defendants pace and swift unlawfully accessed us servers to find highly valuable intellectual property that they knew had been stored there they copy that property on to other u s servers and then used it to develop infringing apps that they distribute what freestream said i know about traveling to intersection but you're wanting this toward to have occurred in the united states could you speak to that place absolute your honor there are three torts under federal law that occurred entirely within the united states st under the  crits is a violation it's a tort committed within the united states and under the copyright act the act of copying copyright protected source code from a u s server to another u s server is that is a copyright  infringement that occurred entirely within the united states and your honor that the the the defendants have largely focused on that the plaintiffs lack of foreign contacts so on hunger station lack of residency in the united states but under this court's precedents that is not relevant and while that has instructed courts to focus on the defendant's conduct contact the form rather than on the plaintiff and the location of the of the server that was location of the server and not on the residency of the plaintiff i'm they and the defense also focus a lot on the rd party ownership status of the of the server and that i believe is a particularly that the focus on because when you have a tortoise that's that's committed with the fore in the forum it doesn't matter whether a rd party is involved and i don't think the court has to look any further than the car international teams and freestream aircraft both of which party server side you have here breaching the aircraft involved towards that was committed entirely within the vada but it was a fraudulent statement a defamatory statement made to a rd party it also involved non sense of whether there was some type of market economic impact there was no analysis of whether the plane just was a foreign resident because there's no due process problem with the court exercising jurisdiction to adjudicate torts that happen within their own borders i also want to focus for a bit on of some of the policy concerns that i think the district court focused on and also the defendant's briefs have focused on that the district court seem to think that if you're pulled in our favor that that that the northern district would become the international court of internet law and i want to assure your honour's that that is not the case and i think there's at least for me is and would not be the case or why that is not something that should be troubling number one the arising out of or related united states and file for it you know file a lawsuit involving any ip dispute it has with someone else if it's beautiful would have to rise out of those foreign contacts like we have here and given that this is it to my knowledge the st server breach case in the northern district of california i don't think this is all that slippery the courts in the rd circuit in virginia and in texas in michigan and have all adopted the rule that we're proposing and the sky hasn't fallen there and i don't think there's any reason to believe that the sky would fall in the northern district either i mean did you intend to limit yourself to five minutes counsel i know you and i think we have fifteen me now and i'm just i'm just trying to be how you allocate your time oh so i'm the only person arguing for and trade secrets that i think that's entirely appropriate and not something to be concerned about because businesses and individuals around the world are choosing to store their data in the united states and in the northern district because they think it's safe there because there are a lot of laws that protect data security and trade secrets and when people reach those servers and steal that data they are making a they're taking advantage of that forum and they're making a connection with the form itself  somebody reaching in from outside and not just using a server but removing it and i think the verb is important is not i'll grant you that this is not a situation where we there the contact is limited to a message bouncing off off a server that's quali different but the two cases you mention are cases where an employee of a corporation reaches in from outside to basically steal from his or her employer and the employer is located in the forum so it strikes me as really significantly different employee in clinics cortical i think it was a german former employee and saying the same thing ok that was your honor i misunderstood so if in those cases it is true that the plaintiff is located in the forum but what weld contacts with the form because of their employees of the right of the plane aren't to your right your honor but i think that when we're talking about a tortured act that actually committed in the forum that you don't have to look to whether there was there was a connection itself it's been business information system versus professional governmental solution and i think what matters here is that the defendant there's no dispute they have not offered any evidence to refute that they knew where the server was located and they entered the forum to take property from there and it's just a part decided the location of the server was fortuitous found that what they were really aiming at is one saudi competitor really was aiming at the other what what is the response to that place so i think or kind of misunderstood what fortuitous means so the way i think you can look at what sort what it means is it's something that's the opposite of purposeful it happens when a defendant indirectly kind of accidentally becomes you know involved in the didn't do anything to make it in to the floor of the same thing was true of walden but here you have nothing that is were to it if that's happening the defendant are you know ing that the data that they're trying to steal is located on servers within the forum or going into the forum and stealing data from it and i think that you know i pointed earlier to paccar and freestream because i think that those are really relevant on this point because you know again in those cases you have neither a forum plaintiffs north or a defendant but you had torches activity within the forum and the court said that is enough why don't we decide that we don't think the court occurred in the forum so if you don't think the court if the if you don't think the tort occurred in the forum then i would say  impact the competitive advantage is to have a competitive advantage over hunger stationed in saudi arabia but i think that what both the the olympics of these federal laws that we're talking about and also all  line that recognizes that when a form is breached you're contacting not for it you're not just contacting someone who happens to be there there's actually a physical server in the forum that is breached and so and that's why courts have analogized it to something i think that the fact that they knew where the information was located and made the conscious choice to breach those servers and steal from that supplies the john fortuitous nest and i think a case on this point that's really hopeful that we said in our brief that go through this in a lot of  he construction it's from the northern district of illinois and it says essentially you know host walden if there's a server breach as long as you have knowledge by the defendants of where the server is located that is a conscious activity evidence pointing out that the defendants knew where the servers were located because they used to be hunger station executives and they knew the day to day operations on because they themselves set up similar arrangements with the senior u s companies to h i only say good luck because the lawyers usually am great at that but give it your best shot ok thanks so our view is that hunger station is really trying to expand the concept is that a personal absolutely used in saudi arabia used by customers in restaurants in saudi arabia so we're focusing on the location of the center and we think it's particularly for judas in this case because we're  a package it's that hunger station alleges that that that the that the defendants recruited their former employees with access knowing where this important source cords were were stored and then they misused the access to go in stealing qualitatively different it seems to me and even if you don't agree with me if you take that as a as even as a hypothetical shouldn't we be concerned where would this end after it's not just something bouncing off a server that's the allegation that we have to treat is true rampant well it's it's not visible stuff it's what i and that's that's just kind of a question why especially in this day and age why would we limit ourselves to information and doesn't say oh you must keep this box the server in california because that's where i'm going to want to sue there's no evidence anything like that  ask if you have any questions it sounds like you have a lot of questions that either start with some of the matters that you brought up forthright you can provide your own questions and i like judge final question which we've now all three asked the united states is a jurisdiction for this matter as i told the council go to the point right you're making madam i'm not trying to disturb you i'm trying to get you to finish your sentence i can understand the point you're making what difference does it make whether it was moved to or copied either way makes a copy of it the owner no longer has exclusive power and authority over it and even stand it's there in that moment and i think that if you're that is reflected in the c f a a which it defines harm and courts ha interpreted the definition of harm under the f a a to include the access or collection of the confidential data that is on a server that's breached that itself the rd point that you wanted to make counsel and that i wanted to point out that the ramifications of the defendant's position i think are troubling these weak we have a us copyright and so if the defense position is adopted that would essentially mean that foreign owners of us copyright cannot enforce their us copyright under us copyright is that i think it's there are difficult cases involving passive website use but it is difficult to think of a electronic contact that more approximates physical presence than reaching into a forum reaching a server and stealing data from it thinking thank you all for your very helpful argument will take this case under advi