3and (d) for transitory digital network communications,information residing on systems or networks at direction of users, and information location tools. The panel nonethelessrejected the argument that inducement liability is inherentlyincompatible with protection under the safe harbors.Reversing and modifying in part the district court’s permanent injunction, the panel held that certain provisionsof the injunction were too vague to meet the noticerequirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), and certain provisionswere unduly burdensome.
Ira P. Rothken, Esq. (argued), Robert L. Kovsky, Esq., andJared R. Smith, Esq. of Rothken Law Firm, Novato,California, for Defendant-Appellants.Paul M. Smith (argued), Steven B. Fabrizio, William M.Hohengarten, Duane C. Pozza, Garret A. Levin, Caroline D.Lopez, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C.; Karen R.Thorland, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.,Sherman Oaks, California; Gianni P. Servodidio, Jenner &Block LLP, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.Andrew H. Schapiro, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NewYork, for amicus curiae Google, Inc.
Case: 10-55946 03/21/2013 ID: 8559238 DktEntry: 65-1 Page: 3 of 59