WPCT "Rm>(dd{SYM 3N)lZP2 4]]|_Tl|2J`*obъW{ -]^HCpQb.>Z, C?2{2b\w" 3 nl !5CHwc+ܨ Z&Y;e2 a7Rf.}|?Hwl9ġ!|gC/6;ln$nk+ce:#؜G`@S A=E.N媬]Jk ˾)m27/ؕs0`Ǒ*O1REYhq̈51fW;&AWA-AXFmsiS*N_ ' <>p**%μC?\qLTt#@#f v8 --̋ylYvN Pm  ;#T,U:N/ %k/ 0Yq/ 1/ 0NQ0^ 0w04000 m0 B0b1 0A1 1Q11r2 15 725 0c5 0w;6 06 0<7 07 08 0W9 02: 0D!; 1ue< 72< ==>^?$@ 0T@ >A\J 0 X 0Y 0Z 0[ 0\ 0] 0n^ 0P_ 0/` 0 a 0a 0b 0c 0d 0We 0*f 0f 0g 0h 0ri 0Pj 0+k 0l 0l 0m 0yn 0Eo 0 0p 0<>p 0zp 0>8q 0vvq 0`q 0`Lr 0`r 0` s 0`ls 08s 0t 02t 0u 0:v 0Y>v 0_v 0 v 0jx 0jy B*z D/{ AG{ 0u{ 0[| D/} D-~ 0K;~ 0~ 06T 0 0: 0^̀ 0<*U6fU$>U*ځ 0h AMlZ AME D5 B7Lj B7 C5 0uOĉ 1 72&QX\l 1q C7 C7/f 72 1R 72ݙ 0U A\ AS 0DZw D5$sY̾ B 0 0D~ 72^ 0 0sf8 1 72%bW CK_ 1 72( 1UZ 7 7 1PN 7 T 7 0 1 72PN 0, 0 0\E 0 0H 0 0 0 12 72 0\~ 1t 72 0- 0 0Lu 0 0\ 0 0~ 0@ 0 0 0h 0 0 0B 0`^^^^^^~ 0)< 1e   - 1I 72 0< 1> 72 0 0 U 0 1 72 1    .&HP LaserJet 4050 TN PCL 6,,,,0(  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$RXXUSUS.,h2EGKOSW[_cAutoList26!!!!!!!!)1)a)(O$j* 8* k1@'3|xU  d- -(Vm$0   0ՁEGMSY_ekqAutoList24I.A.A.I.I.I.I.I. $XXUSUS.,    3    _HisAnswerand/orRule12MotionshouldnotbedueuntilJune30,2001. h $XXUSUS.,    9    _E.g.,_Schware_Ԁv.BoardofBarExaminersofN.M.,353U.S.232,238-39(1957);  CommunistPartyofInd.v._Whitcomb_,414U.S.441(1974);Lamontv.Postmaster  General,381U.S.301,307(1965);Greenev._McElroy_,360U.S.474(1959);United  Statesv.Brown,381U.S.437,445,447(1965).h6CEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)"(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(,!$0  0` (#(#    $XXUSUS.,    13    _The [InformationSuperhighway]throughthelawpresentlyunderconstruction  includesbreathtakingrevisionsto traditionalnotionsoffairplayandsubstantialjustice  governingextraterritorialjurisdictionthroughpeculiartheoriesaboutinremjurisdiction  andextraordinarydistortionoftheCalderv.Jones effectstest.TheFrenchandGerman  governments(concludingthatpresentday NazisaretheDevil)havesetabout  regulatingthespeechofAmericansbywayoftheInternet,andLatviahasaskedforeven   morestringentregulationof hatespeechbytheUnitedStatesgovernmentitself.The   WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganizationhassetitselfupbothasanadvocacy   organizationforacertainpointofviewonhowmuchpower intellectualproperty   ownersshouldexercise(often,overpurespeech)ontheInternet,and(simultaneously)as    M globaljudgetoresolvecontestedcasesaboutthesameissuesitadvocates.TheUnited  Statesgovernmentthroughalawknownas_ CALEA_ Ԁhasmandatedtheinstallationof  eavesdroppingandpositiontrackingmechanismsinnewdigitalmobilecommunications  networks.UnsatisfiedwiththeextentofthereachgiventolawenforcementbyCongress  in_ CALEA_ ,theDepartmentofJusticehasalsogonetotheEuropeanCommissionto  attempttogetitswishlistadoptedasa _ cybercrime_ ԀtreatyinEurope,andtobackdoor   thisviolationofcivillibertiesintoU.S.lawby_ reproposing_ ԀitswishlisttoCongressasa    harmonizationmeasure.Thelistofalarmistandexcessivelegislativeandjudicial   lawmakingcalculatedto getaftertheDevilbecomesmoretroublingbytheday. } $XXUSUS.,    21    _Likewise,acaseintheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia  !involvingparallelissuestothe_ DeCSS_ case!hasproceededagainst2600inNewYork  insteadofCaliforniaonaccountofjurisdictionissues.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.v.  _ Reimerdes_ ,CivilActionNo.00XXMC#XX7#7024(N.D.Cal.filedJuly6,2000).Anotheraction  bytheDVDCopyControlAssociation,inwhichDefendantswerenotnamed,wasfiled  inCaliforniastatecourt.Apartialbutnonexhaustivelistofotherdefensesthat   Defendantsrespectfullyassertincludes:(1)Impliedlicense:ThecreatoroftheWorld   WideWeb(Tim_ Berners_ ԄLee),insettingupthegoverningrulesandtechnology,madeit   clearthatanyonewhoelectstopostcontentontheWebgrantsanimpliedlicenseto   anyoneandeveryoneelseintheworldto linktoor refertohisorherWebsite.    FORD,bychoosingtohaveaWebsite,assentedtothisimpliedlicenseandhasno right ~  nottobereferredto.(2)Fairuse:Theuseofthedomainnameinquestionisprotected y  speechandisprotectedaccordingtoprinciplesof fairuse,commentary,expressionand t  criticism.(3)Standing:FORDlacksstandingtocomplainbecauseFORDhasnorightsto o  thetrademark GeneralMotors.(4)FORDlacksstandingbecauseneitherthe_ Lanham_  j  TrademarkActnortheFederalTrademarkDilutionprovidesanycauseofaction e whatsoeverwhentheDomainNameinquestion(a)isnotusedasatrademark,(b)isnot `  usedincommerceasthattermofarthasbeengivenmeaninginthetrademarkcontext, [  _ (c_ )isnotusedtodesignatethesourceororiginofanygoodsorservices,and(d)doesnot  haveanythingtodowithanyFORDtrademark.(5)Confusionand/or_ tarnishment_ Ԁare  faciallyimpossiblebecausenoreasonablepersoncouldpossiblybelievethatFord  registeredorpointedthisDomainName.(6)The_ FTDA_ Ԁ fairusedefenseandcasethis  general_ Lanham_ ԀAct fairusedefenserecognizedintheNewKidsontheBlockandthis  CourtsRosaParksdecisionbothpermitandprotectexactlythekindofexpressive   activityinwhichDefendantsareengaged.(7)FORDfailstostateaclaimuponwhich   reliefcanbegranted.(8)FORDslawsuitshouldbedismissedasaStrategicLawsuit   AgainstPublicParticipation( _ SLAPP_ ).(9)Subjectmatterjurisdictionislacking.(10)   FORDmaynotsueonaninremtheoryinMichigan,basedonthe_ FleetBoston_ ԀFinancial    caseandotherauthoritieswithwhichthisCourtisbynowquitefamiliar.2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKe<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSf\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Ke<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSf\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Ke<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSf\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7X(X7  ?g%2A`Arial?7](X7  XXXSf\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dW)1dxd Z^] I&mage <=8C HKKKK(M3N$ !XXUSUS.,  <:zTop of For7\(X7  ?g%2A`Arial?7](X7  XXXSf\  `&Times New RomanSW)2dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  0KS.SampleKe<6X9`(Courier NewKSf\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKe<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSf\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `  Z^]A<< c P $XXUSUS.,    12    _SeeJessica_Litman_,DigitalCopyright(PrometheusBooks,ed.2001)  (describingextraordinaryhistoricalrevisionism,andthetacticofbackdoorlawmaking  throughtreaties,thatledtotheDigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct,andhowthe_DMCA_  violatesthehistoricbargainbetweenholdersofcopyrightsandthegeneralpublic).  $XXUSUS.,    4    _Thisdefenseisherebyasserted,alongwiththeotherdefensessetforthinnote21,  infra.Defendantsrespectfullyreservetherighttoraiseanyotheravailabledefenseswhen  theyfiletheirformalRule12Motion.  $XXUSUS.,    1    _Apartial(butnonexhaustive)listofotherdefensesthatDefendantsnowraise,  andexpecttoargueatgreaterlengthattheappropriatetime(establishedinaccordance  withRules4(d)and12),issetforthinnote21,infra.ZnqC X Copop)!dxdx3+0 d d d3+0 d d ddd(M3N$ !XXUSUS.,    $XXUSUS.,    2    _NorthernLightTech.,236F.3dat63;LaCroixv.AmericanHorseShow_Ass'n_,  853F.Supp.992,99495(N.D.Ohio1994)(jurisdictiontakenover both defendantand  counselbasedoncounselsappearanceatpersonaljurisdictionhearing).hΦCEIMQUY]aAutoList2i)1)a)t G $XXUSUS.,    10    __Hirabayashi_Ԁv.UnitedStates,320U.S.81(1943);_Korematsu_Ԁv.UnitedStates,  323U.S.214(1944). R $XXUSUS.,    11    _Exparte_McArdle_,74U.S.506(1868);seealsoWilliamH.Rehnquist,All  theLawsButOne:CivilLibertiesInWartime(Knopfed.1998). b $XXUSUS.,    14    _However,when Hackershavetheopportunitytodescribethemselves,ortheir  contributionstosocietyarechronicledbywriterswhostudythiscommunitywithcare,  thepicturethatemergesisdramaticallydifferentfromthealarmist_ demonization_ Ԁthathas  dominatedmainstreammediaportrayals(arguablyasaresultofthepoliticalagendaof  thoseincontrolofmassmediaoutlets).See,e.g.,_ Pikka_ Ԁ_ Himanen_ ,with_ Linus_   _ Torvalds_ Ԁ&Manuel_ Castells_ ,TheHackerEthic(RandomHouseed.2001);Eric   Raymond,TheCathedralandtheBazaar:MusingsonLinuxandtheOpen   SourceCommunity(_ OReilly_ Ԁed.2001);StephenLevy,Crypto:HowtheCode   RebelsBeattheGovernment,SavingPrivacyIntheDigitalAge(VikingPenguin   ed.2001);JonKatz,Geeks:HowTwoLostBoysRodetheInternetOutofIdaho    (_ Villard_ ԀBooksed.2000);StevenLevy,Hackers:HeroesoftheComputer ~  Revolution(PenguinUSA1984),reprintedat<4 O  5  ftp://indian.cse.msu.edu/pub/mirrors/ y  Gutenberg/6)O=  7 |ketext96/hckrs10.txt>(ProjectGutenbergdistributionoftextofHackers).0;CEKQY_ekqAutoList41.A.(1)1.1.1.1.1.3Gradient 1dd 3Gradient 2dd   $XXUSUS.,    16    _ Theseremarksonlyserveascriticismofcertainideasthatareinerror;we  donotnownorhaveweinthepastevercriticizedorintendedtocriticizeanypeople  (nomatterwhatideasthosepeoplemayhappentohaveexpressedinthepast). !x@xIcgkosw{Large BulletLarge Bullet~  $XXUSUS.,    20    _CounselfortheDefendantsattendedanAmericanBarAssociationmeetingsome  timeagoatFortMeade,involvingPublicKeyInfrastructureissues,atwhichaspeaker  fromtheNationalSecurityAgency(the_ nations_ Ԁleadingsourceofsignalsintelligenceand  communicationscounterintelligencemethods)hadacounterintuitive(but,onreflection,  absolutelyright)viewofamateur hackersand scriptkiddies.TheNSAhasstartedto  viewvarious hackercommunitiesthatusetheInternetasamuchgreaterassetthana   threat.SeealsoQ&AwithEmmanuelGoldsteinof2600:The_ Hacke[r_ ]Quarterly,<   4 O  5  http://www.cnn.com/TECH/specials/hackers/_ qandas_ /_ goldstein.html_ 6O  7 Ԁ>(explaining   securityadvantageofclosingholesdiscoveredandpublicizedby hackers,insteadof   leavingthemopenforexploitationbysomeexponentiallymoremaliciousintruder).The    reasonforNSAschangeofviewpointisthattheNSAhasnobetterresourcetoexamine ~  andtestthesecurity,reliabilityandintegrityofcomputersystemsexposedtotheInternet y  (and,thereby,toresistmoreseriousthreatslikeforeigngovernments,terrorists,and t  criminalorganizations)thantomonitorthecommunicationsamongamateur(and o  generallyharmless) hackerswhoidentifyotherwiseoverlookedsecurityexploits.*+ (_2623  .. Z^]&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK"rZE<<C($$   1    $XXUSUS.,    17    _See_Junger_Ԁv.Daily,209F.3d481(6thCir.2000)(publicationofcryptographic  computercodeisprotectedexpressiveactivity);Bernsteinv.UnitedStatesDept.of  Justice,176F.3d1132,_rehg_Ԁgrantedandopinion_withdawn_,192F.3d1308(9thCir.  1999);_Karn_Ԁv.UnitedStatesDept.ofState,925F.Supp1(_D.D.C._Ԁ1996).  $XXUSUS.,    15    _SeeUniversalCityStudios,Inc.v._Reimerdes_,111F.Supp.2d294,335n.230  (_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ2000)(listinghyperbolicexaggerationsbyCongress),appealedsubnom.  UniversalCityStudiosv.Corley,No.009185(arguedMay1,2001).Wenotethatthe  Panelinthe_DeCSS_casehashadsomeinterestingfollowupquestionsforcounsel.See<  4 O  5  http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-caa.htm6O  7 Ԁ>(listofquestionsbelowatnote18).)!dxdx i $XXUSUS.,    18    _UniversalStudiosCorp.v._Reimerdes_,No.00CV0277(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ2000),slip  opinionpublishedat<4 O  5  http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/  00-08592.PDF6GO[ouse  7 Ԁ>.ThequestionsaskedbytheSecondCircuitbyletteraweekafter  argument(seenote15,supra)areasfollows:  Thepanelmodifiestheoralinstructionforsupplementalletterbriefsinthecaptionedcase,givenatthecloseofthe   argumentonMay1,2001,byauthorizingthepartiesandthe_Intervenor_Ԁtoaugmenttheirresponsestonomorethan X  25pages,andinvitingresponsestothefollowingquestions:  i 10  AretheantitraffickingprovisionsoftheDigitalMillenniumCopyrightActcontentneutral?See111F.    Supp.2d294,32829(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ2000).\  (#(# 2.0  Does_DeCSS_Ԁhavebothspeechandnonspeechelements?. (#(# 3.0  Doesthedisseminationof_DeCSS_Ԁhavebothspeechandnonspeechelements?` (#(# C  C  4.0  Doestheuseof_DeCSS_ԀtodecryptanencryptedDVDhavebothspeechandnonspeechelements?C݌2 (#(# Ќ  C  C  C݌̌  5.0  Doestheexistenceofnonspeechelements,alongwithspeechelements,inanactivitysoughttobe d regulatedalonejustifyintermediatelevelscrutiny?%u(#(# C  CI   CI d ݌̌  6.0  If_DeCSS_Ԁoritsdisseminationoritsusetodecrypthasbothspeechandnonspeechelementsandisnot  subjecttointermediatelevelscrutinysimplybecauseofthenonspeechelements,isintermediatelevel h  scrutinyappropriatebecauseoftheclosecausallinkbetweendisseminationof_DeCSS_Ԁanditsimproper  use?See111F.Supp.2dat33132.q(#(# 7.0  IftheDistrictCourtiscorrectthatthedisseminationof_DeCSS_Ԁ"carriesverysubstantialriskofimminent C harm,"111F.Supp.2dat332,doesthatriskalonejustifytheinjunction?Inotherwords,doesthatrisk  satisfytherequirementsforregulatingspeechunderBrandenburgv.Ohio,395U.S.444(1969),thereby u renderingunnecessaryaninquiryastowhethernonspeechelementsof_DeCSS_Ԁoritsdisseminationorits 6  use(ifsuchexists)mayberegulatedunderUnitedStatesv.O'Brien,391U.S.367(1968)? G(#(# 8.0  Arethethreecriteriaidentifiedat111F.Supp.2d333thecorrectcriteriafordeterminingthevalidity, y   underintermediatelevelscrutiny,oftheuseof_ DeCSS_ Ԁthathasbeenenjoined?:  (#(# 9.0  Ifnot,whatmodificationorsupplementationwouldberequiredtoconformtoFirstAmendment   requirements?} (#(# 10.0  Arethethreecriteriaidentifiedat111F.Supp.2d341andthe"clearandconvincingevidence"standardthe O  correctcriteriaandthecorrectstandardofprooffortestingthevalidityoftheinjunction'sprohibitionof   postingonthedefendant'swebsiteandoflinking? (#(# 11.0  Ifnot,whatmodificationorsupplementationwouldberequiredtoconformtoFirstAmendment S requirements?(#(# ThereferencestotheDistrictCourt'sopinionareintendedonlytoidentifysomepassagesthatconcernthequestion F posedandnottoimplythatnootherpassagesintheopinionarepertinenttothequestion.Responsesneednotbe W amplifiedifa"yes"or"no"willsuffice.    d(M(3$ !XXUSUS.,      0  (#$  0  http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/00-08592.PDFy*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,   \ $XXUSUS.,    19    _ThenameEmmanuelGoldstein,whichseemstohaveprovokedperhapsa  strongerreactionthanitshouldhaveinNewYorkfederalcourt,istakenfromthenovel  1984byGeorgeOrwell.SeeQ&AwithEmmanuelGoldsteinof2600:The_ Hacke[r_ ]  Quarterly,<4  O  5  http://www.cnn.com/TECH/specials/hackers/qandas/goldstein.html6O  7 "Ԁ>.In  1984,Goldsteindoesnotnecessarilyevenexist,butiscommonlyportrayedinstate  sponsoredpropagandaralliesastheleaderofaresistancemovementtothetotalitarian   surveillancestateinwhichtheprotagonistlives.Arguably,OrwellsGoldstein(much   likemoderndaymythmakingaboutthethreatof Hackers)ismerelyahoaxusedby   thepoliticaleliteasafoiltojustifyandfacilitatesurveillanceandrepression:   XXS &  S?+ ` hp x X?8  Thenextmomentahideous,grindingspeech,asofsomemonstrousmachine  &  runningwithoutoil,burstfromthebig_ telescreen_ Ԁattheendoftheroom.Itwasa   noisethatsetone'steethonedgeandbristledthehairatthebackofone'sneck.   TheHatehadstarted.#     #8  Asusual,thefaceofEmmanuelGoldstein,theEnemyofthePeople,hadflashed  ontothescreen.Therewerehisseshereandthereamongtheaudience....  Goldsteinwastherenegadeandbacksliderwhoonce,longago(howlongago,  nobodyquiteremembered),hadbeenoneoftheleadingfiguresoftheParty, k almostonalevelwithBigBrotherhimself,andthenhadengagedincounter T revolutionaryactivities,hadbeencondemnedtodeath,andhadmysteriously =  escapedanddisappeared.The_ programmes_ ԀoftheTwoMinutesHatevariedfrom & v daytoday,buttherewasnoneinwhichGoldsteinwasnottheprincipalfigure.  _ Hewastheprimaltraitor,theearliest_ defiler_ ԀoftheParty'spurity.Allsubsequent  H crimesagainsttheParty,alltreacheries,actsofsabotage,heresies,deviations,  1  sprangdirectlyoutofhisteaching.Somewhereorotherhewasstillaliveand    hatchinghisconspiracies:....    8  Winston'sdiaphragmwasconstricted.HecouldneverseethefaceofGoldstein ?  withoutapainfulmixtureofemotions....Goldsteinwasdeliveringhisusual (  venomousattackuponthedoctrinesofthePartyfXXXX"#XXXfX #fXXXXanattacksoexaggeratedand   perversethatachildshouldhavebeenabletoseethroughit,andyetjustplausible   enoughtofillonewithanalarmedfeelingthatotherpeople,lesslevelheaded  thanoneself,mightbetakeninbyit.He...wasadvocatingfreedomofspeech, | freedomofthePress,freedomofassembly,freedomofthought,hewascrying e hystericallythattherevolutionhadbeenbetrayed#XXXfX( #fXXXX"#XXXfXd#andallthisinrapid N polysyllabicspeechwhichwasasortofparodyofthehabitualstyleoftheorators 7 oftheParty,andevencontainedNewspeakwords:moreNewspeakwords,  p indeed,thananyPartymemberwouldnormallyuseinreallife. Y    SXXGeorgeOrwell,1984(1949).GiventhesymbolicrolesthatMr.Goldsteinhashad E thrustuponhimbytheMotionPictureAssociationofAmerica,andnowbytheFord @ MotorCompany(namely,theroleofthe badhackerthatthe_ MPAA_ ԀorFORDbelieves ; shouldbeusedtosetprecedentstobeusedtocontrolthenextspeaker!whomayormay 6 notbea badhacker),perhapstheliteraryallusionisaboutasaptasitpossiblycouldbe.0ÑEGMS[agmsAutoList28I.A.(1)I.I.I.I.I.I.- -G,(Rectangular Gradientdd   $XXUSUS.,    5    _PriortotheNorthernLightdecision,Massachusettslawwasabsolutelyclearthat  theformalityofseekingorobtainingacourtorder,authorizingtravelintotheforum,was  notrequiredasapreconditionofassertingorsecuringprocessimmunity.ValleyBank&  TrustCo.v._Marrewa_,354Mass.403,40405,237N.E.2d677,67879(1968);Diamond  v._Earle_,217Mass.499,500,105_N.E._Ԁ363,363(1914);InreThompson,122Mass.428,  _428,_Ԁ1877WL10168,at*1,23Am.Rep.370(1877);Mayv._Shumway_,16Gray86,82   Mass.86,1860WL8502(1860).   8  Ithaslongbeensettledthatpartiesandwitnessesattendingingoodfaith   anylegaltribunal, withorwithoutawritofprotection ,areprivileged    fromarrestoncivilprocessduringtheirattendance,andforareasonable   timeingoingandreturning.}    _Larned_Ԁv.Griffin,12F.590,590(_C.C._ԀMass.1882)(emphasisadded).(EGMSY_ekqAutoList291.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(((((((((359=AEIMQ1 ( ( (EGMSY_ekqAutoList33I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-caa.htm(  J $XXUSUS.,    6    _Ordinarily,thiswouldbeconsideredagenerousgift.OntheInternet,additional   traffic(euphemisticallycalled eyeballs)isnotonlyappreciated,butcoveted.( *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` (UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.   $XXUSUS.,    7    _Mr._Berners_ԄLee,whonowheadstheWorldWideWebConsortium(W3C),was  personallyresponsibleforinventingtheWorldWideWebintheearly1990s,whenhe  wasatCERN,theEuropeanParticlePhysicsLaboratory.*2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  p_Gaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List!*55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/TECH/specials/hackers/qandas/goldstein.html(EGMSY_ekqAutoList341.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  6 4heading 1    XXXE2 `CG TimesE     XXXSf\  `&Times New RomanS   *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   ftp://indian.cse.msu.edu/pub/mirrors/Gutenberg/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/specials/hackers/qandas/goldstein.html( $(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList25I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.CasesStatutesOther Authorities(EGMSY_ekqAutoList271.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<:Default Para(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList301.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.6@ 34heading 2   XXX      XXX6l q4heading 3  H h  D,DL XXX    2( 4 <DL2   H XXX2 `CG Times(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList31I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. $XXUSUS.,    8    _FordMotorCo.v.Lane,67F.Supp.2d745(E.D.Mi.1999).(uEGMSY_ekqAutoList32IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   CorleyLaCroix !XXUSUS.,  _  8XXdd8    INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  I$@@= = FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN   #I$#f&      fXXfX1XXfXX1XXX1X1XXX1X XXX1    I$ XX  #I$y#I$SOUTHERNDIVISION  jԌ  Ќ  I$I$fI$ffffff     #f#'  @* ?+ ,4 <DLX? FORDMOTORCOMPANY,     ?( 4 <DL,X?   p     &     XX    XX  Plaintiffs   h      Ԍ   Ќ       '  Xv. `     h     CaseNo.01CV71685DT    `     h     CaseNo.f01CV60084DT     X  ?+ ,4 <DLX? 2600ENTERPRISES,andERIC    #f#fHon.RobertH.Cleland#f #f    CORLEYp/k/aEMMANUEL h     UnitedStatesDistrictJudge#f] #f    GOLDSTEIN, #f #f     h-D,DL,X-   p     &  h?( 4 <DLD,DX?  H h*D,DLX* fXXf    fXfX   Defendants.   p      R    Ԍ  Ќ h! XD,DX!   Hff  <( 4 <DLX<____________________________________/#fx #I$'>    p    | #I$ #   @@MOTIONANDSUPPORTINGMEMORANDUMOFDEFENDANTS x EMMANUELGOLDSTEINAND2600ENTERPRISES u FORAPROTECTIVEORDER r    `     h 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#EricC.Grimm(P58990) x  @x  @x `!(#(#    `     h      CyberBrief,PLC    ["    `     h     320SouthMainStreet X#    `     h     P.O.Box7341 S$     `     h     AnnArbor,MI481077341 N% !    `     h     734.332.4900 I&!" 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#COUNSELFORDEFENDANTS?(#$(#(#    `     h     2600MAGAZINEANDERIC :)$% 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#CORLEY(pseudonymouslyknownas 5*%& EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN).0+&'(#(#    `     h  &-v()  8  8`   Note: ThereliefrequestedinthisMotionisnotnecessarily  opposedbyPlaintiff,butPlaintiffisunwillingtoauthorize  DefendantscounseltorepresenttheMotionisunopposed.` x` x 8  8`   PlaintiffhasproposedaverbalpromisenottoserveMr.  Goldsteinand2600with secondsummonsinthecourtroom,   buthasnotassentedtotheaccompanyingProtectiveOrder,   withoutwhichMr.Goldstein!withgoodreason(seebelow)   !willnotbepresentfortheMay18,2001hearing. ` x` x 8  8`   PapersfullyexplainingPlaintiffspositionshouldbefiledby   PlaintiffscounselonorbeforeTuesday,May15,2001.} ` x` x   ItisonlyreasonablyprudentforDefendantsandcounseltorequestthatthisCourt s  considerandruledefinitivelyonthisMotioninadvanceoftheMay18hearing! i particularlyinlightoftheFirstCircuitsrecentdecision,seeNorthernLightTech.v. _ NorthernLightsClub,236F.3d57(1stCir.2001),petitionforwritofcertiorarifiled,No. U 001651(Apr.30,2001)(theCertioraripetitionisattachedatTabA),suggestingthat K thereis arelativelyheavypresumptionagainstgranting[process]immunity,id.at63! A atleastwhenInternetpublishershappentobethepartiescontestingpersonaljurisdiction. 7    QUESTIONSPRESENTED  -}       Contextinwhichquestionsareraised: Plaintiffhasmovedforapreliminary '!w injunctionandnoticedalivehearingforMay18,2001.Defendantsexpecttheywilloppose %#u theinjunctionontheground(amongseveralothers)l #  1      ׀thatinjunctivereliefrequires %k ! jurisdictionoverthepersontobeenjoinedandEricCorleyp/k/aEmmanuelGoldsteinisnot 'a"# subjecttopersonaljurisdictioninMichigan.Noris2600EnterprisessubjecttoMichigan  jurisdiction. ` Mr.Goldstein,however,hasarightasbothapartyandamaterialwitnessto  bepresentforthehearing(eitherinhispersonalcapacityorasarepresentativeof2600,  althoughhewillbepresentonMay18,2001onlyinhispersonalcapacityandnotasaRule   30(b)(6)witness).Moreover,Mr.GoldsteinshouldtestifyiftheCourttakestestimony.     Basedonrecentcasess #  2      ׀(includingonependingbeforetheSupremeCourtona ~  Certioraripetition),Mr.Goldsteinhaseveryreasontofear(eventhoughhehasalready t  electedtoproceedunderFed.R.Civ.P.4(d)), #  3      ׀thatPlaintiffmayneverthelessattemptto j  securejurisdictionbyservinga secondsummons.Accordingly,itisnecessarytoask: ` K8  1.0`   Isapartywhoproperlyassertsapersonaljurisdictiondefense,kH #  4      ׀and V whoenterstheforumfornootherreasonthantobepresentforalive Q hearinginthesamecaseinwhichthedefenseisasserted,nevertheless L requiredtoobtainaprotectiveorderinadvanceofenteringtheforum, G inordertoclaimthetraditionalimmunitythatparties,lawyersand B witnessesenjoytobefreefromserviceofprocesswhileattendingcourt = proceedingsandforareasonabletimecomingandgoing?8` `  8  2.0`   Ifsucha processimmunityprotectiveorderisrequired,mayMr. .~ Goldsteinpleasehaveaprotectiveordersecuringhisrighttoenterthe )y stateofMichiganoncourtbusiness(andforareasonabletimecoming $ t andgoing)andensuringthathecannotbesubjectedtoMichigan !o jurisdictionbasedonserviceofprocess(including,withoutlimitation, "j  secondserviceofsummonsinthesamecase),whileheispresentin  thestateofMichiganoncourtbusiness?` `  $%  @& & %  MOSTRELEVANTAUTHORITIES   44O  5  6o*O*  7*0  MichiganConsolidatedLawsAnn.600.1835(2001)providesthat: (#(# 8  0`   Sec.1835.(1)Allpersonsgoingto,attending,orreturningfrom,any   courtproceedingsinanyactioninwhichtheirpresenceisneededare   privilegedfromserviceofprocessifservicecouldnothavebeenmade    onthemhadtheynotgoneto,attended,orreturnedfromthe   proceedings.{ ` `  ЀMi.Stat.Ann.600.1835(1)(2001).Thismirrorsthetraditionalrulethat suitorsaswell q  aswitnessescomingfromanotherstateorjurisdictionareexemptfromtheserviceofcivil g processwhileinattendanceuponcourtandduringareasonabletimeincomingandgoing. ] Stewartv.Ramsay,242U.S.128,12930(1916);seealsoMeyersv.Barlock,281Mich.629, S 275N.W.656(1937);Lingemannv.Dehnke,247Mich.597,226N.W.259(1929). I   Michiganstatelawshouldprovidetherelevantruleofprocessimmunity.Fed.R.Civ. ? P.4(e)(1),4(k)(1)(a);seealso28U.S.C.1652;Wilsonv.Garcia,471U.S.261(1985); 5 Walkerv.ArmcoSteelCorp.,446U.S740(1980). +{   Theclearmajorityofcourtsaddressing thispreciseissue holdthataDefendantwho !!q attendsahearingsubjecttothedefenseoflackofpersonaljurisdiction,doesnotlosethat #o verydefensebywayofa secondsummons.Baileyv.TransportationCommunication %e ! EmployeesUnion,45F.R.D.444,44748(N.D.Miss.1968);Kellyv.Pennington,78Colo.  '["# 482,484,242P.681,682,45A.L.R.339(1926);Singerv.Reising,154Misc.239,24041, )Q$% 276N.Y.S.714,71517(N.Y.Mun.Ct.1935).SeealsoChaseNatlBankv.Turner,269 *G&' N.Y.397,199N.E.636,637(1936).     OpposingAuthorities: However,theFirstCircuithastakenadifferentview,and  determinedthataU.S.SupremeCourtcasefrom1932,Lambv.Schmitt,285U.S.222  (1932),trumpsMassachusettslaw, #  5      ׀andestablishesboth(1)a sameorsimilarcase   exceptiontoprocessimmunity!suchthatadefendantcannotclaimprocessimmunityinthe   samelawsuitinwhichheisnamed,and(2)a protectiveorderrulethatpreconditions   processimmunityuponaprehearingapplicationtothetrialcourtforaprotectiveorder, |  whichprotectiveordermustbegrantedasapreconditionfortravel.SeeNorthernLight r  Tech.,236F.3dat63(relyingprincipallyonLaCroixv.AmericanHorseShowAss'n,853 h F.Supp.992,99495(N.D.Ohio1994)). ^    TheMajorityRuleDiffersFromtheOneAdoptedbytheFirstCircuit: Most T courtsinterpretingLambv.Schmitthaveadoptedamuchnarrowerinterpretationthandid R theFirstCircuit.AmericanCentennialIns.Co.v.Handal,901F.Supp.892,89597(D.N.J. H 1995);InternationalPlasticHarmonicaCorp.v.HarmonicReedCorp.,69F.Supp.515,516  (E.D.Pa.1946);Shapiro&SonCurtainCorp.v.Glass,348F.2d460,46162(2dCir.1965);  FunDamental,Toov.Hwung,1997WL289712,at*3*5(S.D.N.Y.May30,1997);Viking  Penguin,Inc.v.Janklow,98F.R.D.763,76567(S.D.N.Y1983);NASLMarketing,Inc.v.   deVries,94F.R.D.309,30911(S.D.N.Y.1982).    [  INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  I$@@= = FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN   #I$ <#f&      fXXfX1XXfXX1XXX1X1XXX1X XXX1    I$ XX<  #I$<#I$SOUTHERNDIVISION<=  =Ԍ  Ќ  I$I$fI$ffffff    ;#f>#'<    ?+ ,4 <DLX? FORDMOTORCOMPANY, h      p        ?( 4 <DL,X?   p     &     XX    XX@  Plaintiff,   h   @kA  4AԌ   Ќ        p ' @ Xv. `     h     CaseNo.01CV71685     X  ?+ ,4 <DLX? 2600ENTERPRISES,andERIC 0  0(#(#Hon.RobertH.Cleland  (#(# CORLEY,p/k/aEMMANUEL 0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#UnitedStatesDistrictJudge  (#(# GOLDSTEIN,        0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#f (#(# &  ?( 4 <DL,X?  H h*D,DLX* fXXf    fXfXE  Defendants.   p     EbF  +FԌ  Ќ h! XD,DX!   Hff  <( 4 <DLX<____________________________________/#f&E#'\E     MOTIONFORAPROTECTIVEORDER  u ;H  Defendants2600Enterprises,Inc.( 2600")andEricCorley(p/k/aEmmanuel h Goldstein)( Goldstein)respectfullymoveforaprotectiveordergrantingand/orpreserving ^ immunityfromserviceofprocessforGoldsteinand/oranyrepresentativeof2600!either T in thiscase orinanyrelatedorunrelatedcase!whileattendingthehearingtheCourthas J  noticedforMay18,2001.Theimmunityforwhichtheyprayincludes,butisnotlimitedto, H"  secondserviceofsummonsinthesamelitigationforwhichtheyappear.  >$  [    @  SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM   H  Insupport,DefendantsGoldsteinand2600,throughcounsel,respectfullystate:  K   PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT   L  FORDhasnostandingtocomplainaboutanybodysreferenceinspeechtothe   trademarkGENERALMOTORS.Nordoesplaintiffsobjectiontotheallegedlyprovocative    lexicalcontextofthisparticularDomainNameremoveitfromtheprotectionoftheFirst   Amendment.Hessv.Indiana,414U.S.105(1973);Cohenv.California,403U.S.15(1971) z  ( fuckthedraftisprotectedspeech);seealsoWooleyv.Maynard,430U.S.705(1977) p  (covering livefreeordielicenseplatesloganisprotectedexpression). f   Notonlythat,buta triviallyeasy technologicalselfhelptechnique!namely, \ insertionofasinglelineofsoftwarecode(acomputerinstruction)intothe .htaccessfile Z onFORDsWebsiteservercomputer!isavailabletoFORDandwouldenableFORDto P securethefunctionalequivalentofthereliefitseekswithoutanyneedforcourtintervention. F   Asanimportantillustration,accordingtothecustomsandnormsoftheInternet < community,unlessFORDputstheappropriatecodesintoafilecalled robot.txtonits 2  Websiteserver,thenFORDgrantsanimpliedlicensetoanyInternetsearchenginetouse ("x  robot, crawleror spidersoftwaretoindexthecontentofFORDsWebsite.Inother $n  words,animpliedlicense(permission)ispresumedunlessFORDtakestheinitiativeof &d!" availingitselfofasimple,technological optouttechnique.Likewise,thedefaultsetting  (Z#$ forpurposesofhyperlinkingor pointingofWebsiteaddressesisthatFORD(bythe very *P%& act ofpublishingaWebsite)grantsan ImpliedLicense totheentireworld_ (anyone, +N'( anywhere,foranypurposewhatsoever)topublish linkstoFordsWebsite,oreventopoint  theentiretrafficfromanyaddress( URL) #  6      ׀attheIPaddressofFORDsWebsiteserver  computer(theaddresstowhichtheDomainName( URL)atissueinthiscasepointsisthe  IPaddress164.109.71.245!emphatically not astringofnumbersonwhichFORDhasany   trademark).UnlessanduntilFORDavailsitselfofthe ._ htaccess_ file,thenFORD   communicatestotheentireworld(includingDefendants)thattrafficiswelcomeandinvited.     Settingasidespecialcasesthatarenotallegedhere(i.e.,defamation),theresimply |  existsnogeneralizedlegal rightnottobereferredtoontheInternet(eitherfornaturalor r  artificialpersons),grantingentitieslikeFORDthepower(righttogotocourt)topickand h chooseamongtheentitiesthatmaylinktoFORDsWebsite,andenjointhespeechof ^ disfavoredspeakers.Theimportanceofthisissue cannotbeoverstated ,andisperhapsthe T mostwidelyunderstoodofall AxiomsofWebArchitectureacceptedbytheInternet R communityandbyallWebpublishersasaconditionofparticipatinginthis uniqueand H whollynewmediumofworldwidehumancommunication.Renov.AmericanCivil > LibertiesUnion,521U.S.844,850(1997). 4  L8  0`   Wecannotregardanyoneashavingthe"rightnottobereferredto" *"z withoutcompletelypullingtherugoutfromunderfreespeech.%#u` `  TimBernersLee,_  #  7      _ ԀAxiomsofWebArchitecture4LinksandLaw:Myths,publishedat< %k ! 45O  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkMyths.html6"^O6^(_  75d^Ԁ>;seealsoTim_ Berners_ ԄLee,Axiomsof  WebArchitecture2LinksandLaw,publishedat<45O  5  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/  _ LinkLaw_ 6_O_(_  75_Ԁ>. Theabilitytorefertoadocument(orapersonoranythingelse)isingeneral  afundamentalrightoffreespeechtothesameextentthatspeechisfree.Makingthe   referencewithahypertextlinkismoreefficientbutchangesnothingelse.... Thereisno   reasontohavetoaskbeforemakingalinktoanothersite. LinksandLaw:Myths   (emphasisinoriginal).     SowhyisFORDincourtinsteadofconformingitsconducttoacceptedcustomsand z  normsoftheInternetcommunity?BecauseFORD(possibly,stillsmartingfromtheBlue p OvalNewscase, #  8      ׀andthisCourtsrejectionofmostofFORDseffortstoexerciseeditorial f controloveraWebsite)hasalegislativeagenda.Whenbigcompaniesareuptonogood,and \ wanttopersuadecourtstocutbroadpathsthroughthelaw!bylayingdownnewrulesthat R enablethe_ FORDs_ ԀoftheworldtotramplethespeechrightsofallInternetusers!they H choosedefendantsexpectedtotriggercertainemotionalresponsesfromcourts.Increasingly, > theDefendantsinthiscaseseemtobetheDevilofchoiceforCorporateAmericainInternet 4  cases!aneasytargettosuewhenacorporateplaintiffsobjectiveisessentiallylegislative *"z (here,tryingtoengineeranunprecedentednew rightnottobereferredto).  $p    Inthiscontext,itisespeciallyimportanttoremindtheCourtofasceneinliterature &f!" itdoubtlesshascommittedtomemory:  (\#$ *r` XX*8 r MORE:0` rf!rf!0 ` f!` f![toROPER]...Thecurrentsandeddiesofrightandwrong,whichyou *R%& findsuchplainsailing,Ican'tnavigate.I'mnovoyager.Butinthe  thicketsofthelaw,oh,thereIamaforester.Idoubtifthere'saman  alivewhocouldfollowmethere,thankGod.... f! f!  r  `  (Hesaysthislasttohimself.)   r ALICE:0 ` 0 ` (#` (#(Exasperated,pointingafterRICH).Whileyoutalk,heisgone.  (# (# 8 r MORE:0 rf!rf!Andgoheshould,ifhewastheDevilhimself,untilhebrokethelaw.  f! f!  r ROPER:0 Sonowyou'dgivetheDevilthebenefitoflaw!   (# (# Ѐ8 r MORE:0 rf!rf!Yes.Whatwouldyoudo?Cutagreatroadthroughthelawtoget y  aftertheDevil?t  f! f!  r ROPER:0 I'dcutdowneverylawinEnglandtodothat!j  (# (# 8 r MORE:0 rf!rf!(Rousedandexcited).Oh?(AdvancesonROPER).Andwhenthe ` lastlawwasdown,andtheDevilturnedroundonyou!wherewould [ youhide,Roper,thelawsallbeingflat?(Heleaveshim).This V country'splantedthickwithlawsfromcoasttocoast!man'slaws,not Q God's!andifyoucutthemdown!andyou'rejustthemantodoit L !_ dyou_ Ԁreallythinkyoucouldstanduprightinthewindsthatwould G blowthen?Yes,I'dgivetheDevilbenefitofthelaw,formyown B safety'ssake.= f! f! . Xr` X h.RobertBolt,AManForAllSeasons6566(FirstVintage_ Intl_ Ԁed.1990).Whetherthe 3 _ Ropers_ ԀofthisworldbeinEngland,orSalem,orSaltLakeCity,thecentralthemeisalltoo )y familiar,eventhougheach Devilofferedasreasonforcourtsto cutagreatroadthrough !o thelawtogetaftertheDevil,isnotalwaysthesameone. #e   Thus,manydifferent Devilshavetriggeredlegalmisadventuresthroughouthistory.  %[ ! Atseveraltimesandinmanyplaces, theDevilofferedtojustifyhewinghighwaysthrough 'Q"# thelawhasbeengiventhename witches!accusedofhavingpowerstomanipulatethe (G$%  lawsofnature,whichpowersordinarypeoplefearandcannotunderstand.Atothertimes, *=&'  theDevilhastakentheformof Communists,_  #  9      _ ԀHellbentonconfiscatingand   redistributingthepropertyofpropertiedclasses,orJews,or Heretics, Infidels,_ Tutsis_ ,  _ Hutus_ ,JapaneseAmericans,_ v| #  10      _ ԀoraccusedConfederatesaboteurs._ w: #  11      _     WiththeadventandpopularizationoftheInternet,truetoGeorgeSantayanas   injunctionthat thosewhofailtolearnfromhistoryaredoomedtorepeatit,historyis   repeatingitselfwithavengeance.OntheInternet,yetanotherhostof Devilshasbeen ~  identifiedforpoliticalandpropagandapurposesinanefforttopersuadecourtsand t  legislatures_ j  #  12      _ Ԁto cut_ a[n_ ԀInformationSuperhighway]throughthelaw_ & #  13      _ Ԁinorderto getafter j  theDevil.Thistime, theDevilhasbeenassignedpejorativelabelslike Hackers,_ xc  #  14      _ Ԁwho  areaccusedofhavingpowerstomanipulatecomputersandcommunicationsnetworksin  waysthatmaythatappearconfusingoreventhreateningtothosewholacktechnical  knowledge,or _ cybersquatters_ ,whoareaccusedof appropriatingandredistributingthe    intellectualpropertyofmultinationalcorporations(settingaside,ofcourse,allthe   problemsassociatedwiththemistakenideathattrademarksare propertythatcanbe taken ~  awayfromatrademarkregistrantwhenothersuseatrademark!thrustintopublic t   consciousnessbythetrademark owner!inspeech).Alarmistrhetoricaboutthesenew j  hightech DevilshasfoolednotonlyCongress,_  #  15      _ Ԁbutalsoevenordinarilycircumspectand   scholarlyjurists,|w #  16      ׀touseastonishinglyhyperboliclanguage!suchas:   (_p3"3"  32_3  0    Comparingtheexpressivefunctionofcomputercode,_ 6  #  17      _ Ԁandexpressionusingthat  code,to expressivemotivesofanassassin;slipop.at3;_  #  18      _ 3݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  3Ȃ2_3  0    Suggestingthedisseminationofcertainformsofcomputercode(evenforpurposes  thatarenotillegal)mighttransformtheConstitutioninto asuicidepact;id.at3f;3Ȃ݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  3g2_3  0    Suggestingthatavailabilityofcertainkindsofsoftware(evenifincapableofany  destructivefunctionslikeacomputervirus,andevenifnoevidenceispresentedof   anyindividualusingitforanyunlawfulpurpose)toan epidemiological   phenomenonresembling thespread...of[a]disease;id.at6062;3g݌~ (#(# Ќ  "3"  32_3  0    SuggestingtheLosAngelesTimescouldpublishexactlythesameexpressivecontent t  asapublisherthatisa hackermagazine,butthattheLosAngelesTimeswouldbe j  blameless,andthe hackermagazineguilty,duetotheidentityoftheparticular ` speakersandassumptionsabouttheirmentalstatesandpresumedopinions;id.at48;3׆݌V(#(# Ќ  "3"  32_3  0    Describingcomputersoftwareas burglarytools;id.at55;or3;݌L(#(# Ќ  "3"  32_3  0    Suggestingthat protectionofthemonopolygrantedtocopyrightownersis of  constitutionaldimension;_ Reimerdes_ ,111F.Supp.2d1t335;butthatthepublic  interestsideofthebargain!providingarobustpublicdomainthrough limited  termsforthepurposeof _ promot[ing_ ]theprogressofscienceandusefularts,U.S.   Const.Art.I,8,doesnotenjoythecorrespondingConstitutionalimportance.See   _ Eldred_ Ԁv.Reno,239F.3d372(D.C.Cir.2001)(allowingretroactivewindfall20year ~  extensionofalreadyexistingcopyrights!evenforworkswhosecreatorsaredead).3<݌t (#(# Ќ  #f#  Inshort,Goldsteinand2600seemtobefavoritesofcertaineconomicandpolitical j  intereststosingleoutforspecialtreatment(e.g.,theMotionPictureAssociationof ` AmericaandtheDVDCopyControlAssociationhaventtouchedthousandsofothers! V suchasuniversityprofessorsortheNewYorkTimes!thathavedistributedorlinkedto L computercodefor_ DeCSS_ )whentheobjectiveis,throughaselectiveprosecution B strategy,toarousepassionsto cutagreatroadthroughthelawtogetaftertheDevil. 8   Mr.Goldstein_  #  19      _ Ԁisessentiallyaperformanceartistandsocialcriticwhopokesfun .~ atinstitutionsthattakethemselvesfartooseriouslyandthatattemptunnecessarilyto  exercisecontroloverordinaryindividuals.Hismediumofexpressionistechnologyand  thelanguageandmachineryoftechnological progress.Goldsteinisespeciallycritical  ofeffortstoexercisesocialcontrolthroughmechanismsthatdependonenforced   ignorance(suchasnewlegislationandcertainsoftwarelicensesthatprohibit reverse   engineeringofcomplicatedtechnologicaldevicesandsoftware).Bothassocial ~  commentaryandcriticism,andasasourceoftechnicalinformation(availabletoanyone) t  atleastasvaluabletoindustryandgovernment_  #  20      _ Ԁastohobbyistsandamateurs,2600has  beenpublishedbyMr.GoldsteinandothersasalaboroflovesinceJanuary,1984.  @jj& ARGUMENT   ! e XX!  NeitheroftheDefendantsissubjecttojurisdictioninthestateofMichigan._ 'E #  21      _ ԀIn   lightoftheSupremeCourtsdecisioninBurnhamv.SuperiorCourtofCal.,495U.S.604  (1990),thebestwayfortheDefendantsnottobecomesubjecttojurisdictionistoremain  outsideMichiganforthedurationofanyproceedings.IftheyventureintoMichigan,they  risk secondserviceinthesamecase,whichatleasttwocourts(erroneously,inour   view),haveheldcouldtriggerpersonaljurisdictionoverapersonwhoisnototherwise   subjecttojurisdictioninMichigan.NorthernLightTech.v.NorthernLightsClub,236 ~  F.3d57(1stCir.2001),petitionforwritofcertiorarifiled,No.001651(Apr.30,2001); t  LaCroixv.AmericanHorseShow_ Ass'n_ ,853F.Supp.992,99495(N.D.Ohio1994). j    AlthoughaMichiganstatutemaypossiblyrenderDefendantsimmunefrom ` serviceofprocesswheninMichigan,theprospectofenteringMichigan,andthenbeing V subjectedtoaposthocdeterminationastowhethertheyactuallyfollowedtheright L procedure(e.g.,theFirstCircuitchangedtherulesretroactivelyintheNorthernLight B case)isnotanappealingone.Accordingly,solongasuncertaintyaboutDefendants 8 processimmunitystatusremainsunclear,thenDefendantsmustremainoutsideMichigan .~ !evenifthisCourtbelievestheirtestimonyorpresencetobenecessaryorhelpful. $ t   Theclearmajorityofcourtsaddressing thispreciseissue ofsamesuitprocess  immunityholdthataDefendantwhoattendsahearingsubjecttothedefenseoflackof  personaljurisdiction,doesnotlosethatverydefensebywayofa secondsummons.  Baileyv.TransportationCommunicationEmployeesUnion,45_ F.R.D._ Ԁ444,44748(N.D.   Miss.1968);Kellyv._ Pennington_ ,78Colo.482,484,242P.681,682,45_ A.L.R._ Ԁ339   (1926);Singerv._ Reising_ ,154Misc.239,24041,276_ N.Y.S._ Ԁ714,71517(N.Y.Mun.   Ct.1935).SeealsoChase_ Natl_ ԀBankv.Turner,269N.Y.397,199_ N.E._ Ԁ636,637(1936). |    AndeveninNewYork(andsomeotherstatesrecognizingalimitedLambv. r  _ Schmitt_ exceptiontoprocessimmunity),thereisnoexceptiontoprocessimmunitythat h wouldapplyinthiscase.AmericanCentennialIns.Co.v._ Handal_ ,901F.Supp.892, ^ 89597(_ D.N.J._ Ԁ1995);InternationalPlasticHarmonicaCorp.v.HarmonicReedCorp.,69 T F.Supp.515,516(E.D.Pa.1946);Shapiro&SonCurtainCorp.v.Glass,348F.2d460, J 46162(2dCir.1965);Fun_ Damental_ ,Toov._ Hwung_ ,1997WL289712,at*3*5 @ (_ S.D.N.Y._ ԀMay30,1997);VikingPenguin,Inc.v._ Janklow_ ,98_ F.R.D._ Ԁ763,76567 6 (_ S.D.N.Y_ Ԁ1983);_ NASL_ ԀMarketing,Inc.v.deVries,94_ F.R.D._ Ԁ309,30911(_ S.D.N.Y._  , | 1982).AstheSecondCircuitcorrectlyrecognized: ""r 8  8`   [_ T]he_ Ԁruleofimmunitycanserve[its]purposeonlyifitis $h  sufficientlydefinitethatprospectivewitnessesandtheirlegal %c ! advisorscandeterminethescopeofitsprotectionwithsome &^!" degreeofreliability.Awitnesswillhardlybeinducedto  'Y"# comeintoaforeignjurisdictiontotestifyifallhislawyercan (T#$ tellhimisthathewillbeimmunefromprocessunlessajudge (O$% determinesthatthiswouldimpedejusticeratherthanaidit.k)J%&` x` x InreEquitablePlanCo.,277F.2d319,320(2ndCir.1960).Accordingly,inlightofthe +@'( uncertaintythattheFirstCircuitsNorthernLightdecisionhasinterjectedintothelaw,it  isnecessarytohavethisCourtruleontheissueofimmunityinadvance.    Michiganstatelawshouldprovidetherelevantruleofprocessimmunity.Fed.R.  Civ.P.4(e)(1),4(k)(1)(a);seealso28U.S.C.1652;Wilsonv.Garcia,471U.S.261   (1985);Walkerv._ Armco_ ԀSteelCorp.,446_ U.S_ Ԁ740(1980).However,thegeneralrule   thatstatelawgovernshasbeencalledintoquestionbyFirstCircuit,inlightofitsreliance ~  uponaU.S.SupremeCourtcase(appealedoutofMississippi),Lambv._ Schmitt_ ,285U.S. t  222(1932),totrumpMassachusettslaw. j    Weareoptimistic(butfarfromcertain)thattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtwill ` grantCertiorari,andeliminatetheconfusionbyresolvingthisstatefederalquestion,as V wellasthesplitbetweentheFirstandSecondCircuits.Inthemeantime,theonlyprudent L courseistoprayforaprotectiveorderauthorizingMr.GoldsteintobepresentonMay B 18,2001,withoutfearthathemighttherebylosehisimmunityfromserviceofprocess. 8   $ t @%  CONCLUSION  oԈ     ` Fortheforegoingreasons,DefendantsGoldsteinand2600respectfullypray  foraprotectiveorder,grantingorpreservingprocessimmunitytotheextentrequestedin  theforegoingMotion.      `     h     Respectfullysubmitted,   0  0` (#(# 0` (#` (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(# 2600MAGAZINEANDERIC (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#CORLEY(pseudonymouslyknownas   EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN) ,| (#(#    `     h     Bycounsel, v  May14,20010 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#____________________________g(#(#    `     h     EricC.Grimm(P58990) b    `     h     _ CyberBrief_ ,PLC    ]    `     h     320SouthMainStreet Z    `     h     P.O.Box7341 U    `     h     AnnArbor,MI481077341 P    `     h     734.332.4900 K    `     h     0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#COUNSELFORDEFENDANTSA(#(#    `     h     2600MAGAZINEANDERIC < 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#CORLEY(pseudonymouslyknownas 7 EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN). 2 (#(# @RR CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE     Icertifythattheforegoing MOTIONANDSUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM  OFDEFENDANTSEMMANUELGOLDSTEINAND2600ENTERPRISES  FORAPROTECTIVEORDER wasservedonthefollowingcounselofrecord,by   facsimileonMay14,2001,andbydepositingthemwiththeUnitedStatesPostalService,   withFirstClassMailormoreexpeditiousmeansofdeliveryprepaid,onorbeforeMay   14,2001: `          `  GregoryD.Phillips,Esq.      `  Howard,Phillips&Andersen      `  560E.200South,Suite300      `  SaltLakeCity,UT84102 {     `  801.366.7451 v     `  cKathleenLang,Esq. l    `  DickinsonWright_ PLLC_  |    `  500WoodwardAve,Suite4000     `  Detroit,MI482263425     `  313.223.3500#c/#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#____________________________ (#(#    `     h      p