The district court’s conclusion that rules governing personal jurisdiction and venue provide no impediment to pre-Rule 26 discovery of the ISPs is legal error. A showing of “good cause,” which is required for discovery ostensibly intended to identify defendants, requires an evaluation of whether the information sought from the ISPs would be used to name and serve defendants in the forum. See, e.g., Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352-53 & n.17 (1978) (where “the purpose of a discovery request is to gather information for use in proceedings other than the pending suit, discovery properly is denied”). The Copyright Act and the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute limit the court’s reach to defendants who reside in the district. And the uncontroverted evidence before the district court showed that few, if any, of the targeted Internet subscribers reside in the District of Columbia—as publicly available geolocation software used by Plaintiff’s counsel in other cases confirms. The district court’s decision to defer any consideration of personal jurisdiction or venue until after the subscribers’ personal information had been disclosed to Plaintiff requires reversal.

The court’s decision to permit discovery of the ISPs before deciding whether the 1,000-plus “Does” are misjoined provides an additional basis for reversal. Plaintiff, by routinely declining to name and serve defendants after obtaining the subscribers’ personal information, virtually ensures that Rule 20’s requirements for joinder will go unaddressed if not evaluated at the outset. And as a growing majority of courts have concluded, deferring a ruling on joinder deprives the courts of filing fees and encourages a proliferation of improperly coercive lawsuits. Given the groundswell of published opinions that disagree with the lower court and have severed or dismissed non-resident “Does” or all Does except for “Doe No. 1,” deferring a ruling on joinder in a suit that seeks nationwide subscriber information also encourages forum shopping—as the record here shows persuasively.

The record reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel’s cases have migrated across the country, with the venues selected, not by the locus of the parties or situs of harm, but based on counsel’s perceptions of which forum is most likely to authorize the greatest discovery, at the lowest cost, with the least judicial oversight.

The specter of intra-district, judge-specific shopping in Plaintiff’s counsel’s cases further underscores the problem with the lower court’s approach. The ISPs raised below Plaintiff’s counsel’s practice of filing complaints and dismissing them vel non based on the judicial assignment—only to re-file in another court. When presented with the same facts, Judge Wilkins quoted with approval Judge Huvelle’s finding: “Plaintiff’s actions a[re] akin to ‘judge shopping.’… This Court could not agree more.” ...

The ISPs respectfully submit that the district courts in this Circuit should not be the destination for 1,000-plus Doe cases that are brought primarily to compile mailing lists—not to adjudicate actual cases or controversies.

AF Holdings and its counsel owe a duty of candor to the Court, and a duty of fairness to appellants.... The serious issues concerning attorney misconduct and potentially forged documents were not identified for the court below; they necessarily affect the “good cause” analysis and provide an alternative basis for reversal to address the evidence now being considered in the pending disciplinary proceedings in the Central District of California.

Specifically, in a series of cases beginning with Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 760-61, 342 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 2001), courts have adopted a balancing standard to assess requests for early discovery to identify anonymous online speakers that protects the right to speak anonymously while at the same time ensuring that plaintiffs who have valid claims are able to pursue them. Without such a standard, abusive plaintiffs could too easily use extrajudicial means against defendants from whom they could not, in the end, obtain judicial redress. See Levy, Litigating Civil Subpoenas to Identify Anonymous Internet Speakers, 37 Litigation No. 3 (Spring 2011).

The use of BitTorrent to select and share movies is expressive and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. Call of the Wild Movie, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 350 (“[F]ile-sharers are engaged in expressive activity, on some level, when they share files on BitTorrent, and their First Amendment rights must be considered before the Court allows the plaintiffs to override the putative defendants’ anonymity.”).

Although the expressive aspect of the conduct alleged here – the posting of copyrighted movies to BitTorrent – is somewhat minimal, that does not mean that discovery to identify the anonymous user without adequate initial evidence that individual Doe Defendants committed the alleged infringement. The weakness of AF Holdings’ assertions of personal jurisdiction and proper joinder means that First Amendment concerns weigh more strongly here in favor of quashing the subpoenas. Certainly it was not appropriate for the district court to ignore the question altogether.

• DMCA notices and if applicable six strike notices sent to the applicable subscribers.
• Defendants’ bandwidth usage.
• Information about the (reliability of the) correlation of the IP-Address to the subscriber for purposes of use at trial.
• Content viewed by Defendants to the extent the content is the same show or movie that Plaintiff learned from third-party BitTorrent scanning companies that Defendants also used BitTorrent to download and distribute.

We are encouraged by the continued attention of Congress to this important issue and we look forward to working with both the House and the Senate to find a legislative balance that promotes government sharing of cyberthreat information with the private sector while also ensuring the privacy of our users.

On or about September 6, 2012, Verizon received subpoenas from plaintiff AF Holdings in AF Holdings v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-6669 and AF Holdings v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12--cv--6636. ...Verizon processed these subpoenas in the ordinary course.

Based on Verizon's records, it does not appear that Verizon received from AF Holdings or its counsel a copy of the Court's Order Vacating Prior Early Discovery Order and Order to Show Cause dated October 19, 2012, nor does it appear that Verizon received other form of notice that the subpoenas attached as Exhibits A and had been withdrawn or were invalid. If Verizon had received such notice, we would not have processed these subpoenas for AF Holdings.

I have reviewed a declaration filed by Brett Gibbs in this litigation, dated February 19, 2013, in which Mr. Gibbs states:

Following receipt of the October 19,2012 Orders, I caused the Court's October 19, 2012 Orders to be served on the registered agents for service of process of Verizon Online ensure that Verizon Online LLC had notice not to respond to the subpoenas that had already been served.

(Gibbs Decl. dated Feb. 19, 2013...) Again, based on Verizon's records, this statement appears to be wrong.

Verizon released the information responsive to AF Holdings' subpoenas in the cases identified above (case nos. 12-cv-6669 and 12-cv-6636) by fax to the Prenda law firm on November 7, 2012. If Verizon had received notice of the Court's Order dated October 19, 2012, we would not have released these records to Plaintiff.

The ISPs—industry giants AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon—will launch their versions of the CAS on different days throughout the week. Comcast is expected to be the first, on Monday.

Verizon (VZ) posted a pretty impressive holiday quarter (one-time charges aside) with a good outlook on Tuesday, and the company’s share price rose as a result. There were also plenty of interesting takeaways from the carrier’s earnings call, but The New York Times’ Brian X. Chen zeroed in on one item of particular interest. Verizon launched new “Share Everything” plans last summer that make smartphone data more expensive for many users. The best thing about these plans for investors — and, not coincidentally, the worst thing about the plans for subscribers — is that Verizon is now making more money off of smartphone data as costs associated with transmitted that data are falling.

As an added bonus, Chen noted that Verizon’s faster data networks also cause users to eat through their data allowances more quickly. This eventually prompts them to buy more expensive plans with higher data caps, which of course net Verizon even more cash.

“In addition, the terms of service on such accounts do not allow them to be used to provide free WiFi or ‘hotspots’ so the hypothetical cafe owner offering public WiFi will not be subject to the CAS if they are following their terms of service.”

[0016] To illustrate, an exemplary ambient action may include the user eating, exercising, laughing, reading, sleeping, talking, singing, humming, cleaning, playing a musical instrument, performing any other suitable action, and/or engaging in any other physical activity during the presentation of the media content. In certain examples, the ambient action may include an interaction by the user with another user (e.g., another user physically located in the same room as the user). To illustrate, the ambient action may include the user talking to, cuddling with, fighting with, wrestling with, playing a game with, competing with, and/or otherwise interacting with the other user. In further examples, the ambient action may include the user interacting with a separate media content access device (e.g., a media content access device separate from the media content access device presenting the media content). For example, the ambient action may include the user interacting with a mobile device (e.g., a mobile phone device, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, etc.) during the presentation of a media content program by a set-top box (“STB”) device.

[T]raditional targeted advertising systems and methods fail to account for one or more ambient actions of a user while the user is experiencing media content using a media content access device. For example, if a user is watching a television program, a traditional targeted advertising system fails to account for what the user is doing (e.g., eating, interacting with another user, sleeping, etc.) while the user is watching the television program. This limits the effectiveness, personalization, and/or adaptability of the targeted advertising.

[0019] Detection facility 104 may be additionally or alternatively configured to analyze data received by way of a detection device in order to obtain information associated with a user, an ambient action of the user, a user's surroundings, and/or any other information obtainable by way of the data. For example, detection facility 104 may analyze the received data utilizing one or more motion capture technologies, motion analysis technologies, gesture recognition technologies, facial recognition technologies, voice recognition technologies, acoustic source localization technologies, and/or any other suitable technologies to detect one or more actions (e.g., movements, motions, gestures, mannerisms, etc.) of the user, a location of the user, a proximity of the user to another user, one or more physical attributes (e.g., size, build, skin color, hair length, facial features, and/or any other suitable physical attributes) of the user, one or more voice attributes (e.g., tone, pitch, inflection, language, accent, amplification, and/or any other suitable voice attributes) associated with the user's voice, one or more physical surroundings of the user (e.g., one or more physical objects proximate to and/or held by the user), and/or any other suitable information associated with the user.

To the contrary, and as argued above, the “purpose” of the discovery is entirely proper: to obtain information identifying unknown Doe Defendants infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights “in order to consider whether to name and serve them as defendants.”

In other words, Verizon will cut off copper in FiOS markets first (which makes sense given the lower maintenance costs of fiber). They'll then leave users in DSL-only markets un-upgraded, forcing them to buy a costly landline so that remaining on Verizon DSL becomes less attractive. Those customers will flee to the same cable companies Verizon just signed a massive new partnership with, with Verizon planning to sell those users more expensive LTE connection later. Verizon will continue to "compete" in FiOS areas for now, if you call winking and nodding when it's time to raise prices competition.

Rural areas could see the biggest impact from the shift, as Verizon pulls DSL and instead sells those users LTE services with at a high price point ($15 per gigabyte overages). Verizon then hopes to sell those users cap-gobbling video services via their upcoming Redbox streaming video joint venture. Expect there to be plenty of gaps where rural users suddenly lose landline and DSL connectivity but can't get LTE. With Verizon and AT&T having killed off regulatory oversight in most states -- you can expect nothing to be done about it, despite both companies having been given billions in subsidies over the years to get those users online.

The entire amazing transition becomes clearer still when looking at Verizon's quarterly earnings posted yesterday. The company added a whopping 3.2 million LTE users during the second quarter, a record for the telco. In contrast, thanks to a frozen FiOS expansion (with the exception of franchise obligations in urban markets) and their disdain for DSL, Verizon managed to add just a net 2,000 broadband users in the quarter, despite adding 134,000 FiOS users. Verizon CFO Fran Shammo gave several excuses during yesterday's conference call ranging from the economy to aardvarks -- but the reality is that DSL users are fleeing in droves, and Verizon wants them to.

Recently, the FCC measurement program has backed sharply away from their commitment to transparency, apparently at the bidding of the telcos in the program. The program is now proposing to replace the M-Lab platform with only ISP-managed servers. This effectively replaces transparency with a closed platform in which the ISPs -- whose performance this program purports to measure -- are in control of the measurements. This closed platform would provide the official US statistics on broadband performance. I view this as scientifically unacceptable.

For the health of the Internet, and for the future of credible data-based policy, the research community must push back against this move.

Vint breathlessly suggests that the FCC is now backing away from this openness "at the bidding of the telcos" and claims the program is proposing to replace the M-Lab platform with only ISP-managed servers. THIS IS FALSE. ISPs have made no such request of the FCC nor has the FCC proposed to eliminate use of M-Lab’s servers.

What has been proposed is that, in addition to continuing to use the data collected via the M-Lab servers, the FCC and SamKnows may also rely on the ISP provided servers that have been in use since the beginning of the project. These ISP-provided servers meet the specifications required by SamKnows as do the M-Labs servers. In fact, it was only because of the presence of these non-M-Lab, ISP-donated servers, that SamKnows was able to identify problems with an M-Lab server that was affecting the results of the tests being conducted. M-Labs did not identify this server problem on their own. It was only fixed when SamKnows brought the issue to their attention. By the way, this problem forced the FCC to abandon a month's worth of test data, extend the formal test period and delay production of their report. Later, another M-Lab server location had transit problems that again affected results. This was the second M-Labs-related server problem in two months and once again, it was SamKnows, using the ISP-provided servers as a reference who identified the problem and brought it to M-Labs attention.

“They just punted, and said you waived your arguments, so we have to affirm,” he told Ars Friday morning. “I'm ready for someone to take this up, this issue of copyright subpoenas in the Fifth Circuit. That's really the bigger issue. I'm just going to move on from this whole sanction thing. I think it's bullshit and I think it shouldn't have happened. I’d rather move on with my life than be right. That's what I’m going to do. We're going to do some more copyright subpoenas, and we're going to bring them before the district and see if they are accepted or denied and then bring them before the Fifth Circuit.”

We conclude, however, that no miscarriage of justice will result from the sanctions imposed as a result of Stone’s flagrant violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the district court’s orders. Stone committed those violations as an attempt to repeat his strategy of suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally, using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars--a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country.

But beyond his questionable legal tactics, Stone lamented the fact that larger ISPs, like Verizon, (against whom he filed a subpoena in late May 2012 over a pirated work of anime in an ongoing case) fight him “tooth and nail,” while smaller ISPs simply “cough up the user information.”

And, he argues, Verizon isn’t protecting their users out of principle or out of an interest in legal fairness, but rather to protect their highest-paying customers, which, according to Stone, are pirates.

The First Amendment protects not only traditional speakers, but other participants in the “communication of ideas.”... For example, it protects those transmitting the speech of others, and those who “exercis[e] editorial discretion” in selecting which speech to transmit and how to transmit it.... Broadband providers engage in and transmit speech, and the rules—which limit broadband providers’ own speech and compel carriage of others’ speech—cannot survive scrutiny.

Broadband providers transmit their own speech both by developing their own content and by partnering with other content providers and adopting that speech as their own. For example, they develop video services, which draw information from, and are then made available over, the Internet. Many also select or create content for their own over-the-top video services or offer applications that provide access to particular content. They also transmit the speech of others: each day millions of individuals use the Internet to promote their own opinions and ideas and to explore those of others, and broadband providers convey those communications.

In performing these functions, broadband providers possess “editorial discretion.” Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others. Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner... they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising. For example, they could distinguish their own content from that of other speakers or offer that capability to others. In fact, some types of speech, such as live streaming high-definition video, could benefit from (or may only be available with) differential treatment, such as prioritization. Broadband providers could also give differential pricing or priority access to their over-the-top video services or other applications they provide, or otherwise feature that content.... Indeed, the FCC’s concern that broadband providers will differentiate among various content presumes that they will exercise editorial discretion.

The Order’s broad “prophylactic rules” infringe broadband providers’ protected speech rights. They strip providers of control over which speech they transmit and how they transmit it, and they compel the carriage of others’ speech. They also limit the means by which providers can secure additional revenue, which impairs their ability to deploy new networks and capabilities (or to expand the size of existing ones), thereby limiting their ability to speak and deliver speech. And they make clear that even “specialized services,” such as video services, will be subject to the Order’s restrictions if the FCC decides that such services are “retarding the growth of ... broadband Internet access service,” or if broadband providers merely “advertis[e]” these services to consumers as “Internet” services, ... thus constraining their marketing speech as well.

The Order also violates the Fifth Amendment. It grants the equivalent of a permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others without just compensation—a per se taking.... “In essence,” edge providers “receive an unlimited, continuous right of access to broadband providers’ private property for free,” which “allows them to physically invade broadband networks with their electronic signals and permanently occupy portions of network capacity.” D. Lyons, Virtual Takings: The Coming Fifth Amendment Challenge to Net Neutrality Regulation.... The resulting occupation is physical, for increases in network traffic consume available capacity and ultimately require the acquisition or construction of additional capacity.

Even without a physical occupation, the rules constitute a regulatory taking because they “interfere[] with [broadband providers’] distinct investment-backed expectations.”.... Providers have invested billions in broadband infrastructure on the understanding that they can manage access to network facilities and use those facilities to offer the products that their customers want. These rules sharply curb providers’ ability to do so, thereby frustrating their substantial and reasonable investment-backed expectations.

At the core of the '545 patent is the basic idea that one can use advertisement as an exchange or currency. An Internet user can pay for copyrighted media by sitting through a sponsored message instead of paying money to download the media. This core principle, similar to the core of the Bilski patent, is an abstract idea. Indeed, public television channels have used the same basic idea for years to provide free (or offset the cost of) media to their viewers. At its heart, therefore, the patent does no more than disclose an abstract idea.

While machine-or-transformation logic served well as a tool to evaluate the subject matter of Industrial Age processes, that test has far less application to the inventions of the Information Age.... Technology without anchors in physical structures and mechanical steps simply defy easy classification under the machine-or-transformation categories.

Whether, or in what circumstances, a patent's general and indeterminate references to "over the Internet" or at "an Internet website" are sufficient to transform an unpatentable abstract idea into a patentable process for purposes of 35 U.S.C.

Carrier IQ is used to understand what problems customers are having with our network or devices so we can take action to improve service quality.

It collects enough information to understand the customer experience with devices on our network and how to devise solutions to use and connection problems. We do not and cannot look at the contents of messages, photos, videos, etc., using this tool