http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/h021961.pdf Filed 8/7/01 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MATTHEW PAVLOVICH, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; DVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC., Real Party in Interest. H021961 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV786804) Petitioner Matthew Pavlovich petitions for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to quash service of process. We deny the petition. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 27, 1999, real party in interest DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (DVD CCA) filed a complaint in the superior court against petitioner and other defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint alleged that petitioner had repeatedly republished DVD CCAs trade secrets and copyrighted material throughout the Internet. ...Pavlovich is the president of a start-up technology company. He was, [f]or the most part of . . . four years, a computer engineering student at Purdue University, and had worked as a computer technician for Best Buy and Pingtek Corporation. The discovery materials on record indicate that Pavlovich and the other defendants developed and/or posted computer programs on the Internet, including a program called DeCSS, that misappropriate DVD CCAs trade secrets. Such computer programs have been designed... ...The question in this case is whether Californias long-arm statute reaches owners, publishers, and operators of those Web sites when, in violation of California law, they make available for copying or distribution trade secrets or copyrighted material of California companies. We hold it does. ...Here, Pavlovich, a computer engineering student, a technician in the computer and telecommunications industry, and the founder and president of a start-up technology company, knew that California is commonly known as the center of the motion picture industry, and that the computer industry holds a commanding presence in the state. In his deposition, Pavlovich spoke of Californias dominance in the motion picture industry, as follows: Q. . . . Are you aware -- do you have any understanding where the major motion pictures studios [sic] are located? A [by Pavlovich]. By major Im just going to go out on a limb here in that you mean some of the larger motion picture producers or production companies. Q. Thats correct. The sort of plaintiffs that were the plaintiffs in the matter that you were just an expert witness in. A. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, they make a lot of movies in California, Hollywood, yeah. Q. Right. So whats your understanding of the term Hollywood? A. Hollywood is the big area in California where they make a lot of movies and a lot of movie stars live and whatnot. ...So also here, the fact that Pavlovich used the new medium of the Internet to inflict harm on a California plaintiff, instead of the print media that was used in Calder, is irrelevant. It should not matter whether the delivery system used to inflict the injury is the traditional delivery system of air, land, or sea transportation, or the cutting-edge technological system of cyberspace, satellites, cable, and electro-magnetic waves. ...Pavlovich cannot claim innocent intent. As a computer engineering student, a technician in the computer and telecommunications industry, a founder and president of a technology start-up company, and a leader in the open source movement, Pavlovich knew, or should have known, that by posting the misappropriated information on the Internet, he was making the information available to a wide range of Internet users and consumers throughout the Internet world, including users and consumers in California. Accordingly, there is sufficient showing of purposeful availment within the.... [...] ~Aimee
Could someone more versed in the law attempt to elaborate on the logic the judge is applying here? I mean, Pavlovich is a Purdue student with a Russian sounding name, so presumably he lives in Indiana. As I read it, the judge seems to feel that Californai law should apply to Pavlovich becasue Pavlovich KNOWS that lost of movies are made in Hollywood, and even that Hollywood happens to be in California. Now, I could understand the reasoning sort of if the judge had merely stated that any case where the plaintiff is californian should be tried in california, home team advantage and all that, but why should it matter that the defendent KNOWS that Hollywood is in California? I probably shouldn't admit this, but I happen to know that a lot of peanuts are grown in Senegal. Should I be worried? George
participants (2)
-
Aimee Farr
-
georgemw@speakeasy.net