,andcause  foreseeableharmintheforumstate.SubsequentCourtshavenotedthatdue   processprovisionsandCalderrequire somethingmorethansimply   foreseeableeffectsintheforumstate(PanavisionIntl,L.P.v.Toeppen,   (9thCir.1998)141F.3d1316,1322,buthavenotdefinedwhatthe    somethingmoreisandhavenotdefinedtheboundariesof express  aiming.   ` AlthoughitselfnotanInternetcase,theCaldercasewasan  informationrepublicationcase.Assuch,theCaldertesthas,invarying  degrees,becometheprimarybasisforjurisdictionalanalysisinInternet  cases.TheimportanceoftheCaldertestinInternetcasesarisesoutofthe  highspeed,transient,natureofinformationontheInternetandtheeffects  broughtaboutbythatinformation.InapplyingtheCalderholdingtothe   Internetarena,theboundariesoftheCaldereffectstestitself,aswellasthe " specific expressaimingrequirementcryoutfordefinitionand $  clarification.Withoutsuchdefinition,CaliforniaCourtsandlitigantswill &"" continuetostrugglewithjurisdictionalquestionsresultinginalackof ($$ uniformityamongsimilarCourtcasesandinconfusionbyindustry *&& participants.   ` Settlingtheimportantquestionsoflawraisedinthispetitionwill  necessarilyassistCaliforniaCourtsandpartiesinevaluatingtheelementary  issueofjurisdictionwhicharisesinmanycasesandinnearlyallhigh   technologyandInternetbasedcases.TheprecedentsetbythisCourtwould   notonlyapplytothe17namednonresidentdefendantsalreadyincludedin   thiscase,butitwillalsoapplytothenumerousotherInternetandnon   InternetcaseswindingthroughCaliforniaCourtsandrelyingonthe effects  testasabasisforjurisdiction.   ` Inthenewglobaleconomy,questionsabouttheboundariesofthe   effectstestasappliedinCaliforniafrequentlyarise.Asindustryand  individualsassesstheirlevelsofriskandresultingabilitytodobusinessand  otherwiseinteractontheInternet,participantswilllooktothisCourtto  answertheserecurringlegalquestionsregardinghowfarthe effectstest  reachesinCalifornia.Thus,theresolutionofthesejurisdictionalissuesis   notonlypivotaltotheresolutionofInternetlitigation,butalsoisimportant " toindustryparticipantswhowilladjusttheirdailyinteractionsbasedonthe $  outcomeofthiscase. &""  ` CaliforniaCourtshavestruggledwiththeboundariesofthe effects ($$ testforsometime.Inarecentdecision,theNinthCircuitcandidlynoted *&& theconfusionamongthecourts:  8 ` SubsequentcaseshavestruggledsomewhatwithCalders  import,recognizingthatthecasecannotstandforthebroad  propositionthataforeignactwithforeseeableeffectsinthe  forumstatealwaysgivesrisetospecificjurisdiction.We   havesaidthattheremustbesomethingmore,buthavenot   spelledoutwhatthatsomethingmoremustbe.See   Panavision,141F.3dat1322. ` x` x 8 `  Wenowconcludethatsomethingmoreiswhatthe   SupremeCourtdescribedasexpressaimingattheforum   state.SeeCalder,465U.S.at789.Expressaimingisa   conceptthatinthejurisdictionalcontexthardlydefinesitself.   Fromtheavailablecases,wededucethattherequirementis   satisfiedwhenthedefendantisallegedtohaveengagedin  wrongfulconducttargetedataplaintiffwhomthedefendant  knowstobearesidentoftheforumstate.` x` x Bancroft&MastersInc.v.AugustaNationalInc.(9thCir.2000)__f.3d__,  2000U.S.App.LEXIS20917,2000C.D.O.S6941,2000D.A.R.9197at  *1014(acourtesycopyofthedecisionhaspreviouslybeenprovidedto  opposingcounselandisattachedheretoasexhibitCforthecourts  conveniencepursuanttoCal.RuleofCourt28(e)5).   ` TheBancroftCourtsuppliedsomeclarificationontheissueof   expressaimingbutdidnotprovideactualboundariesdemonstratingwhat  factsdonotsatisfythe expressaimingrequirement.    ` OtherCaliforniaCourtshavealsowrestledwiththeboundariesof " the effectstestinCalifornia7 L%  16      .InEdmundsv.SuperiorCourt(1994)24 $  Cal.App.4th221,236,theCourtstruggledwiththeconfinesofCalder,  eventuallynoting Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatthefactthata  defendantsactionsinsomewaysetintomotioneventswhichultimately  injuredaCaliforniaresident,willbeenoughtoconferjurisdictionoverthat   defendantontheCaliforniacourts.8 L%  17      InJewishDefenseOrganizationInc.   v.SuperiorCourt(1999)72Cal.App.3d1427theCourtalsoprovidedlittle   analysisinitsholdingthatrepublicationofinformationontheInternet   havinganeffectinCaliforniadidnotprovidejurisdiction9h L%  18      .  Ѐ ` Thus,thelowerCourtherefoundthatdespitetheholdingin  Bancroft,expressaimingmaystillbesatisfiedwithoutthetargetingofa  specificnamedparty.Additionally,theAppellateCourtheldthat general  industryeffectsasdefinedabovearesufficienttosatisfytheCaldertest.  ThelowerCourtsdecisionwouldseemtostandincontrasttotheInternet  publicationcasesofBancroft,JewishDefense,Cybersellandtosomeextent  Panavision.However,withoutclarificationontheissuesoutlinedinthis   petition,industryparticipants,litigantsandCourtsattemptingtoanalyzethe " divergentdecisionswillbestymiedintheirattemptstopredictthelegal  outcomeofagivenjurisdictionaldispute.   ` PetitionercontendsthatifDVDCCAstheoriesofjurisdictionare  permittedtostand,nearlylimitlessjurisdictionwillexistinCalifornia.   However,withoutreview,theresultwillbeevenmoredamagingasthevast   numbersofindividualsaffectedbyandfollowingthiscasewillbeleftwith   confusionratherthanasolidunderstandingofthepivotalissueof effects   basedjurisdiction.   `  2   B  .3  0 THEEXPRESSAIMINGREQUIREMENTINCALDER  OUGHTTOPROPERLYBEREADASREQUIRING  ANINTENTIONALDIRECTIONOFCONSEQUENCES  AIMEDATAKNOWNPARTYINTHEFORUM  STATE ϊ    ` Initsopposition,DVDCCAarguesthat Petitionersclaimthathe  didnotknowDVDCCAsnameorlocationuntilcommencementofthis  lawsuit(Petition,p.25)isirrelevant(OPPatp.12).Itispetitioners   contentionthattheentirefoundationforthe effectstestasabasisfor " jurisdictionthatcomplieswithdueprocessistheintentionaldirectionof $  harmfulactivity expresslyaimedataparticularpartywithintheforum &!" state.Withoutthepurposefuldirectionofactivityintentionallydirectedata (#$ particularparty,theCaldertestisrenderedmeaninglessinthatitwould *%& allowforjurisdictionanytimearesidentplaintiffisaffectedbytheactsofa  nonresident!suchareadingwouldconflictwiththeConstitutional  guaranteesofdueprocess.   ` Inanalyzingthejurisdictionalfacts,theCalderCourtmadeitclear   thatinpublishingitsinformation,thedefendantinCalderknewtheidentity   oftheplaintiff,knewtheplaintifflivedintheforumstateandknewthatthe   informationitwaspublishingwouldlikelyhaveanadverseeffectonthat   particularplaintiff(Calderat789790andgenerally).Thesameistruefor  thedefendantinPanavision,supra(relieduponbythetrialCourtinits  order,seeAPPp.225;TrialCourtorderatp.1)andthosedefendantsin  other effectstestcaseswherejurisdictionhasbeenupheld: L%  19      .   ` Intheinstantcase,PAVLOVICHcouldnothaveexpresslyaimedhis  conductatDVDCCA(thesoleplaintiffinthiscase).Atthetimethere  publicationofDeCSSoccurred,PAVLOVICHwasastudentatPurdue  UniversityandhadneverheardofDVDCCA.Sincepetitionercouldnt   havetargetedDVDCCA,anyactivitythataffectedDVDCCAwouldhave " beensimplyfortuitousorrandom;h L%  20      . $   ` Itiswellsettledthatinordertocomplywithdueprocess,any  exerciseofjurisdictionmustsatisfyminimumcontacts,fairplayand  substantialjustice(BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz(1985)471U.S.462,472,  476478).the expressaimingrequirementoughttoproperlybereadas   requiringactualdirectionofactivityaimedatanamedpartyinorderto   fulfilltheforeseeabilityandpurposefulavailmentelementsofdueprocess   (Id).Unlessanindividualactuallydirectsconductataknownentity,heor   shecannotbesaidtotrulybeundertakingintentionalconduct,expressly  aimedatCaliforniaknowntohaveapotentiallydevastatingimpactupona  partyinCalifornia(seeCalderat789790).Toholdotherwiserendersthe   expressaimingrequirementabstruse,indefinite,speculative,and  essentiallymeaningless.   `  2   C  .3  0 CALIFORNIAOUGHTNOTEXERCISE  JURISDICTIONBASEDSOLELYUPONTHE  EXISTENCEOFALLEGEDEFFECTSFELTBY   INDUSTRIESREPUTEDTOEXISTINCALIFORNIA  !   ` RealPartyinInterestarguesthatjurisdictionisavailablebecause #  Petitionerbothknewandshouldhaveknownthattheeffectofhisconduct % ! wouldbetoharm...Californiaenterprises(OPPatp.12).Petitioner '"# denotesthisgeneralknowledgeofaneffectonaparticularindustryor )$% industriesreputedtoexistinCaliforniaas generalindustryeffects.  PetitionercontendsthatneitherCalder,noritsprogenywasenvisionedas  permittingsuch generalindustryeffectsasabasisforjurisdiction  consistentwithdueprocessguarantees.WeresuchareadingoftheCalder   testpermittedtostand,theresultwouldbeadramaticincreasein   jurisdictionencompassingallcaseswithsubjectmattersthattouchupon   industriesreputedtoexistintheforumstate.    ` TheCalder effectstestisoneofmanytestsforpersonal  jurisdiction.Itisaparticularformof purposefulavailmentrequiredinall  specificjurisdictioncases.Assuch,therequirementsofthetestmust  complywithtraditionalDueProcesssafeguards.   ` Theconstitutionalcornerstoneofdueprocessanalysisis whether  thedefendantpurposefullyestablishedminimumcontactsintheforum  (BurgerKingat474). [T]heforeseeabilitythatiscriticaltodueprocess  analysis...isthatthedefendantsconductandconnectionwiththeforum.   ..aresuchthatheshouldreasonablyanticipatebeinghaledintocourtthere. " (Id;WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson(1980)444U.S.286,295). $   Itisessentialineachcasethattherebesomeactbywhichthedefendant &"" purposelyavailsitselfoftheprivilegeofconductingactivitieswithinthe ($$ forum...,thusinvokingthebenefitsandprotectionsofitslaws(Idat *&& 475).   ` Thereisnotruepurposefulavailment,norforeseeability,wherethe  defendantsimplyknowsthathisorheractionswillhaveaneffectona  particularindustryreputedtoexistintheforumstate.Insuchasituation,   therehasbeennoexpressdirectionofactionataparticularentityandthe   individualcannotbechargedwithanticipatingthatheorshehascreateda   sufficientlystrongconnectionwiththeforumstatethatwillsupportbeing   haledintocourtthere.UnlikethesituationinCalderandPanavisionwhere  thedefendantspecificallytargetedanindividualparty(theplaintiff)and  expresslyaimedactivitiesthatwouldharmthatindividual, generalindustry  effectsdonotsatisfythetraditionaldueprocessanalysis.   ` Noknowncasehasupheldjurisdictionbasedupontheexistenceof   generalindustryeffects.InCybersellv.Cybersell(9thCir.1997)130  F.3d414,thedefendantsurelywasawarethatitsInternetconductcould  haveaneffectonanynumberofindustries.However,asthatCourtnoted    [c]reatingasite,likeplacingaproductintothestreamofcommerce,may " befeltnationwideorevenworldwide!but,withoutmore,itisnotanact $  purposefullydirectedtowardtheforumstate(Idat418,420). &"" Additionally,itiswellsettledthatinassessingspecificjurisdiction, the ($$ plaintiffmustpresentfactsdemonstratingthattheconductofthedefendant *&& relatedtothepleadedcausesissuchastoconstituteconstitutionally  cognizable minimumcontacts(Edmundsv.SuperiorCourt(1994)24  Cal.App.4th221,228).Adefendantsconductgenerallydirectedatan  industry(asopposedtoatanamedparty)cannotbesaidtobeatrue    contactrelatedtothecauseofactionunlesstheindustryasawholeis   suing.Simplyconductingactivitiesthattouchuponthesubjectmatterofan   industryreputedtoexistinCaliforniadoesnotrisetothelevelof   purposefullydirectingactswithanintentionorexpectationthataCalifornia  partywillnecessarilybeaffected(Goehringv.SuperiorCourt(1998)62  Cal.App.4th894,909).Norcansuchactivityrisetothelevelof  deliberatelyavailingoneselfofthebenefitsandprotectionsoftheforum  state(Sibleyv.SuperiorCourt(1976)16Cal.3d442,447448).   ` Holdingthatmereknowledgeofanindustrypresenceinaparticular  forumprovidesjurisdictionforanydisputetouchinguponthatindustrys  subjectmatterwouldoffendDueProcessandleadtoanobliterationof   traditionaljurisdictionalrequirements.Forthesereasonsandthosetobe " presentedwhenthisissueisfullybriefed,ThisCourtshouldreviewthe $  AppellateCourtsdecisionandprecludetheuseof generalindustry &"" effectsasabasisforjurisdictioninCalifornia. ($$  *&&     2   V  .3    CONCLUSION ճ      ` PetitionerrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtexerciseitsdiscretion  andgrantreviewoftheseimportantlegalissues,alternatively,owingtothe   Courtsactivecalendar,PetitionerwouldrequestthattheCourtgrant   reviewandretransferjurisdictiontothecourtofappealforreconsideration   andforsuchotherreliefastheCourtmaydeemappropriate.#Lj wD#w Lj  #Lj w#-X@ X-   *=>ddd Xdd Xdd X  , ," +  ,"tt ,w LjDATED:September11," USUS ,  2000" US , US 't ''X@ h'HUBERSAMUELSONAPC t By:   F  t   0  ALLONNE.LEVYt   0  AttorneysforDefendantt   0  MATTHEWPAVLOVICHt   #Lj w3#(t (  *z     XX c w Lj@``" TABLEOFCONTENTS   B  Page    TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  C .#iii#Lj w#w LjԈ   is  V  VX8 `    I.0` ` x` xPETITIONFORREVIEW#d d E .'` x` x#2VXt݌   Ќ  V  V78 `    II.0` ` x` xISSUESPRESENTEDFORREVIEW#d d E ./` x` x#2V7S݌   Ќ  $  $8 ` 0 ` x` x `   A.0 x xSUMMARYOFREASONSFORREVIEW#d d E .6 x x#3$;݌  Ќ  V  V8 `    III.0` ` x` xSTATEMENTOFTHECASE#d d E .)` x` x#5V2݌  Ќ  $  $8 ` 0 ` x` x `   A.0 x xPROCEDURALFACTS#d d E ...) x x#5$݌  Ќ  $  $8 ` 0 ` x` x `   B.0 x xJURISDICTIONALFACTS#d d E .ff- x x#8$݌  Ќ  &P  &P8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   1.0xxSitusandIdentificationofParties#D .``Axx#10&P݌  Ќ  &P  &P8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   2.0xxFactualSummary#D .-xx#10&P݌  Ќ  V  V8 `    IV.0` ` x` xARGUMENT#D .((` x` x#14V݌  Ќ  $  $窷8 ` 0 ` x` x `   A.0 x xCOMPELLINGREASONSEXISTFORTHIS ! COURTTOGRANTTHEPETITIONFORREVIEW#D .::? x x#14$窷݌ " Ќ  $  $8 ` 0 ` x` x `   B.0 x xTHEEXPRESSAIMINGREQUIREMENTIN $  CALDEROUGHTTOPROPERLYBEREADAS % ! REQUIRINGANINTENTIONALDIRECTIONOF &!" CONSEQUENCESAIMEDATAKNOWNPARTY '"# INTHEFORUMSTATE#D .+ x x#19$ ݌ (#$ Ќ  $ *%&   $窼8 ` 0 ` x` x `   C.0 x xCALIFORNIAOUGHTNOTEXERCISE  JURISDICTIONBASEDSOLELYUPONTHE   EXISTENCEOFALLEGEDEFFECTSFELTBY   INDUSTRIESREPUTEDTOEXISTIN   CALIFORNIA#D .# x x#21$窼݌   Ќ  V  V8 `    V.0` ` x` xCONCLUSION#D .` x` x#25V݌  Ќ  #Lj w# L    LjX.X  @$ FEDERALCASES    'XX4XXX' Bancroft&MastersInc.v.AugustaNationalInc.(9thCir.2000),    4 __F.3d__,2000U.S.App.LEXIS20917,    4 2000C.D.O.S6941,2000D.A.R.@ .**117,18      BurgerKingv.Rudzewicz,(1985),471U.S.462= .>21,22,23 n  Zt Calderv.Jones,(1984)465U.S.78322- .43,4,15,17,18,20,21,22 F`  2L  Cybersell,Inc.v.Cybersell,Inc. 8   4 (9thCir.1997),130F.3d414: ./3,18,23,24  $    Kulkov.SuperiorCourt(1978),436U.S.84  D .88;18      PanavisionInternationalL.P.v.Toepen(9thCir1998),141F.3d1316rrB .44U3,15    = 17,18,20   World-WideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson(1980),444U.S.286  D .K22 ~  j  Vp   @GG% STATECASES  B\   Edmundsv.SuperiorCourt(1994),24Cal.App.4th221= .  F17,18,24 4    Goehringv.SuperiorCourt(1998),62Cal.App.4th894A .G17,24      JewishDefenseOrganizationInc.v.SuperiorCourt !  4 (1999),72Cal.App.3d1427rrB ..3,18 "  # Sibleyv.SuperiorCourt(1976),16Cal.3d442  D .?24 $  z% Wolfv.CityofAlexandria(1990),217Cal.App.3d541  D .  G18 f&   R'l!    >(X"   @@KK. STATUTES  *)D #   Cal.CivilCode3426l l E .$6 +"% ЇCal.CodeofCivilProcedure418.10l l E .37#XQ,XXX.##Lj XXQ,# LjX.XԈ       Cal.EvidenceCode350  D .&12      Cal.EvidenceCode412  D .&12      Cal.EvidenceCode702  D .&12 n  Zt Cal.EvidenceCode800  D .44'12 F`  2L  Cal.EvidenceCode1520-1523  D .-12 8    $  Cal.RuleofCourt28l l E . %8#XQ,XXX.#X.XXXQ,#XX.#X.XԈ      Cal.RuleofCourt29  D . %14   #XQ,XXX.##Lj XXQ,#