High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
a
Case No. 5:08-cv-05780 JW
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
123456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CINDY A. COHN (California Bar No. 145997)
cindy@eff.org
JENNIFER STISA GRANICK (California Bar No. 168423)
jennifer@eff.org
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x134
Fax: (415) 436-9993 (fax)
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
Electronic Frontier Foundation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
FACEBOOK,
Plaintiff,
v.
POWER VENTURES,
Defendant.
)))))))))))
))))
Case No. 5:08-cv-05780 JW
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT POWER VENTURES’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON CAL. PENAL CODE 502(C)
Date: June 7, 2010
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dep’t: Hon. Judge James Ware
Case5:08-cv-05780-JW Document78-1 Filed05/03/10 Page1 of 25
a
i
Case No. 5:08-cv-05780
JW
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
123456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTS............................................................................................. 2 A. Summary Of The Argument............................................................................................. 2 B. Facebook’s Service. .........................................................................................................3 C. Power’s Service...............................................................................................................4 D. Facebook’s Section 502(c) Claims................................................................................... 5
II. CRIMINAL LAW IS NOT VIOLATED WHEN FACEBOOK USERS CHOOSE TO USE
UNAPPROVED “AUTOMATED MEANS” TO GAIN ACCESS TO THEIR OWN
INFORMATION. .................................................................................................................. 6
A. Section 502(c) Does Not Criminalize Power’s Enabling A User To Gain Permissive
Access to Her Own Data, Even Through Unapproved Means. ......................................... 6
B. Similarly, Section 502(c)’s Federal Corollary, The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act,
Prohibits Trespass And Theft, Not Mere Violations Of Terms Of Use. .......................... 10 III. IMPOSING CRIMINAL LIABILITY BASED ON TERMS OF SERVICE OR................... 14 III. CEASE AND DESIST LETTERS WOULD BE AN EXTRAORDINARY AND
DANGEROUS EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL LAW.......................................................... 14
IV. THE RULE OF LENITY REQUIRES THIS COURT TO INTERPRET CRIMINAL LAWS,
INCLUDING SECTION 502(C), NARROWLY.................................................................. 17
V. IMPOSING CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN THIS CASE WOULD CREATE A RULE THAT
HOBBLES USER-CHOICE, COMPETITION, AND INNOVATION................................. 20
VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 21
Case5:08-cv-05780-JW Document78-1 Filed05/03/10 Page2 of 25
a
ii
Case No. 5:08-cv-05780
JW
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
123456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Brett Senior & Assocs., P.C. v. Fitzgerald, 2007 WL 2043377 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007)............... 13 Chrisman v. City of Los Angeles, 155 Cal. App. 4th 29 (2007)....................................................... 8 City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)........................................................................... 18 Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)........................................................................ 18 Diamond Power Int’l, Inc. v. Davidson, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2007)........................... 11 eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000)...................................... 9 Educ’al Testing Service v. Stanley H. Kaplan, Educ’al Ctr., Ltd., 965 F. Supp. 731 (D. Md. 1997)
................................................................................................................................................11
Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU LLC, 489 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2007)............................... 9, 10 Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998)............................................................. 18 Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)................................................................................... 18 Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., 556 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (E.D.
Cal. 2008)................................................................................................................................ 10
Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2007)........................................ 18 In re Apple & AT&T Mobility Antitrust Litigation, 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Cal. 2008).......... 10 Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Werner-Masuda, 390 F. Supp. 2d 479 (D.Md.
2005)................................................................................................................................. 10, 11
Intel v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003)........................................................................................9
International Airport Centers, LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006).................................. 12 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004)........................................................................................... 17 Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Speed, 2006 WL 2683058 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2006)............................ 13 LVRC Holdings, LCC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)................................................... 12 Mahru v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. App. 3d 545 (1987)............................................................. 7, 8 Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997)............................................................ 18 People v. Lawton, 48 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 11 (1996)...................................................................... 8 Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d in part as modified,
356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................... 16
Shamrock Foods v. Gast, 535 F. Supp. 2d 962 (D.Ariz. 2008)...................................................... 11
Case5:08-cv-05780-JW Document78-1 Filed05/03/10 Page3 of 25
Add a Comment