Amicus Curae Brief

Search

Support the Site

Our Sponsors

Links and Supporters

Life-Organizer.com
The Spam Diaries
Spam Resource
Flight of the Eaglehawk

Copyright

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

All copyright interests in the legal filings contained herein are expressly disclaimed.

Documents, opinions, and comments provided on any Spamsuite.com page are for general information purposes only and are not intended to substitute for informed professional legal advice. Spamsuite.com expressly disclaims liability for any opinion expressed in comments. Spamsuite.com does not endorse any article comment.

Nos. 06-3779 and 06-4169
IN THE UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
e360 INSIGHT, LLC, and Illinois
Limited Liability Company, and
DAVID LINHARDT, an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT, a
company limited by guarantee and
organized under the laws of England,
a/k/a THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT,
LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois,
District Court No. 06 C 3958
The Honorable Charles P. Kocoras, District Judge
BRIEF OF APEXIS AG; BEYOND SECURITY, INC.; BRANDENBURG INTERNET WORKING; BRIGHT WINGS, INC.;
CHANGEIP.COM; COALITION AGAINST UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL (CAUCE) - US; DATRAN MEDIA CORP.;
EMAILLABS; MICHAEL GEIST; HABEAS, INC.; INTERNET LAW GROUP, PLLC; INNOVYX, INC.; INTERNET TOOLS,
INC.; THE INSTITUTE FOR SPAM AND INTERNET PUBLIC POLICY (ISIPP); CHRIS LEWIS; JOHN LEVINE;
MAILSHELL INC.; MV COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; RETURN PATH, INC.; SECURE COMPUTING CORP.; SNERTSOFT;
SPIN, S.R.L.; SURBL; TALKBIZ, INC.; UNSPAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; PAUL VIXIE; WEBMAIL.US, INC.;
WHIZARDRIES, INC.; AND DEREK WYATT, MP IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL
Matthew B. Prince
Adjunct Professor of Internet Technology Law at John Marshall Law School
9prince@jmls.edu
1901 Prospector Avenue,
Suite 200
Park City, UT 84060
(435)615-9205
February 28, 2007
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Apexis AG
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Beyond Security Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Brandenburg Internet Working
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Bright Wings, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
ChangeIP.com
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE) - U.S.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Datran Media Corp.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
EmailLabs (Legal Name: Uptilt, Inc. d/b/a EmailLabs)
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
J. L. Halsey Corporation
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
J. L. Halsey Corporation (owns 10% +)
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Michael Geist, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, University of Ottawa
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Habeas, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Internet Law Group, PLLC
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Innovyx, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
Omnicom Group Inc.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
Omnicom Group Inc. (owns 10% +)
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Internet Tools, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
The Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Chris Lewis, Senior Technical Advisor, Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG)
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
John Levine, Chair of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Taskforce, and operator of the Network Abuse Clearinghouse
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Mailshell Inc. (Legal Name: Gozoom.com Inc. d/b/a Mailshell)
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
MV Communications, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Return Path, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Secure Computing Corporation
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
SnertSoft
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Spin, s.r.l.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
SURBL
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
TalkBiz, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Unspam Technologies, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Paul Vixie
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Webmail.us, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Whizardries, Inc.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No: 06-3779
Short Caption: e360 Insight, LLC et al. v. The Spamhaus Project
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for any information that is not applicable if this form is used.
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must provide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Derek Wyatt, Member of Parliament, Chairman of the All Party Internet Group
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Matthew B. Prince, Attorney at Law
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:
i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None.
ii) List any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None.
Attorney’s Signature: s/Matthew B. Prince Date: 02-28-07
Attorney’s Printed Name: Matthew B. Prince
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X No _____
Address: 1901 Prospector Avenue, Suite 200, Park City, UT 84060
Phone Number: (435) 615-9205 Fax Number: (435) 615-9211
E-Mail Address: 9prince@jmls.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF THE IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF THE AMICI AND THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE ...1
ARGUMENT...................................................................................10
I. The Entry of Default Judgment Should Be Reversed Because It Does Not Comport With Principles of Due Process and Threatens International Volunteer Organizations that Ensure the Continued Viability of Internet Email..........................................................................12
II. Internet Service Providers and Anti-Spam Organizations Like Spamhaus Are Shielded from Liability by Statute and Legal Precedent......................15
A. Individual ISPs, not Spamhaus, decide whether messages are allowed onto their networks............................................................15
B. Congress specifically granted ISPs immunity from liability for blocking email messages and otherwise exercising their editorial functions under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketings (“CAN-SPAM”) Act of 2003.................16
C. The limitations of liability has been extended to anti-spam services like Spamhaus...............................................................................20
III. The Permanent Injunction Issued by the District Court Creates a Legal Standard and Process that is Unworkable and Would Thwart Any Attempts by ISPs to Block Spam..............................................................21
CONCLUSION................................................................................22
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS AND TYPE-STYLE REQUIREMENTS...........24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................. 1
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
America Online, Inc. v. GreatDeals.Net, 49 F.Supp.2d 851.................................17, 19
Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998)...........................................21
Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 & n.7 (2002).21
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).......................................................13
MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 166 Md. App. 481, 890 A.2d 818 (2006)...........19
OptInRealBig.com, LLC v. Ironport Sys., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2004)......20, 21
Schneider v. Amazon.com, 108 Wash. App. 454, 31 P.3d 37 2001))......................21
Verizon Online Servs., Inc. v. Ralsky, 203 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Va. 2002).......19
White Buffalo Ventures v. University of Texas at Austin, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005)....18, 19
Statutes
15 U.S.C. § 7701-7713................................................................16, 17, 19
15 U.S.C. § 7707(c) (2003)...................................................................18
47 U.S.C. § 231(e)(4)........................................................................18
Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230...................16, 17
Fed. R. App. P. 29............................................................................1
U.S.C. § 7702(11)............................................................................18
Other Authorities
2006: The Year Spam Raised Its Game and Threats Got Personal, MessageLabs, Dec. 14, 2006, http://www.messagelabs.com/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_5882_476_31... publish/about_us_dotcom_en/news___events/press_releases/DA_174397.html.......................11
i i
Cara Garretson, What’s With All This Spam?, Network World, Nov. 8, 2006, http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/110806-image-spam.html.....11
Postini Message Security and Management Update for October Reveals that Spam is Back With a Vengeance, Postini, Nov. 6, 2006, http://www.postini.com/news_events/pr/pr110606.php.........................
Report on Spam, Viruses and Spyware Highlight Trends of 2006 and Predictions for 2007, IronPort, Dec. 19, 2006, http://www.ironport.com/company/ironport_pr_2006-12-19.html................
SpamCop.net, http://www.spamcop.net.....................................................
Spamhaus.org, http://www.spamhaus.org....................................................
i ii
STATEMENT OF THE IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF THE AMICI AND THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE
In compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 29, the amici submit this brief in order to maintain the continued healthy function of electronic email (“email”). Email is one of the primary services offered and supported by the amici. As such, the amici — ISPs, email consultants, and email senders and receivers (collectively “entities concerned with email”) — have a collective interest in this case because its outcome is important for the healthy function of the global email network. Unwanted, unsolicited email, commonly known as “spam,” comprises an increasing percentage of the email messages received by the amici and their customers. The increasing volume of spam significantly increases the costs borne by the amici, tarnishes the Internet experience of their customers and constituents, and threatens to overwhelm the global email network. The preservation of the legally protected right to keep certain messages off the email systems used or maintained by the amici through spam-prevention mechanisms, such as those offered by Spamhaus, is therefore of fundamental importance to the amici.
The individual amici are as follows:
1. Apexis AG: Apexis AG is a Swiss spam filtering service catering to private users, and uses Spamhaus advisories to relieve its users from unsolicited bulk email and unsolicited commercial email because it believes Spamhaus is an industry-recognized, reliable service.
2. Beyond Security, Inc.: Beyond Security is a leading provider of vulnerability assessment technologies and has an active involvement in the security community through its independent security portal SecuriTeam.com. Beyond Security recognizes and appreciates the efforts of Spamhaus in trying fight the spam problem and is deeply concerned about efforts from shady organizations trying to silence independent security research by means of forceful litigation.
3. Brandenburg Internet Working: Brandenburg Internet Working’s principal, David H. Crocker, has spent 35 years designing network-based applications businesses and system architectures, with a focus on electronic mail for which he received the 2004 IEEE Internet Award. In recent years, Brandenburg has emphasized efforts to protect the Internet's email infrastructure against spam and other forms of abuse, with an increasing appreciation of the essential role provided by the Spamhaus set of services in identifying significant spam email sources.
4. Bright Wings, Inc.: Bright Wings uses the Internet to market many products and services, and to help individuals and companies lead better lives. The ability to safely send email to people who are interested in what Bright Wings can offer them, and who have given Bright Wings permission to send email to them, is an integral part of doing business in today's marketplace. Bright Wings relies upon resources such as Spamhaus to keep the Internet safe, and to help Bright Wings acquire, maintain, and better serve its visitors and customers. 2
5. ChangeIP.com: ChangeIP.com's global customer base has been protected by the Spamhaus services for the past 3 years. ChangeIP.com blocks over 40 connections per second from Spamhaus-listed IP addresses without any complaints from its clients. ChangeIP.com’s service relies on Spamhaus to protect its network.
6. Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE) - US: CAUCE is the leading advocacy organization serving and advancing the interests of the ordinary Internet user. The services Spamhaus provides enable ISPs to protect Internet users against unwanted, unsolicited and frequently offensive materials and Internet users have told CAUCE that they want these services.
7. Datran Media Corp.: Datran Media is a leading media service company that specializes in managing life-cycle marketing for some of the country's largest marketers. Datran Media has worked extensively with Spamhaus on an ongoing basis, ensuring that client practices meet or exceed industry standards.
8. EmailLabs: EmailLabs is an email service provider sending electronic mail for marketers worldwide. EmailLabs believes that organizations like Spamhaus are important to the email community for preventing unsolicited commercial email and identifying organizations that contribute to the overall spam problem. The prevention of spam helps not only the receivers of email, but also the legitimate marketers EmailLabs serves in their ability to send wanted and relevant email to people who have requested it.
3
9. Michael Geist — a Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law University of Ottawa: Mr. Geist served on Canada's National Task Force on Spam as the Co-Chair of the Legal and Regulatory Working Group. He also launched Canada's first successful privacy complaint involving unsolicited commercial email, and supports the efforts of Spamhaus.
10. Habeas, Inc.: Habeas, Inc. is an email reputation services provider that enables commercial email senders to certify their communications as legitimate. Habeas is interested in the outcome of this case in order to ensure the continued viability of email as a reliable business communications medium.
11. Internet Law Group, PLLC: Internet Law Group is a law firm based in Washington, D.C., that specializes in tracking, identifying and stopping the human sources of online fraud, including spam, phish and other Internet-based economic crimes. Its client base includes ISPs, ESPs, financial institutions, registering authorities, drug manufacturers and other online retailers whose brands are impacted by cybercrime, as well as IT security firms looking to provide solutions that go beyond blocking. Internet Law Group supports the efforts of Spamhaus.
12. Innovyx, Inc.: Innovyx, Inc. provides digital marketing solutions to advertising and marketing agencies, as well as Global 2000 enterprises. Because the viability of email as a communications medium is critical to
4
Innovyx’s business, it supports Spamhaus and believes Spamhaus fulfills an important role in maintaining that viability.
13. Internet Tools, Inc.: Internet Tools, Inc. is a Texas corporation operating mail-list.com, a double opt-in mailing list host. Internet Tools has been using Spamhaus for many years, and has found it to be the best RBL operator by far. Spamhaus allows Internet Tools to reject large amounts of the spam it receives, before actually receiving the entire email, with no false positives. Internet Tools further believes that the plaintiff in this case is misusing the legal system and has acted in bad faith.
14. The Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy (ISIPP): ISIPP consults both the public and private sector on email, anti-spam, and other Internet policies. Led by CEO Anne P. Mitchell, ISIPP has been at the forefront of the spam-containment and email delivery policy debates. Ms. Mitchell, a Professor of Law at Lincoln Law School of San Jose and instructor on Internet Law as well as other topics, has been involved in many wide-reaching public policy efforts such as helping to author the language of the McCain Amendment to the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketings (“CAN-SPAM”) Act of 2003, and consulting with then-Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and California Senator Kevin Murray, on anti-spam and email public policy. ISIPP supports the efforts of Spamhaus.
15. Chris Lewis — Senior Technical Advisor of Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG): Mr. Lewis believes that spam (and related abuses, such as viruses and phishes) are the largest single impediment to the growth of
5
the Internet, and ultimately to overall economic growth. If email collapses under the increasing load of spam and the end-user aversion to the flood of spam e-mails (many organizations are seeing more than 90% of all email is malicious traffic), Mr. Lewis believes this result will be felt in the overall economy. Mr. Lewis believes Spamhaus is the most highly respected/widely used player in the field, helping to protect hundreds of millions of Internet users, and saves industry — not just ISPs, but large corporate and private users, as well — many millions, if not billions of dollars annually in lost productivity, infrastructure and cleanup costs. Mr. Lewis believes that allowing the district court’s decision to stand emperils the long term viability of email.
16. John Levine — Chair of the Anti-Spam Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force, and Operator of the Network Abuse Clearinghouse: Dr. Levine is the Chair of the Anti-Spam Research Group (“ASRG”), which is the leading forum to coordinate anti-spam research, and operates abuse.net, the most widely used source of spam reporting contact data with over 140,000 registered users. Dr. Levine is the author of many books on the Internet and e-mail, including the popular "Internet for Dummies." Dr. Levine supports the efforts of Spamhaus.
17. Mailshell, Inc.: As a global provider of spam filtering software, Mailshell closely monitors the negative effects spam has on Internet users and on the Internet's overall infrastructure. Mailshell believes that groups of Internet users, including Spamhaus, have the right to gather and share data about spam and other perceived Internet-based threats.
6
18. MV Communications, Inc.: MV Communications is an ISP of long standing in New Hampshire. One of the most important services that MV Communications provides is delivery and transport of email, which is made difficult with the ever-increasing volume of spam. By taking the opinions of organizations like Spamhaus into account, MV Communications can make filtering spam more manageable, less costly, and in many cases possible at all.
19. Return Path, Inc.: Return Path is interested in improving and protecting the email inbox experience. Return Path believes that this case will help to define the rights of email receivers to use anti-spam mechanisms to provide the best email experience for the consumer.
20. Secure Computing Corp.: Secure Computing provides Internet security solutions to enterprises and has the responsibility of protecting tens of thousands of organizations around the world from unwanted and malicious email and network activity. Secure Computing’s interest in this case pertains to preserving the right and ability to protect email systems from such threats.
21. SnertSoft: SnertSoft is an online business for the development, distribution, and support of commercial and free software titles, whose current products focus on email filtering. Two of SnertSoft’s current titles and a soon to be released new product all take advantage of spam blacklists and/or reputation services such as Spamhaus, SURBL.org, and URIBL.com. While there are many black list services, SnertSoft believes that Spamhaus has one of the largest and most accurate databases available, and losing such a valuable
7
resource would severely reduce its customers’ ability to manage their mail servers as they see fit.
22. Spin, s.r.l.: Spin is an Italian Internet provider operating since 1995, with a customer base mainly constituted of small and medium businesses. Spin has been and continues to work hard to give its customers the best possible environment for their e-mail communications. To create this optimal environment, Spin seeks to keep its customers’ mailboxes free of bulk unsolicited mail (spam), ensure that real non-spam messages arrive into its customers’ mailboxes, and solve any operational problem as quickly as possible. Spin has found the Spamhaus databases to be a crucial ingredient towards achieving these goals.
23. SURBL: SURBL is an organization providing anti-spam data. SURBL believes that Spamhaus freely publishes vital information in the public interest which helps keep much of the Internet mail infrastructure up and running. Without the use of this information, SURBL believes that the Internet mail infrastructure used by and benefiting courts, government agencies, hospitals, universities, schools, companies, organizations and hundreds of millions of individuals around the world would very likely collapse under the burden of attempting to process the massive flood of spam.
24. TalkBiz, Inc.: TalkBiz is an email service provider sending messages for customers worldwide. Spamhaus' ability to block spam without blocking solicited email helps to ensure that TalkBiz’s customers and subscribers are able to receive, find and read its mailings. Without Spamhaus, TalkBiz's
8
business would be severely damaged as its readers would be flooded with unsolicited spam emails, making it less likely its messages would be read.
25. Unspam Technologies, Inc.: Unspam is the leader in working with governments to author and implement legislation to protect email users from unwanted messages. Unspam's interest is in a healthy email ecosystem and believes organizations like Spamhaus are critical to achieving this goal.
26. Paul Vixie: Mr. Vixie is the original founder of MAPS LLC, the Internet's first anti-spam company. Mr. Vixie believes that the ruling and judgment against Spamhaus in this case ought to be reversed.
27. Webmail.us, Inc.: Webmail.us is an email hosting provider for approximately 35,000 businesses globally, with the majority being small to medium sized US based businesses. Spamhaus provides live data to the Internet community, which enables companies like Webmail.us to make intelligent decisions about what email traffic to allow and what traffic to block. It is critical to have access to this data, because being able to make informed decisions when blocking unwanted email traffic is vital to the long-term viability of email.
28. Whizardries, Inc.: Whizardries is a web hosting and development company that also provides consulting services to attorneys on electronic mail issues. Whizardries hosts approximately 15 domains and uses zen.spamhaus.org as part of its email filtering scheme. On an average day, Whizardries estimates that Spamhaus blocks around 2,500 pieces of spam,
9
representing approximately 97% of the total amount of spam blocked by its system.
29. Derek Wyatt — Member of Parliament and Chairman of the All Party Internet Group: Mr. Wyatt, MP, has led debates on addressing the problems associated with spam email in the United Kingdom, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the International Telecommunications Union/World Summit on the Information Society (ITU-WSIS). Mr. Wyatt believes Spamhaus has been outstanding in supplying him and the All Party Internet Group with information on the spam email problem, and in providing evidence for an All Party Internet Group Inquiry in 2003.
ARGUMENT
The amici contend that anti-spam mechanisms, such as those provided by Spamhaus, are critical to the sustained functioning of Internet email. The default judgment against Spamhaus threatens to establish a dangerous precedent that undercuts the right of entities concerned with email such as the amici to limit what messages are allowed onto their networks. This right has been legislatively codified and repeatedly affirmed by the courts. Upholding the default judgment would allow a legal end-run around this right and threaten a valuable source of information entities concerned with email use to block spam.
Email is not a resource without limits. Today many entities concerned with email, including some of the amici, are taxed to the breaking point under an increasing flood of spam. Since the district court entered the default judgment
1 0
against Spamhaus in September of 2006, there has been a massive increase in the volume of spam messages being sent. See Cara Garretson, What’s With All This Spam?, Network World, Nov. 8, 2006, http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/110806-image-spam.html (spam levels spiked as much as 80 percent in November).
Anti-spam researchers now widely report that spam represents more than 90 percent of all email messages traveling across the Internet. See, e.g., Postini Message Security and Management Update for October Reveals that Spam is Back With a Vengeance, Postini, Nov. 6, 2006, http://www.postini.com/news_events/pr/pr110606.php (stating that “91% of all email is now spam”); 2006: The Year Spam Raised Its Game and Threats Got Personal, MessageLabs, Dec. 14, 2006, http://www.messagelabs.com/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_5882_476_31... publish/about_us_dotcom_en/news___events/press_releases/DA_174397.html; Report on Spam, Viruses and Spyware Highlight Trends of 2006 and Predictions for 2007, IronPort, Dec. 19, 2006, http://www.ironport.com/company/ironport_pr_2006-12-19.html.
If end users today perceive that they are receiving less spam it is not because spammers are sending fewer messages. Instead, the perceived decrease in spam has resulted from the development of improved filtering and technological mechanisms, such as those provided by Spamhaus. These mechanisms allow access to information so that entitites concerned with email
1 1
may make informed choices as to what messages are ultimately delivered. In other words, the number of spammers in the world has not likely decreased, but, because of information provided by organizations like Spamhaus, ISPs, email consultants, and email senders and receivers are able to better identify spammers and stop their messages before they are delivered. Unfortunately, the district court’s default judgment threatens this free flow of information and endangers the systems that have allowed for the continued viability of email.
I. The Entry of Default Judgment Should Be Reversed Because It Does Not Comport With Principles of Due Process and Threatens International Volunteer Organizations that Ensure the Continued Viability of Internet Email.
While Spamhaus’ brief sets forth the compelling and convincing argument for reversing the default judgment due to improper service of process and the district court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over Spamhaus, the amici encourage this Court to consider the public policy rationales supporting a reversal of the default judgment. The Internet is an international community that is protected in large part by volunteers from all over the world. If the default judgment and permanent injunction issued by the district court were upheld, it would set a dangerous precedent that would surely chill, if not entirely halt, the efforts of international volunteers that police, protect, and preserve the successful and legal operation of the Internet.
Spamhaus, like many of the groups that protect the Internet from those who would use it for harmful purposes, is a foreign, non-profit organization that relies entirely on the efforts of volunteers. Spamhaus’ SBL list is published on its United Kingdom-based website. The amici and other entities concerned
1 2
with email then utilize this well-developed list in adopting filtering systems to prevent their users from receiving unsolicited, commercial email spam. Given these facts, the amici agree with Spamhaus’ opening brief: Spamhaus is a non-profit corporation based in the United Kingdom whose website only provides information, and the district court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over Spamhaus in Illinois. (Defendant-Appellant Spamhaus’ Opening Brief at 17-26).
The amici request that this Court apply strict standards when assessing the district court’s personal jurisdiction over Spamhaus. A court’s personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporate defendant is an inherently limited power, requiring “certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations omitted). The amici stridently believe that foreign organizations like Spamhaus — who do not sell products in a state, have no employees in a state, and exist only as a public interest information source on the Internet — lack the “minimum contacts” necessary to establish personal jurisdiction, and it would thus “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” to require Spamhaus to defend this suit in a court sitting in Illinois, much less pay a judgment in excess of $11 million.
Beyond this case, the danger of allowing the lower court’s default judgment to stand is that it may create a significant chilling effect on other volunteer organizations providing information critical to the continued functioning of the
1 3
Internet. Numerous international volunteer watchdog groups police the Internet, protecting users from computer viruses, the “phishing” of confidential data, child pornography, and other Internet-related or Internet-assisted criminal behavior. These watchdog groups, in turn, save law-enforcement groups and businesses the countless costs of fighting these problems themselves. Spamhaus’ SBL list is used by many of the world’s largest ISPs, corporations, universities, governments, and military networks to filter out unwanted bulk emails; in fact, the email addresses of all United States federal court judges and employees are currently protected from undesirable “spam” email by a filtering system utilizing Spamhaus’ SBL list. However, the policy embraced in the district court’s default judgment, over a foreign non-profit organization without a finding of personal jurisdiction, threatens to chill or halt the efforts of Internet “Good Samaritans” like Spamhaus. Upholding the district court’s default judgment and permanent injunction in this case, even though the court never considered personal jurisdiction, sends a message that any of these watchdog groups or “Good Samaritans” can be hailed into court anywhere in the United States and required to defend against a lawsuit, even if they have no contacts, much less “minimum contacts” with that forum. Such a result cannot conform with the basic principles of Due Process and personal jurisdiction.
The continued viability of Internet email relies on the information and mechanisms provided by organizations like Spamhaus. If the default judgment and permanent injunction are upheld, the amici are concerned that the
1 4
individuals and organizations that abuse the Internet will be emboldened to use the legal system to intimidate and harass the “Good Samaritan” organizations that protect the Internet. This Court should therefore reverse the district court’s default judgment and permanent injunction, requiring the district court to properly determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over Spamhaus and allowing the case to proceed on the merits.
II. Internet Service Providers and Anti-Spam Organizations Like Spamhaus Are Shielded from Liability by Statute and Legal Precedent.
A. Individual ISPs, not Spamhaus, decide whether messages are allowed onto their networks.
In ruling on Spamhaus’ appeal, the amici urge this Court to recognize that Spamhaus does not actually block messages or email addresses. Instead, entities concerned with email (including the amici) voluntarily and individually elect to use information from Spamhaus and other sources to determine what messages sent to their networks should be allowed. The criteria used by each email related entity are different and determined by the individual entities on their own. No ISP, email consultant, email sender or email receiver is forced to use Spamhaus’ data. That so many entities concerned with email have chosen to make use of the information provided by Spamhaus is a testament to its value. To use an analogy, Spamhaus is like a movie reviewer, email related entities are like moviegoers, and email message senders are like movies. Because time is limited and moviegoers cannot see every film that is released, each moviegoer independently relies on the opinions of different reviewers in order to determine what movies to see. If one movie reviewer’s opinions become
1 5
widely followed it is because, in the marketplace of movie reviews, over time he has reliably identified quality films. If a reviewer makes mistakes, very quickly moviegoers stop relying on him because the moviegoers’ interest, given their limited time, is in seeing good movies and avoiding bad ones.
Given limited technological resources, ISPs, email consultants, and email senders and receivers are interested in delivering good messages and blocking bad ones. Just like moviegoers, these entities concerned with email rely on a number of sources of information before deciding whether a message should be allowed onto their networks. To hold Spamhaus liable for the information it provides is akin to a movie producer receiving a judgment against a movie reviewer for a film’s failure.
B. Congress specifically granted ISPs immunity from liability for blocking email messages and otherwise exercising their editorial functions under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketings (“CAN-SPAM”) Act of 2003.
The amici, as ISPs, email consultants, and email senders and receivers, are the beneficiaries of federal statutory protection from liability connected to their email filtering and blocking decisions, under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketings (“CAN-SPAM”) Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 7701-7713. The CDA states:
(1) No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2) No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
1 6
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
47 U.S.C. § 230(C)(2). Under the CDA, an “interactive computer service provider” is defined as “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services operated by libraries or educational institutions.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2).
As “interactive computer service providers,” the amici are thus immune from suit for their “action[s] voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be…harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected,” — in other words, the blocking of spam. See America Online, Inc. v. GreatDeals.Net, 49 F.Supp.2d 851, 855, 864 (E.D. Va. 1999) (noting that blockage of unsolicited bulk email was encouraged by the CDA). The CDAs immunity permitting entities concerned with email to block spam should be extended to the organization many of these entities rely upon to make filtering decisions — Spamhaus.
Furthermore, email related entities also enjoy immunity from suit by the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7701-7713 (2003). To the amici’s knowledge, the provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act have never been addressed by any court
1 7
within the Seventh Circuit, and would thus be a matter of first impression for this Court.
As noted above, entities concerned with email using Spamhaus’ SBL list fall under the provisions of CAN-SPAM as “internet access servers” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 7702(11) and 47 U.S.C. § 231(e)(4). As “internet access service,” entities using Spamhaus’ SBL list are entitled to immunity from suit for blocking email messages such as those issued by e360, since CAN-SPAM states that “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages.” 15 U.S.C. § 7707(c) (2003). In other words, email related entities relying on the Spamhaus SBL list have the statutory right to adopt policies blocking e360’s electronic mail messages, free and immune from any suit punishing them for doing so.
While no court in the Seventh Circuit has addressed this aspect of CAN-SPAM, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered CAN-SPAM in White Buffalo Ventures v. University of Texas at Austin, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1039 (2006), in a case involving messages from an online dating service that had been blocked by the University of Texas based on its internal anti-solicitation policies banning unsolicited bulk commercial emails. White Buffalo, 420 F.3d at 368. According to the Fifth Circuit, CAN-SPAM recognized “Congress’s acknowledgement of ‘the problems associated
1 8
with the rapid growth and abuse of unsolicited commercial email [that] cannot be solved by Federal legislation alone’ but that will also require ‘the development and adoption of technological approaches’ to serve the goals of the Act.’” Id. at 371-72 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12) (2003)). Furthermore, CAN-SPAM “does not preclude a state entity like UT from using technological devices [such as] spam filters to conserve server space and safeguard the time and resources of its employees, students, and faculty.” Id. at 372 (internal quotation omitted). Indeed, as the Fifth Circuit acknowledged, the language of CAN-SPAM § 7707(c) expressly allowing ISP’s and other email related entities to adopt their own policies for blocking or transmitting email messages was “in tension” with White Buffalo’s suggestion that the company’s compliance with CAN-SPAM required the University of Texas to transmit White Buffalo’s email messages. Id. at 372-73.
Other cases, too, have supported the Fifth Circuit’s holding that CAN-SPAM affords ISPs, email consultants, and email senders and receivers immunity from suit related to their decisions to block unwanted email messages; ISPs have successfully and repeatedly enforced their legal right to keep spam off their networks. See Verizon Online Servs., Inc. v. Ralsky, 203 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Va. 2002) (sending spam held to be a trespass to the ISP’s servers); America Online, Inc. v. CN Productions, 272 B.R. 879 (E.D. Va. 2002) (ISP injured by spam messages); MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 166 Md. App. 481, 890 A.2d 818 (2006) (sending spam causes tortious injury to an ISP).
1 9
C. The limitations of liability has been extended to anti-spam services like Spamhaus.
The liability protections in the CAN-SPAM Act and the CDA extend beyond merely ISPs to the providers of anti-spam mechanisms like Spamhaus. In OptInRealBig.com, LLC v. Ironport Sys., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2004), an anti-spam company (using SpamCop technology) was sued by a bulk email sender. The SpamCop service is technically similar to Spamhaus’ SBL because it uses information provided by volunteers to identify senders of spam and report their IP addresses to receivers. Id. at 1040 (“SpamCop is an interactive Internet-based service whose mission is to reduce spam by reporting complaints to ISPs that provide Internet access to the senders of spam”); compare SpamCop.net, http://www.spamcop.net (last visited Feb. 28, 2007) (“SpamCop is the premier service for reporting spam. SpamCop determines the origin of unwanted email and reports it to the relevant Internet service providers.”) with Spamhaus.org, http://www.spamhaus.org (last visited Feb. 28, 2007) (“Spamhaus tracks the Internet's Spammers, Spam Gangs and Spam Services, provides dependable realtime anti-spam protection for Internet networks, and works with Law Enforcement to identify and pursue spammers worldwide.”).
OptInRealBig is important because of its factual similarity to the case at hand. In OptInRealBig, the court specifically extended the CDA protections to mechanisms like those provided by Spamhaus. OptInRealBig, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 1043–44. The court held that the companies shielded by the CDA include “a
2 0
wide range of cyberspace services, not only internet service providers.” Id. at 1044 (citing Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998); Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 831, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 & n.7 (2002); Schneider v. Amazon.com, 108 Wash. App. 454, 31 P.3d 37, 40–41 (2001)). The court concluded that services like SpamCop and Spamhaus specifically qualify as “interactive service providers” and therefore also receive protection under Section 230 of the CDA. Id.
Thus, Spamhaus is protected under the CDA, and the default judgment should be reversed because the underlying causes of action alleged by e360 are blocked by federal statute.
III. The Permanent Injunction Issued by the District Court Creates a Legal Standard and Process that is Unworkable and Would Thwart Any Attempts by ISPs to Block Spam.
The permanent injunction entered by the district court, requiring proof by “clear and convincing evidence” that a U.S. “law” has been violated will completely thwart any attempts by ISPs, email consultants, and email senders and receivers utilizing services such as Spamhaus and SpamCop, to block email spam. As discussed above, organizations like Spamhaus and SpamCop, gather information from volunteers that police the Internet. The anti-spam organizations also have “spam traps” and utilize other methods prior to determining that email constitutes “spam” and listing that address on the SBL list. Thus, there is evidence of “spamming” prior to an individual or organization being listed on the SBL list. However, the injunction creates an unworkable standard by requiring this proof by “clear and convincing
2 1
evidence.” Thus, allowing the permanent injunction to stand will cause a chilling effect to the organizations (and volunteers) that provide entities concerned with email with the information necessary to control the problem of spam messages. That chilling effect directly contradicts the Congressional intent apparent in the CDA, where Congress recognized that email related entities would need to utilize some type of approach in order to combat spam messages. Thus, the permanent injunction issued against Spamhaus should be reversed.
CONCLUSION
Allowing the district court’s default judgment against Spamhaus to stand would have disastrous consequences upon the continued efficient and legal functioning of the Internet worldwide. For all of the reasons stated in Defendant-Spamhaus’ Opening Brief and all the reasons set forth in this brief, the amici respectfully request that this Court reverse the district court’s default judgment against Spamhaus.
2 2
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Matthew B. Prince
Adjunct Professor of Internet Technology Law at John Marshall Law School
9prince@jmls.edu
1901 Prospector Avenue,
Suite 200
Park City, UT 84060
(435)615-9205
2 3
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS AND TYPE-STYLE REQUIREMENTS
1. This brief complies with the type-volume requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 5,271 words excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)iii.
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word 2003 in Bookman Old Style 12 font.
_____________________
Matthew B. Prince
Dated: February 28, 2007
2 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Matthew B. Prince, an attorney, hereby certify that I served two copies of the foregoing: (1) Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal; (2) a CD containing the Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal in a searchable PDF format; and the (3) the Motion in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal upon:
Joseph L. Kish
Matthew M. Neumeier
Kristen M. Lehner
Craig C. Martin
Bartly Joseph Loethen
Carrie A. Fino
Synergy Law Group, L.L.C.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
730 West Randolph Street
330 North Wabash Avenue
6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60611
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 222-9350
Phone: (312) 454-0015
Fax: (312) 527-0484
Fax: (312) 454-0261
by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on this 28th day of February 2007.
____________________________________
Matthew B. Prince

Bookmark/Search this post with:

By Mickey at 03/16/2007 - 22:01
Printer-friendly version

SpamSuite.com

Search

Support the Site

Our Sponsors

Links and Supporters

Copyright

Amicus Curae Brief

Post new comment

Primary links

Upcoming Dates

Navigation

e360insight LLC, et al. v. The Spamhaus Project LLC, et al.