WPC: ؈ H߯ `'bœk*V?7p88zwƱ4٩>j' 1>:>jՠ־(FJn*əAb&i6$;m"Z[;IV\dz*`yMm!(UUC/r)Սik6 ^L hu=~̭ kfP2~<&"gEu2=~'c(L*6X $ٔ6+{'/zJ?[Lz$M%6&([KatrKZD&:*~|ّ5GO%~*{Ҥ@>i?}D2=8++wEgg lc_ .jCس\JŇ=N39tM.i##U% %& 0(&3'U<N5)U >)y) 1u:0E0 0u0 0&1b1U B112 0D44V6 1m=Np= 0Ur==>d@U@ANZA 0A\ANAAwEC4ICz]CC^C 0UDHU.H 0iH 0}0I 0I 0>JbJJ 72JNKKbL^ LJ'LqNUNsNNxoP 0NQ #5R !XRNyR 0){RR}YUfZaZ Z[ +]b=]bA] 0E]b]b]N]]c]/B_ 0Aq` 0D` 0U` 0iKa 0}a 01bNb b 0b 0c 0d 0e 0lf 0Ig 0#h 0h 0Ci 0j 0j 0k 0l 0[m 0&n 0n Bo 0o 0@p 0p 0q 0ur 0Cs 0t 0t 0u 0]v 00w 0<Jw 0w 0>Dx 0vx Rx RJy Ry Ry R@z Rz Rz R6{ R{ 0`{ 0`:| 0`| 0`| 0`Z} 08} 0} 02~ 0~ 0: 0Y, 0_ 0  0j 0X B*܄ D/ D+5 0` D/ 0 06 0 0: 0^Y 0<U6U>)U*gb SrrIIIIII 0Q 06 0 0aaaaa5ܙOԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚԚ################################################ m % ! + ',, %SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 72~N 0D 0DJade,,,,,,0 K D}$ `   1    _AllreferencestotheseparateAppendixofExhibitsfiledwiththis  courtonSeptember11,2000willbedenoted APP.followedbythe  appropriatepagenumberordescription.($ ) D}$ `   4    _nInitsReturn,DVDCCAconcedesthatithasmisidentifiedthe  subjectwebsite(RealPartyinInterestsReturn,hereinafterreferredtoas   RETatp.4,fn.2).Forpurposesofthismotion,PAVLOVICHvoluntarily  admittedthathehadSeeAPP.p.67;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:17  27.#Pno#(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular(\  p`&Times New Roman o D}$ `   16    _nX[NXnPetitionerdidbelievethatDeCSSwasreverseengineered(APP.atp.99  100;Depositionatpp.3233),however,hedidnotknowthatthereverse  engineeringofDeCSSwasillegal.ThecitationofferedbyRealPartytoshow  such knowledgepredatestheexistenceofDeCSSbyasubstantialamountof t time(seePETp.16,fn.9)suchthatitcannotpossiblyrelatetoDeCSS.The ` evidenceitself(seeAPP.atp.112;DeclarationofShapiroatExhibitC)quotes L  previousmessagesbyothersandrelatesto mediadrivers(programsthatinteract 8  betweenhardwareandoperatingsystems)nottheCSStechnology.Additionally, $ t PetitionerreassertshisevidentiaryobjectionsoutlinedinopeningpapersPETat  ` p.16,fn.9.  L   ` Inatradesecretaction,theonlywayinwhichreverseengineeringcanbe  8   illegalisifitisdoneinviolationofacontract(SeeCal.Civ.Code3426.1(a))! $  DVDCCAprovidesnoevidencetosupportsuchaconclusion.    ` Additionally,Petitionercontendstheevidenceitselfisincompetentand   inadmissibleasdiscussedinopeningpapers(PETatp.16,fn.9).#X8XXX[Np##PXX8#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(ML$2   I  .3  0  (a$0  2   A  .3  0` (#(#!\  `*Times New RomanTT )  _@*Ac ) xdExA  PetitionersReplyinSupportofPetitionforWritofMandamus    D}$ `   9    _n(SeePetitionersReplyPapersattachedasExhibitDtothe  separatelyboundAppendixofExhibits,hereinafterExhibitDat  APP.pp174175;PavlovichDepo.atpp.2223)#Pno#.(3$ !    D}$ `   26    _nDVDCCAhasargued,withoutprofferingevidence,thatbecause  Californiahasareputationforcreatingmoviesandhightechnology,ithas  jurisdictionoverPetitionerwhoseconductallegedlytouchesonboth.  D}$ `   15    _X8XX[NXXX8ContrarytotheconclusioninDVDCCAsReturn,Petitionerdidnot  statethatDeCSSfacilitatespiracy.Rather,whencounselforDVDCCAasked   onceamotionpictureisonaharddrivecanitbepirated?(APPatp.104;  Depositionat60:1925).Petitioneranswered: Itcan.Imean,itsnotlikeyou t cangofromusingDeCSSaspartofyourharddrivetopirating.Thereisalot ` morethatonewouldhavetodotodothat(APP.atp.183;Depositionat61:13). L  PAVLOVICHwentontoexplainthattherearemanyotherwaystopiratemotion 8  pictures(APP.atp.183;Deposition61:525).Furthermore,#X8XXX[N#PAVLOVICH $ t testifiedthataccordingtohisknowledge,copyingapurchasedDVDontoahard  ` driveeitherasabackuporto spaceshiftviewingtoadifferentmachine  L  constitutedlegal fairuse(APP.atp.184;Depositionatp.70:1725)andnot  8  piracy(seealso17U.S.C107andannotations).Asindicatedpreviously,thegoal $  ofLiVidwastoimproveLinuxsupportforvideoplayback,aswellastoproduce   thefirstLinuxcompatibleDVDplayer!Thereisnoevidencesuggestingthey   wereinvolvedinillegalcopyingofanysort.#PXX8p# )&37=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)*+ (_2623  .. e'  _@* PnP#Pnb##PPC#   D}$ `   6    _Whileitmightbeflatteringtothinkthatasa22yearoldstudentin  IndianaMatthewPavlovichwas aleaderinopensource(RETatp.3),this  unattributedallegationisinaccurate.Thereiscertainlynoevidenceinthe  recordtosupportsuchanallegation. D}$ `   7    _SeeLawrenceLessig,CodeandOtherLawsofCyberspace(1999)(A Z(Times New Roman (V$8     D}$ `   19    _PItisunclearfromthebriefdiscussioninthisopinionwhetherornot  Poptopwasawarethat3DOhaditsprincipalplaceofbusinessinCalifornia  atthetimeitactivelydistributeditscode.#PPp#kf* p D}$ `   18    _3|x T D}$ `   20    _nIn_Goehring_,thePetitionerknewtheidentityoftheCalifornia  businessanddirectedsomecorrespondenceandagreementstothe  Californiaentity.However,the_Goehring_Courtstillfoundthatthe  Petitionerhadnotpurposefullydirectedtheiractswithanintentionor  expectationthatthedocumentswouldhaveaneffectinCalifornia.  Similarly,assuming_arguendo_,_PAVLOVICH_Ԁdidpublish_DeCSS_   information,thereisnoevidencethathisgeneralknowledgeaboutthe   movieandcomputerindustrytranslatesintoanintentionorexpectationthat   publicationof_DeCSS_ԀwouldcauseaneffectinCalifornia.(,$8  0`     $Verdana(@P$8  0`   0 ` `  ` (T$8  0`   0 ` ` 0  (hP$8  0`   0 ` ` 0 0h    (u/$0  0` (#(#2   1  .3  0 ` (#` (#- - i) D}$ `   21    _Naturally,thisrulealsoappliesinitpureformtotheinstantcase,  sinceDVDCCAisacorporateplaintiff.-!-g*s  @ D}$ `   8    _% %& % %Ԁ#&< % %%&o#&v % %&<#n %&v#nnTheopensourceApachewebserverapplicationhasbeenthe  numberonewebservingapplicationoverthelast5years(see  &v %nhttp://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html#n %&v#).(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular  D}$ `   22    _DVDCCAnotesthatPetitionertraveledtoNewYorkforarelated  case(RETatp.16,fn.9).Inthatinstance,PAVLOVICHhadhisairfare  paidbyanonprofitgroupandunceremoniouslysleptonacouchinan  apartmentuponhisarrivalinNewYork. n D}$ `   25    _ItisunclearwhyCaliforniawouldhavethegreatestinterestinthe  outcomeofthiscasewhenDVDCCAsownReturndemonstratesthatover  80%oftheCSSlicenseesarelocatedoutsideofCalifornia(RETatp.5).(O$:FOtherations:EPublication( $  D}$ `   13    _Therearenumerousbasesfordeterminingspecificjurisdiction.In  Internetpublicationcases,Courtsfrequentlyanalyzethe effectstestand   the slidingscaleapproach(CybersellInc.v.Cybersell,Inc.(9thCir.1997)  130F.3d414,419).DVDCCAhasoptedtoargueexclusivelyunderthe   effectsdoctrine,concedingthelevelofinteractivityoftheLiVidwebsite  doesnotprovideabasisforjurisdiction(RETatp.8,fn.5). s D}$ `   10    _AsindicatedinPAVLOVICHSPetition,nnnPAVLOVICHhasno  connectionwithCalifornia.PAVLOVICHdoesnotresideinCaliforniaand  doesnothaveanyregularclientsorworkinCalifornia(APP.pp6768;  DeclarationofPAVLOVICHatpp.23).Furthermore,PAVLOVICHhas  never:solicitedbusinessinCalifornia;designatedaregisteredagentfor  serviceofprocessinCalifornia;maintainedaplaceofbusinessin   California;maintainedatelephonelistinginCalifornia;maintainedabank   accountinCalifornia;orevenvisitedCaliforniaforanybusinesspurpose   (APP.p.68;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat3:27).ThewebsiteDVD   CCAattributestoPAVLOVICHwasa"passive"websitethatdidnot   involvetheinteractiveexchangeofinformationwithusers,didnotsolicitor   engageinbusinessactivities,anddidnotsolicitcontactwithCalifornia   residents(APP.pp.67;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:1827).#Pn##PP#TABLE B:CCases  D}$ `   14    _InnԀthecontextofcomputerprogramming, videoincludesany  graphicalrepresentationsonacomputerscreen.Thus,videooutputusually  includespresentationoftextandgraphicsonavideoscreenconnectedtoa  computerandvideoplaybackincludesthestorageandretrievalofsuch  data.:BCCPfornia Codes (8(2}$ !   `   0     Y D}$ `   23    _3PUniversalCityStudios,Inc.etal.v.Hughes,caseno.300CV721  _RNC_,(_D.Ct_)#P3Pp#. % D}$ `   24    _3PUniversalCityStudiosetal.v.Reimerdesetal.,caseno.  00Civ.0277(LAK),(S.D.N.Y.)#P3Pp#.(Vm$0   (%$  1  (,$8  0`     (@P$8  0`   0 ` `  ` (T$8  0`   0 ` ` 0  (hh$8  8`   0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx  KMNOP*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d(2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      CourtTitle2B,d0\MAA'露PartyName2B,d0\MAAD露PartyTitle2,d0\MAADh露PartyName3B,d0\MAADG露PartyTitle3B,d0\MAAD0露@CrossActionB,d0\MAAD0露CaseNo = B,d0\MAAD0露DocumentTitle,d0\MAAD0露LDates B,d0\MAAD0露(&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7&  d d)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  w_C h  553309.WPD#PC# D}$ `   2    _ReferencestoDVDCCAsReturnfiledFebruary15,2001,are  referredtoat RETfollowedbytherelevantcitation. I D}$ `   3    _ReferencestoRealPartyinInterestsOppositiontoPAVLOVICHs  PetitionforWritofMandatedatedSeptember18,2000arereferredtoas   OPPthroughoutthisreply.  D}$ `   11    _nDVDCCAdidprovidetwounauthenticateddocumentsthatit  allegesareattributabletoPetitioner(APP.p.111114;Declarationof  ShapiroatexhibitC).Petitionerfiledobjectionstothisevidencepursuant  toEvidencecode350,412,702,800and15201523,(APP.pp.157158;  ObjectionstoEvidenceatpp.12).Withoutwaivingsaidobjections,  Petitionercontendsthatfarfromshowinganyintentionalact,theemails   showPetitionersdisagreementwithDVDCCAscontentions(APP.p.114;   DeclarationofShapiroatexhibitC).Thedocumentsalsoshowthatatsome   pointpriortothesurfacingofDeCSSonthewebonOctober25,1999   accordingtoDVDCCA(APP.p.14;Complaintat13:1722),Petitioner   quotedsomeoneelsesincorrecthearsaystatementthatReverse   engineeringisillegalinmostplaces(APP.p.112;DeclarationofShapiroat   exhibitC).Additionally,theOctober1,1999emailregardingreverse   engineeringclearlystatesitrelatestosoftwaredriversandnottoanypart   ofCSSorDeCSS.#Pnp#(d2G$@dd)  IV  .  @* @' ("&/G$  A  .0   (J/G]$0   1  .0` (#(# J (^/_^&$0  0` (#(#  a  .0 ` (#` (# 0L   D}$ `   5    _n&v %nTheprojectmemberswhoallegedlypostedDeCSSarenotknownto  PAVLOVICH(APP.p.170171;exhibitAatpp.1718),nordoesheknowwherethose  individualsaredomiciled(APP.p.172;exhibitAatpp.19:1921).Petitioneralsodoesnot ` knowwhohoststheLiVidlist(APP.pp.173174;exhibitAat2122)whereinformationis 8 exchangedelectronicallybetweenmembers.#&< % %&vo##P %&<̎#TOCLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 D}$ `   12    _ThisrecentcasedenyingjurisdictionbasedonaBancroftanalysis  isattachedheretoasexhibitB. E D}$ `   17    _Naturally,thecasewouldbedifferentifthematterinvolvedalegal  monopolysuchasapatentorinsomecasesacopyright.Therearenosuch  allegationsinthisinstance. w_C h  552329.WPD#PC#U:FEDERAL CASES:STATE CASES:FEDERAL STATUTES:STATE STATUTES:FEDERAL RULESH i)(3$ !  (3$ !  !  _TRY,3' LetterX3' Letter 3' Letter3'TP8dd8  )(63 nP %  @9 9  COURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @ SIXTHAPPELLATEDISTRICT   % s %s]% t %t|$XX'XX$. u   .MATTHEWPAVLOVICH,    `  % u Petitioner.%u,    ` vs.    % v %vSUPERIORCOURTOFTHE   STATEOFCALIFORNIAFOR   THECOUNTYOFSANTA   CLARA,    `  % w Respondent.  򀀀%w`  DVDCOPYCONTROL  ASSOCIATION,INC.,   `  RealPartyin  Interest.  % x %x򀀀(  )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )   )   ) ! ) " ) # ) $ ) % ) & ) ' ) ( ) )  * % y SixthAppellateDistrict  * ActionNo.H021961%y  + RelatedAppealPending:No.  . H021153  / TrialJudge:Hon.WilliamJ.Elfving  2 SantaClaraCountySuperiorCourt  3 TrialCourtCaseNo.CV786804 4 % z %z< % { %{[  8 . u .Ac ) xdEA 8    PETITIONERSREPLYINSUPPORTOF  9 PETITIONFORWRITOFMANDATE :    Ac ) xdE A  ;  "US , ALLONNE.LEVY(BarNo.187251) != HSLAWGROUP,AProfessionalCorporation "> 210NorthFourthStreet,Suite400 #? SanJose,CA95112 $ @ Telephone: (408)2957034 %!A Facsimile: (408)2955799 &"B AttorneysforPetitioner ($D MatthewPavlovich  )%E 8Pdd8@)  I  .    /  @$  INTRODUCTION#Pn#nP  @4   Ќ   ` PetitionerMATTHEWPAVLOVICHsubmitsthisreply   memorandum,respondingtoRealPartyinInterestsReturn,inaccordance   withthisCourtsOrderofJanuary16,2001.        A  .0 `   #Pn#nPPROCEDURALPOSTURE#Pn\#nP   ` `  Ќ   ` ThispetitionforwritofmandatearisesfromanorderofRespondent   SantaClaraCountySuperiorCourtdenyingPetitionersMotiontoQuash  ServiceofProcessfiledonAugust30,2000(APP L%  1      .p.224).Afterthefiling  ofaPetitionforWritofMandate,andanInformalOppositionbyRealParty  inInterest,thisCourtdeniedthePetitionforWritofMandateonOctober  11,2000.FollowingaPetitionforReview,onDecember13,2000,The  CaliforniaSupremeCourtunanimouslygrantedreviewbasedonthe  followingissues:  #Pn#nP0 ` 1)0 ` ` WhetherjurisdictionisavailableinCaliforniaunderthe ! Caldereffectstest,basedexclusivelyonInterneteffects, " wherethereisnoevidenceof expressaimingdirectedata # particular,known,Californiaparty.$   0 ` 2)0 ` ` WhetherCaliforniamayexercisejurisdictionoveradefendant % ! onthebasisthat:Thedefendantkneworshouldhaveknown  thathisactswouldhaveaneffectonindustriesgenerally  reputedtoexistinCalifornia( generalindustryeffects),  wherenootherCaliforniacontactsexist.#Pn#nP  Concurrentlywithitsgrantofreview,TheSupremeCourtdirectedthis   Court tovacateitsorderdenyingmandateandtoissueanorderdirecting   respondentSuperiorCourttoshowcausewhythereliefsoughtinthe   petitionshouldnotbegranted(seeSupremeCourtorderfiledDecember   13,2000attachedheretoasExhibit A,hereinafter ExhibitA).On   January16,2001,thisCourtfiledanOrdertoShowCausewhytherelief  soughtshouldnotbegranted,and,onafindingofgoodcause,stayed  proceedingsinthelowercourt.OnFebruary15,2001,RealPartyin  InterestserveditsReturn L%  2      ׀tothePetitionbyU.S.mail.Bothparties  requestedoralargument,andthisReplyisfiledinresponsetoDVDCCAs  Return,pursuanttothisCourtsJanuary16thorder.      |B  .0 `   STATEMENTOFTHECASE|  ` `  Ќ  #Pn#nP ` ThisisanInternetinformationrepublicationcasewherein   Petitioner,isallegedtohavebeeninvolvedinthewebsiterepublicationof " informationintheformofcomputerinstructionsknownasDeCSS.Months $  aftertheoriginalpublicationsoftheDeCSSinformation,RealPartyin  InterestallegedthattheoriginalandsubsequentpublicationsofDeCSS  includedtradesecrets.ItisundisputedthatPetitionerhashadnoactual  contactswithCaliforniaanddidnotexpresslyaimhisactivitiesat,ortarget,   anyparticularCaliforniapartyorentity(OPP L%  3      ׀atpp.1112).   @}})  II  .     "@(  FACTS#Pn#nP"" @N"    Ќ   ` 33Petitioner'sinvolvementinthiscaseislimitedtohisroleasan   allegedrepublisheroftheDeCSScodewhileenrolledasafulltimestudent  attheUniversityinIndiana(APP.p.6668;DeclarationofPAVLOVICH  2:15;2:827;APP.p.15;Complaintatp.14:46).Plaintiffhasallegedthat  PetitionerPAVLOVICHisresponsiblefortheposting L%  4      ׀ofDeCSSonaweb  site(APP.p.6;Complaintatp.5:1316). 33  Ѐ ` TheevidenceshowsthatPAVLOVICHdidnotownoroperateany  sitethatpublishedDeCSS.However,forpurposesofthemotiontoquash,  Petitionerconcursthathe,alongwithothers L%  5      #Pn"#nPԀhadinputonsuchawebsite  (APP.p.67;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat2:1727)operatedbyothers.  TherecordisdevoidofanyevidenceshowingPAVLOVICHhadany   connectionwiththecreationofDeCSS(APP.p.181;PavlovichDepo.   56:2124).Thus,liabilityonthepartofPAVLOVICHstemssolelyfrom   hisdiscoveryofapieceofcode(DeCSS)ontheInternet,andhavinginput   onawebsitethatallegedlyrepublishedthatcode.      )A  .0 `   PETITIONERSINVOLVEMENTWITHOPENSOURCE  SYSTEMS)* * ` `  Ќ  .+ ` Opensourcereferstoprogramsorsystemsthatenableindividuals  accesstotheunderlyingsourcecodeofthoseprogramsorsystems.This  enablesuserstocustomizetheircomputerprogramorsystemastheyseefit  ortopickandchoosewhichportionsofapackagedprogramorsystemthey  wishtoimplement.Numerousformsofopensourcecodehavebeenaround ! fordecades,includingthepopularLinuxandFreeBSDoperatingsystems, # theApacheserverandothers.Manyopensourcesystemsareprotectedby  strictandrigorouslicensessuchastheGPL,MozillaLicense(From  Sun/Netscape),AppleSourceLicense(Apple),andIBM'sPublicLicense.  Manypublicallyheldcompaniesdevotesomeoralloftheirresourcesto   opensourceprojects,includingVALinux,RedHat,IBM,Corel,Sun   Microsystems,CompaqandDell.IBMalonehascommitted5Billion   dollarsinresearchanddevelopmentintotheopensourceLinuxoperating   system L%  6      .#Pn'#% P  #P %肇0#nP ` ContrarytoDVDCCAsunfoundedcontentions,opensourcehas  nothingtodowithbeing dedicatedtomakingasmuchmaterialaspossible  availableovertheinternet(RETatp.3).Rather,itisaboutenabling  individualstoinnovateandcollaboratetocreatethebestprogramorsystem  tofitaparticularneed.Bycontrast,closedsourcesystems,suchasthe  MicrosoftsWindowsoperatingsystemfocusonsellingafixedsetof  featurestoconsumersandadaptingtheconsumerstothesystem.Today,   theopensourceLinuxoperatingsystemiswidelyviewedastheonly " potentialcompetitiontoMicrosoftsWindows.   ` NotedcyberlawexpertProfessorLawrenceLessig L%  7      ׀creditsmuchof  theInternetssuccessanduniversalacceptanceonthefactthatmostofthe  Internetsprotocols,fromtheirinceptionwere opensourced.Ironically,   DVDCCAsownwebsiteemploysbothanopensourceoperatingsystem   (FreeBSD)andanopensourcewebserver(Apache1 L%  8      ),(seespecifically,   #Pn0#nPhttp://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.universalstudios.com;and   generallyAPP.p.242,Rep.TranscriptofProceedingsatp.15:2428).#Pn6#nP      7B  .0 `   THELIVIDLISTANDLIVIDWEBSITE#Pn7#nP768 8 ` `  Ќ  a9 ` TheLinuxvideoandDVDprojector LiVidwasaloose  associationofsoftwaredevelopersandcomputerprogrammerswhowere  interestedinimprovingtheLinuxsystemarchitecturetobettersupport  manytypesofvideoplayback(APP.p.174;PavlovichDepo.22:2225).The  groupcongregatedelectronicallythroughelectronicmailingliststhat   permittedmemberstopostinformationthatmightbeusefultothewhole " group.TheLiVidgroupwasalooseassociationofvolunteerswhowere  involvedinLinuxopensourceprojectsinvolvingvariousformsofvideo  playback L%  9      .TheLiVidprojectitselfwasrunbyvolunteers,withnoformal  organization,andPAVLOVICHdidnothingontheprojectforlongperiods   oftime(APP.p.180;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat52:211).#Pn8#nPThegoalof   LiVidwastoimprovevideoandDVDsupportforLinuxandtocombine   theresourcesandeffortsfovariousindividualstoprovidearesourcefor   endusersanddeveloperstofindinformation(APP.p.175;PavlovichDepo.  23:1015)Amongthegroupsprojects,wasaprojecttocreateaDVD  playerforLinux,becausetherewasnoDVDsupportforthepopular  operatingsystem(APP.p.177;PavlovichDepo.28:49#Pn=#nP)#Pn,@#nPԀDeCSS,whichis  thesubjectofthislawsuitisnotthesamecodeastheLiVidDVDplayer  whichthegroupwasattemptingtocreate(APP.p.182;Depositionof  PAVLOVICHat57:913),andPAVLOVICHplayednopartinthe  developmentofDeCSS(APP.p.181;DepositionofPAVLOVICHat56:23   25). " Ѐ $      =BC  .0 `   PETITIONERHADNOCONTACTWITHCALIFORNIA.=BzB bB ` `  Ќ  #Pno@#nP ` DVDCCAhasprovidednoevidencetoshowthateitherLiVidor  PAVLOVICH< L%  10      ׀intentionallydirectedactivitiestowardsaCaliforniaparty L%  11        orentity.Further,PetitionerdidnotknowofDVDCCA'sexistence,much   lessitssitusinCalifornia,priortothefilingofthislawsuitandhasnever  donebusinesswithDVDCCA(APP.p.68;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHat  3:79).Petitionerneitherdirectednor expresslyaimedanyactivityor  contacttowardsCalifornia,muchlessanyactivityorcontactspecifically   relatedtothetradesecretcauseofactionthatisthesubjectofthissuit   (APP.pp.6668;DeclarationofPAVLOVICHatpp.13;ExhibitD,at   APP.pp.168169,178,179,180,185;DepositionofPAVLOVICHatpp.11   12,44:412,48:2225,52:211,91:2225).   ` RealPartyinInterestdoesnotcontestthefactthatPAVLOVICHhas  hadnocontactwithCaliforniaorthefactthathedidnotknowtheidentity  oftheonlyplaintiffinthiscase(OPP,generallyandatpp.1112,RETat  p.10).DVDCCAarguesthatthelackofexpressaimingdirectedatDVD  CCAisirrelevanttothejurisdictionalanalysis(OPPatp.12;RETatp.10)  andthatjurisdictionmaybefoundsolelybaseduponeffectsonthe  computerandmovieindustrieswhicharereputedtoexistinCalifornia   (OPPatp.1113;RETatp.10).#PnC#nP  " #Pn4K#@SS(  III  .    nP  K@@*  STANDARDOFAPPELLATEREVIEWFOLLOWINGK8L @K   Ќ   ORDERTOSHOWCAUSE #Pn L#nP   #PnQM#,LnP ` BecausetheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasgrantedreviewand   transferredthismatterbacktotheCourtofAppeal,theSupremeCourt's   actionindicatesthatthepetitionisprocedurallyappropriate(Atlantic   RichfieldCo.v.SuperiorCourt(1975)51Cal.App.3d168,172).Inissuing   theOrdertoShowCauseasinstructedbytheSupremeCourt,thisCourt's  order"isinthenatureofacitationtoapartytoappearatastatedtimeand  placetoshowwhytherequestedreliefshouldnotbegranted(citations)"  (Haganv.SuperiorCourt(1960)53Cal.2d498,511(dis.opn.ofSchauer,  J),citedwithapprovalinLewisv.SuperiorCourt(1999)19Cal.4th1232,  1240).  8 ` "Whenanonresidentdefendantchallengespersonal   jurisdictiontheburdenshiftstotheplaintifftodemonstrateby ! apreponderanceoftheevidencethatallnecessary " jurisdictionalcriteriaaremet.[citation]Thisburdenmustbe # metbycompetentevidenceinaffidavitsandauthenticated $  documentaryevidence.Anunverifiedcomplaintmaynotbe % ! consideredasanaffidavitsupplyingnecessaryfacts(Ziller &!" ElectronicsLabGmbhv.SuperiorCourt(1988)206 '"# Cal.App.3d1222,12321233)"(#$` x` x  )$% JewishDefenseOrganizationInc(JDO)v.SuperiorCourt72Cal.App.4th  1045,10541055.  Wherethereisconflictingfactualevidence,thestandardofreviewatthe  appellatelevelisthesubstantialevidencetest.Inotherwords,whetherthe   trialcourt'sdecisionissupportedbysubstantialevidence(Serafiniv.   SuperiorCourt(1988)68Cal.App.4th70,77).However,ifthereisno   conflictintherelevantfacts,thequestionisoneoflaw,theAppellateCourt   exercisesitsindependentjudgment(Serafiniat77)andthelowercourt's   determinationisnotbindingonthereviewingcourt(Hallv.LaRonde  (1997)56Cal.App.4th1342,1346).#PnM#nP  @YY)  IV  .    W@jj&  ARGUMENTWpX @'X   Ќ   ` #PnW#nPCalifornia'slongarmstatutepermitsCaliforniaCourtstoexercise  jurisdictiononlytotheextentsuchanexerciseofpowerisnotinconsistent  withtheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesortheConstitutionofCalifornia  (CodeCiv.Proc.410.10).#PnXY#nPIntheabsenceoftraditionalbasesfor ! jurisdiction,suchasinstatephysicalpresence,domicile,orconsent,the # DueProcessclauserequiresthatthedefendanthave"certainminimum % ! contactswiththe[forumstate]suchthatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoes '"# notoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantial(International )$% ShoeCo.v.Washington(1945)326U.S.310,320;VonsCompanies,Inc.v.  SeabestFoods,Inc.(1996)14Cal.4th434)."Thedefendant'sconductand  connectionwiththeforumStatemustbesuchthatthedefendant'should  reasonablyanticipatebeinghaledintocourtthere'"(Goehringv.Superior   Court(1998)62Cal.App.4th894,904;citingWorldWideVolkswagen   Corp.v.Woodson(1980)444U.S.286,297).    ` Theconceptofminimumcontactsembracestwotypesofjurisdiction   Єgeneralandspecific(Vons,supra).DVDCCA'sinformalOppositionand  itsReturnconcedethelackofgeneraljurisdiction,optingonlytoargueon  thebasisofspecificjurisdiction.Inanalyzingspecificjurisdiction,  Californiacourtshaveoutlinedathreeparttest:  8 ` 1)Thenonresidentdefendantmustdosomeact,or  consummatesometransactionwiththeforum,orperform  someactbywhichhepurposefullyavailshimselfofthe  privilegeofconductingactivitiesintheforum,thereby  invokingthebenefitsandprotectionsofitslaws;2)theclaim  mustbeonewhicharisesoutoforresultsfromthe  defendant'sforumrelatedactivities;and3)exerciseof   jurisdictionmustbereasonable(citations).!` x` x J.D.Ov.SuperiorCourtat1054. # `AsboththefederalandstateSupremeCourtshavenoted,eachindividual, %!! residentandnonresident,hasasignificantlibertyinterestinnotbeing '## subjecttothejudgmentsofaforumwithwhichheorshehasestablishedno )%% meaningfulminimum"contacts,tiesorrelations."(Vons,supraat445,  citingBurgerKingCorp.v.Rudzewicz(1985)471U.S.462,471472).      IeA  .0 `   PETITIONER,ASTUDENTININDIANA,DIDNOT   PURPOSEFULLYAVAILHIMSELFOFTHEPRIVILEGES   OFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIABYPERMITTING   INFORMATIONTOBEPOSTEDONAWEBSITEIee ne   ` `  Ќ   ` ACourtmayexercisespecificjurisdictionoveranonresident   defendantonlywhenthedefendantpurposelyavailedhimselfofthe   privilegesofconductingactivitiesintheforum(CallawayGolfCorp.v.  RoyalCanadianGolfAss'n(C.D.Cal.2000)2000U.S.Dist.LEXIS19032 L%  12      ,  citingBancroft&Mastersv.AugustaNational(9thCir.2000)223F.3d  1082,1086).Purposefulavailmentissatisfiedifthedefendanthastaken  deliberateactionwithintheforumstateorcreatedcontinuingobligationsto  forumresidents(IdandalsoBallardv.Savage,(9thCir.1995)65F.3d  1495,1498).   ` InitsReturn,DVDCCAarguesexclusivelyundertheCalder !  effectstestdoctrine; L%  13      .InthelandmarkcaseofCalderv.Jones,465U.S. # 783(1984),theSupremeCourtheldthatjurisdictionmaybefound,within  theconfinesofdueprocess,wherecertainintentionalactsare expressly  aimed,andcauseforeseeableharmintheforumstate.SubsequentCourts  havenotedthatdueprocessprovisionsandCalderrequire something   morethansimplyforeseeableeffectsintheforumstate(PanavisionIntl,   L.P.v.Toeppen,(9thCir.1998)141F.3d1316,1322,withoutclearly   defining somethingmoreortheboundariesof expressaiming.#PnZ#nPԀOne   recentdecisionpublishedbytheNinthCircuitprovidessomeguidanceon  thelimitationsoftheeffectstestwhilecandidlyacknowledgingthe  confusionamongcourts:  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   opposingcounselandisattachedheretoasexhibitB).   o#Pnn#]  nP]8v0 `  1  .0 ` `   REALPARTYININTERESTSEVIDENCEDOESNOT   PROVIDETHISCOURTWITH CAUSETODENY   THEREQUESTEDRELIEF]8vv v    Ќ   ` InitsReturn,DVDCCAprovidesamyriadofevidentiarycitations,   withoutdirectingtheCourttoanyparticularpointorreasonfordenying  Petitionersrequest.ReviewingtheevidenceidentifiedintheReturndoes  notprovide causetodenythepetition.   ` #Pnev#nPAlthoughDVDCCArepeatedlystatesthatPAVLOVICHposted  informationontheInternet,andmisappropriatedtradesecrets,theyprovide  nocompetentevidencetosupporttheallegations.TheLiVidwebsite  whichallegedlyhadtheDeCSScodepostedonit,wasapparentlyoperated  byanindividualnotknowntoPetitioner(APP.P.97;Depositionatpp.20 ! 21#Pny#nP)andthereisnoevidencethatPetitionerwasresponsiblefortheposting # ofDeCSS,orbelievedDeCSScontainedmisappropriatedtradesecrets.#Pn{#nP % !  ` WhileRealPartyinInterestcontinuallyinsinuatesthatpetitionerwas '"# somehowinvolvedinpiracy,theyprovidenoevidencetosupporttheir )$% claim.Thereis,however,evidencethattheLiVidgroupsgoalwasto  createbettersupportforalltypesofvideo@ L%  14      ׀playbackforLinuxmachines  (APP.atpp.175176;PavlovichDepo,atpp.2223).DVDCCAhasnever  providedashredofevidencesuggestingPetitionerortheLiVidprojectwas   involvedinpiracy L%  15      ׀ofDVDsorpiracyofanyothermedia.#Pn|#nP    ` DVDCCAsReturnindicatesthatpetitionerwasfullyawarethat   DVDswere keyinstrumentsofthemotionpictureindustryinthatthey   servetodelivermotionpicturecontent,(RETatp.4)citingtoPetitioners  depositionatpage28.#Pn#nPThetranscriptcitationshowsthatPetitioner  informedhisexaminerthatDVDswereusedfor largebackupsandstuff  (APP.atp.98;PavlovichDepo.p.28:1719#Pn#nPԀbutacceptedDVDCCAs  attorneysrequestthattheyonlyaddressDVDsusedtodelivermotion  picturecontent(APP.atp.98;Deposition28:1316).Infact,Petitioner   correctedhisexaminerthatmotionpictureswereprobablynottheprimary   useofDVDs,justthemostwellknownuse(APP.atp.98;Deposition   28:2025).#Pnǂ#nP   #Pn#nP ` DVDCCAspecificallyaskedPAVLOVICHifthemotionpicture  industrywas centeredinHollywood,California,towhichPetitioner  responded Iwouldntknow(APP.Atp.99;Depositionat30:27).  Petitioneronlystatedthatmoviesandmoviestarsareknowntoexistin  Hollywood.#Pn#nPԀSimilarly,#Pnۆ#nPPAVLOVICHstatedthathewasawaremany  technologycompanieswereinCalifornia,withmanyothersinTexasand  aroundtheworld(APP.atp.102;Depositionatpp.4144).#Pn*#nPԀPetitioneralso  identifiedNewYork,Dallas,Atlanta,andOttawaCanadaascitieswith a   lotoftechnology(APP.atp.179,PavlovichDepop.48:319).Nowherein " hislengthydepositiondidPAVLOVICHindicatehetargetedharmful $  conductatanyoneinCalifornia. &""  ` NowhereintherecordisthereanyevidencethatDVDCCA ($$ producesmoviesorcomputersoranytechnology.DVDCCAisntapartof  HollywoodanddoesntinvolveHollywoodactors.Instead,itiscomprised  ofattorneysandadministrativepersonnel.TherecordindicatesthatDVD  CCAissimplyanadministrativeentitycreatedtomanagelicenses   (APP.p.14;Complaintp.13:415),notatechnologyormoviecompany.   #Pn=#nP ` DVDCCAalsoindicatesthatPetitioner knewtherewasan   organizationthatlicensedtechnologyhavingtodowithDVDplayback.   Petitioneractuallystatedthatwhilehebelievedalicensewasavailable,he   didntknowthefulldetails...and neverknewforcertain(APP.at  p.98;Deposition25:120).Irrespectiveofanysuchknowledge,exceptina  patentaction,neitherreverseengineering,norindependentinnovationof  unlicencedproductsareconsideredillegalorintentionallyharmful L%  16      .  Simplyworkingtocreateanewproductthathappenstodisruptanother  unknownentitysmonopoly L%  17      ׀cantbeconsideredanintentional,harmful  acttargetedataparticularstate.#Pn#nP   ` Incontrast,tothediscordantevidenceinthiscase,inJDOv.   SuperiorCourt,supra,72Cal.App4th,1045,theplaintiffsdidprovidesome   evidenceofforumcontactandsomeevidenceofaimingataforumresident.   Nevertheless,thatCourtreversedatrialCourtsorderfindingjurisdiction   despitethefactthattheDefendantownedoroperatedthesitewhich  containedtheoffendinginformation,hadauthoreddefamatorystatements  onthewebsite,contactedaCaliforniaresident,knewtheplaintifflivedin  California,hadpreviouslylivedinCalifornia,andcontractedwitha  CaliforniaInternetServiceProvider.Afteranalyzingthefactsunderthe   effectstestTheJDOCourtdifferentiatedPanavisionInterl,L.P.v.  Toeppen(9thCir.1998)141F.3d1316),bynotingthatinPanavision   defendantsconduct,asheknewitlikelywould,hadtheeffectofinjuring   PanavisioninCalifornia(Idat1059).ThedistinctionbetweenJ.D.O.and " PanavisionisthatinPanavision,theplaintiffprovidedcompetentevidence $  clearlydemonstratingthatdefendanthadtargetedanextortionscheme  aimeddirectlyattheplaintiffwhowasknowntobesituatedinCalifornia  (Idat1059,Panavisionat1319),whileinJ.D.O.,asinthecaseatbar,there  wasnosuchexpressaimingortargeting.Thesamedistinctionmaybe   founduponaclosecomparisonbetweentheholdingsofPanavisionand   Cybersell.InCybersell,supra,130F.3d414,thedefendantsconductwas   notspecificallyandpurposefullytargetedattheplaintiffwithknowledge   thatsaidplaintiffwouldbeaffectedwithintheforumstate.  ]  ]J0 `  2  .0 ` `   CALIFORNIAOUGHTNOTEXERCISE  JURISDICTIONBASEDSOLELYUPONTHE  EXISTENCEOFALLEGEDGENERALEFFECTS  FELTBYINDUSTRIESREPUTEDTOEXISTIN  CALIFORNIA]Jw    Ќ  #Pn# ` DVDCCAarguesthatalthoughDVDCCAdidnotexistuntillate  1999andonlybecamethelicensingentityforCSSaftertheallegedposting  ofDeCSS(APP.p.14;Complaintatp.13:1115),thefactthatPetitioner   couldnthavetargetedorexpresslyaimedactivityatDVDCCAis " irrelevant.Instead,RealPartyarguesthatpetitioneraimedconductatthree $  industries(RETatp.12). &!"  ` Boththeseminal effectscaseofCalderandthePanavisioncase (#$ thatappliedtheeffectstesttoInternetcontacts,discusstheexistenceofan  Industrywithintheforumasadditionalevidencethatadefendantexpressly  aimedortargetedaCaliforniaresident! L%  18      .However,neithercase,norany  othercaseknowntoPetitioner,suggeststhatsuch generalindustry   contactscanbeabasisforjurisdictionexclusiveofdirected,express   aiming.    ` Insupportofitsargument,DVDCCAcitestoanumberofDistrict   CourtOrders.InNissanMotorCo.Ltd.v.NissanComputerCorp(C.D.  Cal.2000)89F.Supp.2d1154(citedbyDVDCCA),theCourtfirstfound  jurisdictionindependentofthe effectstestbecauseofthecountlessforum  contactsandonlythen,notedinpassingthattheeffectstestwassatisfied.It  foundtheeffectstestsatisfiedbaseduponexpressaimingbecausethe  defendantshadpurposefullyPPchangedthecontentofitswebsiteinAugust  1999toexploittheknownCaliforniaplaintiffs'goodwillbyprofitingfrom  consumerconfusion(Nissanat1160)#PP̢#.Theopinionwaseventuallyaffirmed   inanunpublishedNinthCircuitopinionthatspecificallyfollowedthe " BancroftholdingNissanMotorCo.v.NissanComputerCorp.(9thCir. $  2000)2000U.S.App.LEXIS33937. &""  ` RealPartyalsocitestheDistrictCourts OrderrePlaintiffs  MotionforTemporaryRestrainingOrderandExpeditedDiscoveryin3DO  Co.v.PoptopSoftware,Inc.(N.D.Cal.1998)49U.S.P.Q.2d1469.Inits  order,theDistrictCourtnotedthatPoptopSoftwarehadpostedan   interactivewebsiteandencouragedusersinCaliforniatodownloadcopies   oftheinfringinggame(Id,atpage8).Additionally,counselforPoptop   appearstohavemadeageneralappearanceandparticipatedingeneral   discoverypriortotheT.R.O.hearing(Idatpp13).Incontrast, L%  19      ׀reviewing  courtcasesanalyzingtheeffectstestontheInternethaveallinvolvedthe  targetingofanindividualorentitywithintheforumstate.   ` IninterpretingandapplyingtheCalderEffectsTest,thisstates  CourtofAppealrecentlynoted:  8 ` Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatthefactthatadefendants  actionsinsomewaysetintomotioneventswhichultimately  injuredaCaliforniaresident,willbeenoughtoconfer  jurisdictionoverthatdefendantontheCaliforniacourts.` x` x Edmundsv.SuperiorCourt(1994)24Cal.App.4th221,236,citingWolfv. ! CityofAlexandria(1990)217Cal.App.3d541,andrelyingonKulkov. " SuperiorCourt(1978)436U.S.84,9495. #  $   ` Contrarytotheimplicationofthename effectstest,theCalder  analysisturnslessonthelocationoftheharmor effect,andmoreonthe  purposefultargetingonthepartofadefendant.Itisthatpurposeful  targetingthatenablesCourtstoexercisejurisdictionfairlywithinthe   confinesofdueprocess.AstheU.S.SupremeCourtnotedinHansonv.   Denkla(1958)357U.S.235,253:   8 ` [I]tisessentialineachcasethattherebesomeactbywhich   thedefendantpurposefullyavailsitselfoftheprivilegeof   conductingactivitieswithintheforumState,thusinvokingthe  benefitsandprotectionsofitslaws.` x` x (seealsoCybersellv.Cybersell(1997)130F.3d414at416417).   ` Itisthepurposeful,knowing,targetingofforumresidentsbythe  nonforumdefendant,togetherwiththeknowledgethattheactislikelyto  resultinharmwithinthatforum,thatprovidesthe actofpurposeful  availmentenvisionedinHansonandotherjurisdictioncases.Themere  knowledgethatoneisinvolvedinprovidinginformationthatrelatestothe  computerindustry,motionpictureindustryoranyotherindustry,cannot ! risetothelevelofpurposefulavailmentidentifiedinHansonorCalder. #  ` InBancroft&Masters,Inc.v.AugustaNational(9thCir.2000)223 %!! F.3d1082,1087,theNinthCircuit(applyingCalifornialaw)candidly '## tackledtheeffectstestissues.ThatCourtnotedthatafterCalderand )%% Panavision Subsequentcases...bearouttheconclusionthatexpress  aimingencompasseswrongfulconductindividuallytargetingaknown  forumresident(Idat1087).TheBancroftcourtreviewedaslewofcases  notingthatineachinstance,thefindingofjurisdictionusingthe effects   testwasbasedonaspecificactoractstargetingaknownpartywithinthe   forumstatesuchthatthe forumeffectofaforeignactwasnotonly   foreseeable,itwascontemplatedandbargainedfor(Idat10871088,   citationsomitted).Infindingjurisdictionoverthedefendant,theBancroft  Courtfound:  8 ` (Defendant)actedintentionallywhenitsentitslettertoNSI.  theletterwasexpresslyaimedatCaliforniabecauseit  individuallytargeted(plaintiff),aCaliforniacorporation  doingbusinessalmostexclusivelyinCalifornia...theeffects  oftheletterwereprimarilyfeltas(defendant)knewthey  wouldbe,inCalifornia.` x` x Bancroftat1088,emphasisadded.   ` SincetheBancroftdecision,numerouscourtshavecitedand  followedtheBancroftdecision.Indismissingtheactionforlackof ! jurisdiction,theCourtinCallawayGolfcorp.v.RoyalCanadianGolf # Assn,(C.D.Cal.2000)2000U.S.Dist.LEXIS19032followedBancroft %!! holding: '## 8 ` plaintiffdoesnotadducefactssufficienttoestablishthat )%% defendantkneworshouldhaveknownplaintiffwasaresident  ofCalifornia,haditsprincipalplaceofbusinessinCalifornia,  orotherwisewouldfeelthebruntoftheeffectsofdefendants  actionsinCalifornia.` x` x 8 ` ...Merelyknowingacorporatedefendantmightbelocatedin  Californiadoesnotfulfilltheeffectstest(citingBancroft). ` x` x Idatp.12   YetanotherreviewingCourt,followingBancroftdescribedtheanalysisas   follows:   8 ` WefocusouranalysisonwhetherPlaintiffshavemadea   primafacieshowingthat(defendant)knewthatitsallegedly  wrongfulactswereaimedat(forum)residents` x` x Meyersv.BennettLawOffices(9thCir.2001)2001U.S.App.LEXIS1539;  2001DAR1348atp.7;emphasisadded(attachedasexhibit Bforthe  Courtsconvenience).  nP ` Here,RealPartyinInterestconcedesthatpetitionerdidnotexpressly  aimhisactivitiesatDVDCCA.ByRealPartysownadmission,lessthan  20%oftheCSSlicenseesarelocatedinCalifornia(RETatp.5)#Pn#nP,Petitioner  didnotknowofDVDCCAsexistenceorlocationatthetimetheposting ! ofDeCSSoccurred(APPatp.68;PavlovichDec.p.3:79;OPPatp.12)and # DVDCCAwasnotthelicensoratthetimethepostingsoccurred %!! (APP.p.14;Complaintp.13:610).#Pn#nPBecauseofthelackofevidencethat '## PAVLOVICHtargetedthem,RealPartyattemptstoarguethatpetitioner )%% somehowaimedhisactivitiesatanumberofgeneralindustries.However,  noknownopinionhaseverpermittedsuchavague targetingtosatisfythe  expressaimingrequirementoftheeffectstest.   ` Instead,Petitionersimplyrepublishedinformationthathappenedto   allegedlyharmaCaliforniaresident.Thatthesubjectofthepublication   touchesonvariousindustriesthatexistinCaliforniaandthroughoutthe   worldisnot,initself,abasisforjurisdiction.Whentheanalysisiscorrectly   focusedonwhetherPetitionerknewthathisallegedlywrongfulactswere  aimedatforumresidentsitbecomesclearthatdueprocesswillnotpermit  jurisdictioninthiscase(Meyersatp.7).Toholdotherwisewouldmeanthat  anypublisherofinformationmustscreenthecontentofhiswritingto  determinewhatpossibleindustriesmightbeinvolvedandmustexpecttobe  suedinanyjurisdictionwheresuchindustriesexist!thistypeofworld  wideextensionofjurisdictionwouldrunafouloftheageolddueprocess  considerationsdiscussedherein.#Pn#nP   ^&  ^&0 ` 0 ` `   a  .0   THEEXPRESSAIMINGREQUIREMENTIN " CALDEROUGHTTOPROPERLYBEREADAS # REQUIRINGANINTENTIONALDIRECTION $  OFCONSEQUENCESAIMEDATAKNOWN % ! PARTYINTHEFORUMSTATE^&" 0X &!"   Ќ   ` Asthecasesindicate,jurisdictionundertheeffectstestispredicated (#$ upon1)intentionalacts2)targetingorexpressaimingand3)harmthe  defendantknowswillbesufferedintheforumstate(CoreVentCorp.v.  NobelIndus.(9thCir.1993)11F.3d1482).Permittingtheeffectstesttobe  satisfiedbyallegedtargetingofavagueconceptsuchasthree industries   impermissiblyweakensallthreeelementsoftheCaldertestaswellasthe   overarchingconceptoftrue purposefulavailment(seealso#Pn#Goehringv.   SuperiorCourt(1998)62Cal.App.4th894,909# L%  20      ).nPԀByenlargingthetarget   atwhichthecrosshairsofanonresidents expressaimingmustbe  centeredtoencompassanentireindustry(orthreeindustries),theCourt  concurrentlyreducestheintent,purpose,andforseeabilityofthenonparty.  ItisthatexpresspurposethatformstheunderpinningsoftheCaldertestfor  purposefulavailment.Enlargingthetargettoincludeanentireindustryis  thepracticalequivalentofthe mereuntargetednegligencethattheCalder  Courtidentifiedwouldnotprovideabasisforjurisdictionunderitstest  (Calderat789790).   ` Whenanindividualperformsanintentionalactthatistrulytargeted,  itmust,bydefinitionbetargetedatsomething.Itmaybetargetedata  person,oranentity,butnotatanidea.An industryisntatangiblething   thatapersoncantargetinthemannerenvisionedbyCourtsinCalder,   Panavision,J.D.O.,Bancroft,andMyers.Anindividualcantbesaidto   have#Pn#purposefullyavailedhim/herselfoftheprivilegeofconducting   activitieswithintheforumstateandinvokedthebenefitsandprotectionsof  thatstateslaws(Hansonv.Denkla,supraat253)simplybyposting  informationthatisrelatedtooneormoreindustriesthatreputedlyexistin  theforumstate.Suchpurposefulactsonlyoccurwhenthedefendant  intentionallyundertakesactivitiesexpresslyaimedataparticular,known,  forumparty.   ` Theconceptbehindtheeffectstestisalsoillsuitedtoapplytothe  targetingofanindustry.Inrejectingtheplaintiffsargumentsunderthe   effectstest,theCourtinCybersellv.Cybersell,supra,130F.3d414,420, " notedthewellestablishedrulethat becauseacorporation doesnotsuffer $  harminaparticulargeographiclocationinthesamesensethatanindividual &"" does(citingCoreVent,supra,at1486),theeffectstestdoesnotapply ($$ withthesameforcetoacorporationasitdoestoanindividual. L%  21      .Bylogical  extension,an industrydoesnotsufferharminageographiclocationatall  sinceitisneitheranindividualnoracreatedentity,andbecauseitisnot  trulyboundedbyanyparticulargeographicallocation.    ` Concludingthat generalindustryeffectsaresufficienttosupport   jurisdictionwouldcompletelyevisceratethethreeCalderrequirementsand   reducetheforumcontactsto random,fortuitousorattendantcontactsthat   traditionallywouldnotsupportafindingofjurisdiction(BurgerKingv.  Rudzewicz(1985)471U.S.462,475476,485).Thecaseatbarisprecisely  thefactpatternthatCalderanditsprogenyseektoavoidwhentheyrequire   somethingmorethanmereforseeability.      nPBB  .0 `   REALPARTYININTERESTSCLAIMSDONOTARISE  FROMANYFORUMRELATEDACTIVITIESONTHE  PARTOFPAVLOVICHB g ` `  Ќ   ` InPanavision,thedefendantdirectedcorrespondencetotheplaintiff   resultinginthesuitandinCalderthedefendantmadevariousphone " inquiriesandhadothercontactswithCaliforniawhichresultedinthesuit. $  Bycontrast,here,therearenotruecontactswithCalifornia#Pn#nPԀthatcausedthis &!" tradesecretcase.   ` TheoriginaldevelopmentandpublicationoftheDeCSSinformation  isallegedtohaveoriginatedfromoneormoreresidentsofforeigncountries  whopostedtheinformationontheInternet.#Pn#nPThepostingcomplainedofwas   performedbyanunidentifiedpersononawebsiteownedandoperatedby   anunknownperson.Theinformationitselfwasnotauthoredbythe   Petitionerandwasnotdirectedtowardstheplaintiffinthisaction.    ` Whenevaluatingspecificjurisdiction,thecourtmayonlyconsider  forumrelatedactivitiesthatrelatetothespecificcauseofactionathand  (J.D.O.,supra,at1058).Thisrequirementisuniquetospecificjurisdiction,  differentiatingitfromthebroadergeneraljurisdiction(Cornelisonv.  Chaney(1976)16Cal.3d143,147).   ` Asindicatedpreviously,DVDCCAhasnotprovidedanyevidence  ofactualmisappropriationbyPavlovich.Second,byitsownpleadings,itis  evidentthatDVDCCAwasnotthelicensorofCSSatthetimeitwas   posted.Thusanymisappropriationthatmayhaveoccurredwasnot " directedatDVDCCAatthetimeitoccurred.Finally,thereisnoevidence $  connectingtherepublicationofDeCSSinformationwithCalifornia. &""  ` Courtshavenotedthat: ($$ 8 ` astherelationshipofthedefendantwiththestateseekingto  exercisejurisdictionoverhimgrowsmoretenuous,thescope  ofjurisdictionalsoretractsandfairnessisassuredbylimiting  thecircumstancesunderwhichtheplaintiffcancompelhimto  appearanddefend.` x` x (Brownv.Watson(1989)207Cal.App.3d1306,13121313).#Pn+#nP     Here,theconnectionbetweenthisformer22yearoldIndianastudentand   theStateofCaliforniaissotenuousthatCaliforniashouldnotexercise   jurisdictionoverhim.#Pn#nP    te    HC  .0 `   EXERCISEOFJURISDICTIONWOULDNOTBE  REASONABLEINTHISCASEH m ` `  Ќ   ` PetitionercontendsthatCaliforniasexerciseofjurisdictionis  unreasonable,andthusconstitutionallyimpermissible.InitsReturn,DVD  CCAurgesthatthisCourtapplythesevenfactortestenumeratedinCore  Ventv.Nobel,supra,11F.3d1482.Inweighingthesefactors,onereaches  thesameconclusionastheCoreVentCourt!thatjurisdictionis  unreasonable. ! ]  ]0 `  1  .0 ` `   PurposefulInterjection]  #  Ќ   ` Evenwherethereissufficient interjectionintothestatetosatisfy $  thepurposefulavailmentprong,thedegreeofthatinterjectionisafactorto &!" beweighedinassessingreasonableness(Idat1488).InCoreVent,the (#$ authorsofdefamatorymaterial,whoknewthetargetofthedefamatory  materialwasinCalifornia,andknewthematerialwouldreachCalifornia  throughaparticularpublicationwerefoundtohaveattenuatedCalifornia  contacts.Here,sincePetitionerdidnottargettheplaintiff,didnotknowthe   informationwouldreachCalifornia,anddidnotinterjecthimselfinto   California,thisfactorweighsheavilyinPetitionersfavor.   ]  ]`0 `  2  .0 ` `   TheBurdenonDefendantindefendingthesuitin   California]`     Ќ   ` AswasthecaseinCoreVent,here,Petitionersactiondidnot   involveprofitandPetitionerisanindividual4 L%  22      ׀whileDVDCCAisalarge  corporationwithtremendousresources.Additionally,thedefenseisaware  ofonlyoneCaliforniawitnessessentialtotheprosecutionanddefenseof  thisaction,Mr.JohnHoy.Bycontrast,anarrayofwitnessesthatcould  provideinformationinthiscaseareavailablefromNorway,toJapan,to  England,toNewYorkandConnecticut.#Pn#nPThisfactoralsoweighsheavilyin  favorofPetitioner.   ]  ]#0 `  3  .0 ` `   Theextentofconflictwiththesovereigntyofthe " defendantsstate]#P r #  Ќ   ` Thisfactortendstoweighheavilyinfavorofinternational $  defendants.Here,Petitionerisinaforeignstatewithinthenation.So,the  conflictofsovereigntyexists,butonlyweighsslightlyinPetitionersfavor.  ]  ]0 `  4  .0 ` `   Theforumstatesinterestinadjudicatingthedispute]    Ќ   ` Aswithanycasewheretheplaintiffresidesintheforumstate,the   statehassomeinterestinadjudicatingthesuit.However,where,ashere,   thecontroversyariseselsewhereandinvolvesthesimplepublicationof    information,thatinterestistempered.   ]  ]n0 `  5  .0 ` `   TheEfficiencyoftheForum]n     Ќ   ` AlthoughrelyingonCoreVent,RealPartymisreadsthetestforthis   factor.DVDCCAoptstoevaluateitsefficiencyinlitigatingallmattersin  itshometown!naturallyitconcludesthefactorweighsinitsfavor.  However,CoreVentstatesthatinevaluatingthisfactor,Courtsaretolook  primarilyatwherethewitnessesandtheevidencearelocated(Idat1489).  Asindicatedabove,thereareonlyoneortwoknownCaliforniawitnesses,  whiletherearehundredsofotherwitnessesnationwideandworldwide.  AccordingtoDVDCCAtheoriginalcreationofDeCSSandtheoriginal   postingofthecodeoccurredinNorway.whiletheevidenceandwitnesses "  relatingtothecreationofCSSexistalmostexclusivelyinJapan.The $  existenceoftwosimilarcasesinConnecticutI L%  23      ׀andNewYorkJ L%  24      ׀further   suggeststhatthiscasecouldbetriedinanynumberofotheravailable  forums.Also,sinceCaliforniahasadoptedtheUniformTradeSecretsAct,  theplaintiffhastheabilitytoprosecutethesameclaiminanynumberof   otherjurisdictions.Thus,notonlydoesthisfactornotweighheavilyin   favorofDVDCCA,itlikelyweighsinfavorofPetitioner.   ]  ]E0 `  6  .0 ` `   Existenceofanalternateforumand(7)theconvenience   andeffectivenessoftherelieffortheplaintiff]Er     Ќ   ` TheCoreVentCourtanalyzesfactorssixandsevenjointly(Idat   1490)#Pn#nP.InitsReturn,DVDCCAstatesthatbecauseitexistsinCalifornia,  thatiswhereitwasharmed,thatexpense,burdenandconflictcouldresult,  andthatCalifornia hasthegreatestinterest5X L%  25      ׀intheoutcomeof[this]  litigation(RETatpp.1617).#Pnq#nPCoreVentnotesthat tryingacasewhere  onelivesisalmostalwaysaplaintiffspreferenceand amerepreference  onthepartoftheplaintiffforitshomeforumdoesnotaffectthebalancing  (Idat1490).JustaswasthecaseinCoreVent,RealParty hasnotmetits  burdenofprovingthatitwouldbeprecludedfromsuinginanalternate  forum(Idat1490).   ` Whilethecostofasuitinanotherforummaybecostlyand   inconvenient,thereisnoevidencethatatradesecretclaimcannotbetried   inTexasoranyotheralternativeforum(Idat1490).Therefore,thefinal   factorsareeitherinsignificantorweighslightlyinPetitionersfavor.   #PnE #@)  V  .    "@%  CONCLUSION  Y"   Ќ   ` RealPartyinInteresthasfailedtoshowcausewhyPetitioners  requestedreliefshouldbedenied.ThisCourtshouldresistRealPartyin  Interestsinvitationtodramaticallyexpandtraditionaljurisdictionalbasesto  includethetenuousconnectionbetweenanonresidentsparticular  publicationontheInternetandthegeneralreputationofaparticularforum  state L%  26      .     "  ` Assuch,itisrespectfullyrequestedthatthisCourtgrantthepetition  baseduponeachofthereasonsenumeratedabove,inthePetition,andthe  previouslyfiledReply.  Respectfullysubmitted,    ` 3X@ XX'X3ӹ*=>ddd Xdd Xdd X  , ," +  ,"   ,DATED:March7," USUS ,  2001" US , US '  ''X@ h'HSLAWGROUP,A   ProfessionalCorporation   By:   F     0  ALLONNE.LEVY   0  AttorneysforDefendant   0  MATTHEWPAVLOVICH   ( ( XX  x &  */@" TABLEOFCONTENTS    F KVm  KVm0 `    TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#( ( D .#` ` #ivKVm݌  Ќ  R   KVm  KVmt0 `    I.0` ` ` INTRODUCTION#d d E . ` ` #2KVmt݌   Ќ  M  ML8 ` 0 ` x` x `   A.0 x xPROCEDURALPOSTURE#d d E .NN+ x x#2MLh݌    Ќ  M  M88 ` 0 ` x` x `   B.0 x xSTATEMENTOFTHECASE#d d E .>>. x x#3M8T݌   Ќ  KVm  KVm'0 `    II.0` ` ` FACTS#d d E . ` ` #4KVm'C݌   Ќ  M  M8 ` 0 ` x` x `   A.0 x xPETITIONERSINVOLVEMENTWITHOPEN  SOURCESYSTEMS#d d E .' x x#5M݌  Ќ  M  M8 ` 0 ` x` x `   B.0 x xTHELIVIDLISTANDLIVIDWEBSITE#d d E .zz: x x#7M8݌  Ќ  M  M8 ` 0 ` x` x `   C.0 x xPETITIONERHADNOCONTACTWITH  CALIFORNIA.#d d E .  $ x x#9M3݌  Ќ  KVm  KVm/0 `    III.0` ` ` STANDARDOFAPPELLATEREVIEWFOLLOWING#D .:` ` #11KVm/K݌  Ќ  KVm  KVm$ 0 `    IV.0` ` ` ARGUMENT#D .((` ` #12KVm$ @ ݌  Ќ  M  M 8 ` 0 ` x` x `   A.0 x xPETITIONER,ASTUDENTININDIANA,DIDNOT  PURPOSEFULLYAVAILHIMSELFOFTHE   PRIVILEGESOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA ! BYPERMITTINGINFORMATIONTOBEPOSTED " ONAWEBSITE#D .& x x#14M !݌ # Ќ  NP  NP"8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   1.0xxREALPARTYININTERESTSEVIDENCE % ! DOESNOTPROVIDETHISCOURTWITH &!"  CAUSETODENYTHEREQUESTED '"# RELIEF#D .$xx#16NP""݌ (#$ Ќ  NP )$%   NPf$8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   2.0xxCALIFORNIAOUGHTNOTEXERCISE x JURISDICTIONBASEDSOLELYUPON x THEEXISTENCEOFALLEGEDGENERAL x EFFECTSFELTBYINDUSTRIESREPUTED x  TOEXISTINCALIFORNIA#D .664xx#21NPf$$݌ x  Ќ  O  OT&8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x0hxx    a.0hhxhxTHEEXPRESSAIMING x  REQUIREMENTINCALDEROUGHT x  TOPROPERLYBEREADAS x REQUIRINGANINTENTIONAL x  DIRECTIONOFCONSEQUENCES x  AIMEDATAKNOWNPARTYIN x  THEFORUMSTATE#D .2hxhx#27OT&p&݌ x  Ќ  M  Mq(8 ` 0 ` x` x `   B.0 x xREALPARTYININTERESTSCLAIMSDONOT x ARISEFROMANYFORUMRELATED x ACTIVITIESONTHEPARTOFPAVLOVICH#D .bb< x x#30Mq((݌ x Ќ  M  M)8 ` 0 ` x` x `   C.0 x xEXERCISEOFJURISDICTIONWOULDNOTBE x REASONABLEINTHISCASE#D .0 x x#32M))݌ x Ќ  NP  NP +8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   1.0xxPurposefulInterjection#D .5xx#32NP +&+݌ x Ќ  NP  NP,8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   2.0xxTheBurdenonDefendantindefendingthesuit x inCalifornia#D .\\+xx#33NP,,,݌ x Ќ  NP  NPN-8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   3.0xxTheextentofconflictwiththesovereigntyof x  thedefendantsstate#D .3xx#33NPN-j-݌ x! Ќ  NP  NP.8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   4.0xxTheforumstatesinterestinadjudicatingthe x# dispute#D .%xx#34NP..݌ x$ Ќ  NP  NP/8 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   5.0xxTheEfficiencyoftheForum#D .9xx#34NP//݌ x&  Ќ  NP  NP08 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   NP00݌ xx Ќ  NP x)##   NP18 ` 0 ` x` x0 x x   6.0xxExistenceofanalternateforumand(7)the x convenienceandeffectivenessoftherelieffor x theplaintiff#D .  +xx#35NP11݌ x Ќ  KVm  KVm'30 `    V.0` ` ` Conclusion#D .8 8 ` ` #36KVm'3C3݌ x  Ќ   e  x  @  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  x  FEDERALCASES  v  3DOCo.v.PoptopSoftware,Inc.(N.D.Cal.1998)49U.S.P.q.2d1469D .Q22 t  &s  :   : I5  =5  Ballardv.Savage,(9thCir.1995)65F.3d1495,1498D .DDD14: I5d5݈ t  Ќ̌  :   : +6  Bancroft&Mastersv.AugustaNational(9thCir.2000): +6F6 t  Ќ̌  :   : 6   ` 223F.3d1082,10864 .(14,15,24,25,28: 66݈ t  Ќ̌  :   : 7  BurgerKingCorp.v.Rudzewicz(1985)471U.S.462,471472@ .DDI13,30: 77݈ t  Ќ̌  :   : d8  Calderv.Jones(1984)465U.S.783( .VV214,15,21,23,24,27,28,30: d88݈ t Ќ̌  :   : 49  CallawayGolfcorp.v.RoyalCanadianGolfAssn(C.D.Cal.2000): 49O9 t Ќ̌  :   : 9   ` 2000U.S.Dist.LEXIS19032@ .PP.14,25: 9:݈ t Ќ̌  :   : :  CoreVentCorp.v.NobelIndus.(9thCir.1993): :: t Ќ̌  :   : E;   ` 11F.3d14820 . 27,29,32,@ ! !E(#33,34,35: E;`;݈ t Ќ̌  :   : <  Cybersell,(1997)130F.3d414,,8 .-14,20,24,29: </<݈ t Ќ̌  :   : <  Hansonv.Denkla(1958)357U.S.235,253pp< .823,24,29: <<݈ t! Ќ̌  :   : =  InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington(1945)326U.S.310,320D .L12: ==݈ t# Ќ̌  :   : _>  Kulkov.SuperiorCourt(1978)436U.S.84,9495D .  ?23: _>z>݈ t% Ќ̌  :   : ?  Meyersv.BennettLawOffices(9thCir.2001)2001pp< .A26,27,28: ?;?݈ t' ! Ќ̌   t)"# :   : @  NissanMotorCo.Ltd.v.NissnComputerCorp(C.D.Cal.2000): @@ x Ќ̌  :   : @   ` 89F.Supp.2d1154D .&21: @@݈ x Ќ̌  :   : ^A  NissanMotorCo.v.NissanComputerCorp.(9thCir.2000): ^AyA x  Ќ̌  :   : B   ` 2000U.S.App.LEXIS33937A .&&,22,@P"P"I(#23: B%B݈ x  Ќ̌  :   : B  PanavisionIntl,L.P.v.Toeppen,(9thCir.1998): BB x Ќ̌  :   : |C   ` 141F.3d1316,13224 .(15,20,21,28,30: |CC݈ x  Ќ̌  :   : =D  Renov.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,(1997)521U.S.844,851D .O36: =DXD݈ x  Ќ̌  :   : E  WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson(1980)444U.S.286,297D .M12: E)E݈ x Ќ̌  5 STATECASES  x 's  :   : 6F  AtlanticRichfieldCo.v.SuperiorCourt(1975): 6FQF v Ќ̌  :   : F   ` 51Cal.App.3d168,172D .||*10: FF݈ v Ќ̌  :   : G  Brownv.Watson(1989)207Cal.App.3d1306,13121313D .C31: GG݈ v Ќ̌  :   : PH  Cornelisonv.Chaney(1976)16Cal.3d143,147D .vv=31: PHkH݈ v Ќ̌  :   : I  Edmundsv.SuperiorCourt(1994)24Cal.App.4th221,236D .RRG23: I*I݈ v  Ќ̌  :   : I  Goehringv.SuperiorCourt(1998)62Cal.App.4th894,904pp< .TTH12,27,28: II݈ v" Ќ̌  :   : J  Haganv.SuperiorCourt(1960)53Cal.2d498,511D .rr@11: JJ݈ v$ Ќ̌  :   : lK  Hallv.LaRonde(1997)56Cal.App.4th1342,1346D .~~?12: lKK݈ v&  Ќ̌   v)"# :   : CL  JewishDefenseOrganizationInc(JDO)v.SuperiorCourt(1999): CL^L x Ќ̌  :   : L   ` 72Cal.App.4th10450 .tt'11,13,19,20,28,31: LM݈ x Ќ̌  :   : M  Lewisv.SuperiorCourt(1999)19Cal.4th1232,1240D .bbC11: MM݈ x  Ќ̌  :   : }N  Serafiniv.SuperiorCourt(1988)68Cal.App.4th70,77D .F11: }NN݈ x  Ќ̌  :   : EO  VonsCompanies,Inc.v.SeabestFoods,Inc.(1996)14Cal.4th434A .P12,@P"P"I(#13: EO`O݈ x Ќ̌  :   : ,P  Wolfv.CityofAlexandria(1990)217Cal.App.3d541D .C23: ,PGP݈ x  Ќ̌  :   : P  ZillerElectronicsLabGmbhv.SuperiorCourt(1988): P Q x  Ќ̌  :   : Q   ` 206Cal.App.3d1222D .'11: QQ݈ x Ќ̌  *F FEDERALSTATUTES  x )s  :   : R  17U.S.C107D . 17: RR݈ v Ќ̌  R STATESTATUTES  v *s  :   : S  Cal.Civ.Code410.10D .#12: SS݈ t Ќ̌  :   : HT  Cal.Civ.Code3426.1(a)D .&19: HTcT݈ t Ќ̌  S  :   : U  U@*: U*Ǔ݈  t" Ќ  8Pdd8:     : U   TABLEOFEXHIBITS: UV x Ќ̌  :     : wV  EXHIBITASupremeCourtOrderD .<<.38: wVV݈ r  Ќ̌  :   : 6W  EXHIBITBSelectedFederalCasesA .13963