1. Microsoft is widely reported to have employed this strategy with the Xbox 360. At the time of its release, it was estimated that its total cost was $715, including parts, assembly, et cetera. BusinessWeek calculated that Microsoft was losing up to $126 per unit. See Arik Hesseldahl, Microsoft’s Red-Ink Game, BusinessWeek, Nov. 22, 2005, http://businessweek .com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051122_410710.htm.

2. For opposing sides of this debate, compare Paul A. David, Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, 75 Am. Econ. Rev. 332 (1985), with Stan J. Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis, Should Technology Choice Be a Concern of Antitrust Policy?, 9 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 283 (1996) (arguing that it is difficult for “inappropriate” technology to become established as a standard and that antitrust policy should not be used to improve on even imperfect results). See also Seth Schoen, Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk, http://www .eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computing/20031001_tc.php (last visited May 15, 2007).

3. See 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 41–58 (West Supp. 2006); FTC, Enforcing Privacy Promises: Section 5 of the FTC Act, http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/promises.html (last visited May 15, 2007).

4. For example, a spreadsheet created in Microsoft Excel can be exported to the common .csv format and imported into another program. A photo file can be saved in Adobe Photoshop in the .jpg format and opened in any other photo editing program. Software such as VmpegX can translate video files from one format, such as .avi, to another, such as .mov. See About FfmpegX, http://Vmpegx.com/index.html (last visited May 15, 2007).

5. One might imagine the law providing the same strong protections for data portability against the changing interests of service providers as is given in private contracts against interference from shifting political circumstances. See Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) (affirming the validity of contract even in the wake of popular legislative attempts to revoke land claims); Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) (protecting the pre–Revolutionary War charter of Dartmouth College against the state’s attempt to invalidate it).

6. Wikipedia’s content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows licensees to copy, modify, and distribute the content as long as they release the modified version under the same license. See Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Copyrights, http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights (as of May 15, 2007, 05:15 GMT); GNU Free Documentation License, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html (last visited May 15, 2007).

7. In June 2006, the popular site couchsurfing.com experienced a massive data failure, from which the founder believed the site could not recover. He issued a statement to his community saying goodbye. See Posting of Michael Arrington to TechCrunch, Couch- Surfing Deletes Itself, Shuts Down, http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/06/29/couch surfing-deletes-itself-shuts-down (June 29, 2006). Several days later, after much cajoling from Arrington’s community, the CouchSurfing site was back up, although some data had been permanently lost. In December 2006 some Gmail users logged on to find their inboxes empty and all their contacts deleted. That data was not recoverable. See Hari K. Gottipati, GMail Disaster, Google Confirmed the Mass Email Deletions. Even Backups Are Gone?, O’Reilly XM, Dec. 28, 2006, http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/12/ gmail_disaster_google_confirme.html. Outages at the domain registration site Register- Fly caused that site to be taken down indefinitely. See Posting of Rich Miller to Netcraft, RegisterFly Site Goes Offline, http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/03/06/registerfly _site_goes_offline.html (Mar. 6, 2007, 20:07 GMT) (reporting RegisterFly’s outages and subsequent shutdown, and ICANN’s fears about the status of the domain names registered with RegisterFly).

8. For an overview of different perspectives on the debate, see, for example, “Network Neutrality”: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci. & Transp., 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School), available at http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/lessig-020706.pdf; Tim Wu, Network Neutrality FAQ, http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html (last visited May 15, 2007); Christopher S. Yoo, Would Mandating Broadband Network Neutrality Help or Hurt Competition? A Comment on the End-to-End Debate, 3 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 71 (2004); David Farber & Michael Katz, Hold Off on Net Neutrality,Wash. Post, Jan. 19, 2007, at A19. For a more detailed discussion of the network neutrality debate, compare Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, 2 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 141 (2003), and Mark A. Lemley & Lawrence Lessig, The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 925 (2001), with Christopher S. Yoo, Beyond Network Neutrality, 19 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2005). See also Legal Affairs Debate Club—Keeping the Internet Neutral? Christopher S. Yoo and Tim Wu Debate, Legal Affairs, May 1, 2006, http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/ dc_printerfriendly.msp?id 86. For articles noting the centrality of end-to-end, see for example, Marjory S. Blumenthal, End-to-End and Subsequent Paradigms, 2002 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C. L. 709 (describing end-to-end as the current paradigm for understanding the Internet); and Lawrence Lessig, The Architecture of Innovation, 51 Duke L.J. 1783 (2002) (arguing that end-to-end establishes the Internet as a commons). For the perspective of a number of economists, see William J. Baumol et al., Economists’ Statement on Network Neutrality Policy (AEI-Brookings Joint Ctr., Working Paper No. RP07–08, 2007). For an argument about why competition alone does not preclude network discrimination, see Brett M. Frischmann & Barbara van Schewick, Network Neutrality and the Economics of an Information Superhighway: A Reply to Professor Yoo, 47 Jurimetrics (forthcoming 2007) (manuscript at 7–8), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/ abstract 1014691. See also Jonathan L. Zittrain, The Generative Internet, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1974, 1988–89, 2029–30 & n.208 (2006).

9. See Written Ex Parte of Professor Mark A. Lemley & Professor Lawrence Lessig, In re Application for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses MediaOne Group, Inc. to AT&T; Corp., No. 99–251 (F.C.C. 1999), available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ works/ lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html; Joseph Farell, Open Access Arguments: Why Confidence Is Misplaced, in Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Internet Services Be Regulated? 195 (Thomas M. Lenard & Randolph J. May eds., 2006); Barbara van Schewick, Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation, 5 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 329, 368–77 (2007) (noting the existence of switching costs and other factors).

10. Skype has petitioned the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to require mobile phone network providers to allow the use of Skype—and any other application chosen by the user—over their networks. Petition to Confirm a Consumer’s Right to Use Internet Communications Software and Attach Devices to Wireless Networks, in the Matter of Skype Communications, FCC Petition RM-11361 (2007), available at http: / / svartifoss2.fcc.gov /prod/ ecfs / retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf pdf&id;_document 6518909730.

11. See Robert E. Kahn, The Role of Government in the Evolution of the Internet, 37 Comm. ACM 15 (1994); Barry M. Leiner et al., The Past and Future History of the Internet, 40 Comm. ACM 102 (1997); Andrew Orlowski, Father of Internet Warns Against Net Neutrality, Register, Jan. 18, 2007, available at http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/18/ kahn_net_neutrality_warning; Video: An Evening with Robert Kahn, http://archive .computerhistory.org/lectures/an_evening_with_robert_kahn.lecture.2007.01.09.wmv (last visited Nov. 30, 2007); see alsoDavid Farber & Michael Katz, Editorial, Hold Off on Net Neutrality,Wash. Post, Jan. 19, 2007, at A19; Adam D. Thierer, “Net Neutrality”: Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?, at 17–19 (CATO Policy Analysis No. 507, 2004), http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa507.pdf; Robert Pepper, Network Neutrality: Avoiding a Net Loss, TechNewsWorld, Mar. 14, 2007, available at http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Ii1IJ10PgRjmkt/Network-Neutrality- Avoiding-a-Net-Loss.xhtml; Christopher Yoo, Beyond Network Neutrality, 19 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2005), available at http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/ v19/19HarvJLTech001.pdf.

12. See Declan McCullagh, FAQ: Wi-Fi Mooching and the Law, Cnet News.com, July 8, 2005, http://news.com.com/FAQ Wi-Fi mooching and the law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html; Paul Festa, Free Wireless Net Access for the Masses, Cnet News.com, Sept. 26, 2001, http://news.com.com/Free wireless Net access for the masses/ 2100-1033_3-273516.html; EFF Wireless-Friendly ISP List, http://www.eff.org/ Infrastructure/Wireless_cellular_radio/wireless_friendly_isp_list.html (last visited May 15, 2007).

13.One such product is the Nessus Vulnerability Scanner. See Nessus, Nessus Vulnerability Scanner, http://www.nessus.org (last visited May 15, 2007).

14. See Rajiv Shah & Christian Sandvig, Software Defaults as De Facto Regulation: The Case of Wireless APs 9 (Sept. 23, 2005), (unpublished manuscript, presented to Conference on Comm. Info. and Internet Pol’y), available at http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/ 2005/427/TPRC%20Wireless%20Defaults.pdf.

15. See John Markoff, Venture for Sharing Wi-Fi Draws Big-Name Backers, N.Y. Times, Feb. 6, 2006, at C3; What’s FON?, http://www.fon.com/en/info/whatsFon (last visited May 15, 2007).

16. See, e.g., Verizon Online, Terms of Service, http://www.verizon.net/policies/vzcom/ tos_popup.asp (last visited May 15, 2007).

17. See, e.g.,Wireless Service Theft Prevention Law, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. §§ 5/16F-1 to -6 (West 2006); S.B. 1646, 92 Gen. Assembly, (Ill. 2003), available at http:// www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/pubact92/acts/92-0728.html; Man Arrested for Stealing Wi-Fi, CBS News, Apr. 4, 2007, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/ 07/tech/main707361.shtml; Jane Wakefield, Wireless Hijacking Under Scrutiny, BBC News, July 28, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm.

18.Most users do not use a steady amount of bandwidth all the time, and ISP service-delivery models reflect this. That is why many users of one access point, all streaming videos, will slow each other down. See Akamai Technologies, Internet Bottlenecks (White Paper, 2000), available at www.akamai.com/dl/whitepapers/Akamai_Internet_Bottlenecks _Whitepaper.pdf; Beat Liver & Gabriel Dermler, The E-Business of Content Delivery (IBM Research Paper), http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~cati/paper/isqe99c.pdf.

19. See, e.g., Dynamic Platform Standards Project, Facing Reality on “Network Neutrality,” http://www.dpsproject.com (last visited May 15, 2007); Dynamic Platform Standards Project, Legislative Proposal: The Internet Platform for Innovation Act, http://www.dps project.com/legislation.html (last visited May 15, 2007).

20. Circumvention tools include anonymizers, VPNs, and Psiphon. See, e.g., Reporters Without Borders, Technical Ways to Get Around Censorship, http://www.rsf.org/article .php3?id_article 15013#2 (last visited May 15, 2007) (providing an overview of different technologies that can be used to avoid censorship); Anonymizer: Free Web Proxy, Free Anonymizers and the List of Web Anonymizers List, http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/ free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm (last visited May 15, 2007). For some skepticism that users can circumvent network neutrality restrictions, see William H. Lehr et al., Scenarios for the Network Neutrality Arms Race, 1 Int’l J. Commc’ns 607 (2007) (describing “technical and non-technical countermeasures” ranging from letter-writing campaigns to endto- end encryption that prevents an ISP from discerning the activity in which a user is engaging).

21. See Skype, http://skype.com (last visited May 15, 2007); Wikipedia, Skype, http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype (as of May 15, 2007, 17:45 GMT).

22.Notably, the Nintendo Wii has been configured in this manner. Although its Internet Channel software allows users to browse the entire Internet using the Wii, to date userconfigurability of the home page and other features has been limited. See Wikipedia, Internet Channel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Channel (as of May 15, 2007, 07:00 GMT); Wii, The Developers Talk About the Internet Channel, http://us.wii .com/story_internet.jsp (last visited May 15, 2007). The Playstation 3 has similar features. See Network-internetbrowser, http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/network/ internetbrowser (last visited May 15, 2007).

23. Cable Televison Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102- 385, 106 Stat. 1460 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.).

24. A large, but far from comprehensive, list of community public access television organizations that have used the provisions of the 1992 Act is available through the Google Directory. See Google Directory, Public Television, http://www.google.com/Top/ Arts/ Television/Networks/North_America/United_States/PBS/(last visited May 15, 2007). See generally Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997); Laura Lin- der, Public Access Television: America’s Electronic Soapbox (1999); Nancy Whitmore, Congress, The U.S. Supreme Court and Must-Carry Policy: A Flawed Economic Analysis, 6 Comm. L. & Pol’y 175 (2001); Harris J. Aaron, Note, I Want My MTV: The Debate Over Digital Must-Carry, 80 B.U. L. Rev. 885 (2000); C-Span, Must Carry, http://www.mustcarry.org/mustcarry.asp (providing short updates on the status of FCC action regarding proposals regarding must-carry); C-Span, About Us, http://12.170.145.161/about/index.asp?code About (last visited May 15, 2007); Wikipedia, Must-Carry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-cary (as of May 15, 2007, 07:00 GMT).

25. See James C. Goodale, All About Cable 2-62 (2006); Benjamin M. Compaine & Shane M. Greenstein, Communications Policy in Transition 410–17 (2001); Reply Comments of the Staff of the FTC, In re Satellite Carrier Compulsory License, Docket No. RM 98-1 (1998), available at http://www.ftc.gov/be/v980004.shtm. To be sure, the impact of must-carry (and what would happen without it) was hotly debated through years of constitutional litigation and thousands of pages of data and expert testimony. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., v. Federal Communications Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997). The district court majority opinion in the case concluded that a number of broadcasters could be threatened in the absence of must-carry, Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 910 F. Supp. 734 755 (D.D.C. 1995), but Judge Williams’s dissent is persuasive that much of the data offered was conclusory and self-interested.

26. Use of the Carterfone Device in Message Toll Tel. Serv., 13 F.C.C.2d 420 (1968).

27. See Tim Wu, Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone on Mobile Networks (New Am. Found. Wireless Future Working Paper No. 17, Feb. 2007), available at http:// ssrn.com/abstract 962027; Petition to Confirm a Consumer’s Right to Use Internet Communications Software and Attach Devices to Wireless Networks, supra note 10. For a description of Steve Jobs’s claim of safety as a reason for the iPhone to remain tethered, see Katie Hafner, Altered iPhones Freeze Up, N.Y. Times, Sep. 29, 2007, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/technology/29iphone.html.

28. The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 sought to create a market in third-party cable boxes, but these boxes would not be able to make use of the cable network to provide independent services—and even allowing third-party vendors to provide boxes functionally identical to the ones offered by the cable companies has proven difficult, as the Federal Communications Commission has tried to balance cable company requests for delays with a desire to implement competition. See Posting of Art Brodsky to Public Knowledge Policy Blog, Consumer and Public Interest Groups Ask FCC to Enforce Set-Top Box Choices (Nov. 15, 2006, 15:30), http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/718. The FCC has granted some waivers. See FCC, Memorandum Opinion and Order in re Cablevision Systems Corporation’s Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) ( Jan. 10, 2007), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07- 48A1.pdf; FCC, Memorandum Opinion and Order in re Bend Cable Communications, LLC Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) ( Jan. 10, 2007), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-47A1.pdf. However, others have been denied. FCC, Memorandum Opinion and Order in re Comcast Corporation, LLC Request for Waiver of Section 76.1204(a)(1) ( Jan. 10, 2007), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-49A1.pdf; Posting of Cowboy Neal to Slashdot, FCC Opens Market for Cable Boxes (Jan. 11, 2007, 21:51), http:// hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid 07/01/12/0043249. See Press Release, FCC, Media Bureau Acts on Requests for Waiver of Rules on Integrated Set-Top Boxes and Clarifies Compliance of Downloadable Conditional Access Security Solution (Jan. 10, 2007), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269446A1 .pdf, for information regarding decisions on integrated boxes, and Todd Spangler, FCC Set-Top Fines Capped at $325K, Multichannel News, Feb. 15, 2007, http://www .multichannel.com/article/CA6416753.html, for general information about the rulings.

29. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 1999).

30. See id. at 43–98.

31. See Jonathan Zittrain, The Un-Microsoft Un-Remedy: Law Can Prevent the Problem That It Can’t Patch Later, 31 Conn. L. Rev. 1361 (1999). Microsoft was also found to be maintaining its OS monopoly by disadvantaging the JAVA programming environment, which is meant to allow code to be platform-independent.

32. This does not mean that appliance makers can legally punish those who figure out how to tinker with their products. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc., v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004); Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94438 (E.D. Ky. 2006) (holding that a microchip created to enable a competitor’s print cartridges to work with the original manufacturer’s printer did not violate the manufacturer’s copyright).

33. See Brett Frischmann, An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 917, 1015–20 (2005); Barbara Van Schewick, Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regulation, 5 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 329, 378–82 (2007).

34. See, e.g., N.Y. Real Prop. Acts Law § 522 (Consol. 2007).

35. See, e.g., Di Leo v. Pecksto Holding Corp., 109 N.E.2d 600 (N.Y. 1952).

36. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1981).

37. See generally Joseph William Singer, The Reliance Interest in Property, 40 Stan. L. Rev. 611 (1988).

38. Posting of Ryan Block to Engadget, A Lunchtime Chat with Bill Gates, http://www. engadget.com/2007/01/08/a-lunchtime-chat-with-bill-gates-at-ces/(Jan. 8, 2007, 14:01).

39.However, Microsoft’s End User License Agreement limits damages to the amount paid for the software. See, e.g., EULA for Windows XP, § 18, http://www.microsoft.com/ windowsxp/home/eula.mspx; EULA for Vista, § 25, http://download.microsoft.com/ documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875- 8153-889cf5105718.pdf.

40. See Google, Google Desktop—Features, http://desktop.google.com/features.html# searchremote (last visited May 15, 2007).

41.Matthew Fordahl, How Google’s Desktop Search Works, MSNBC.com, Oct. 14, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6251128/.

42. 467 U.S. 735 (1984).

43. Id. at 743.

44. See, e.g., Declan McCullagh, Police Blotter: Judge Orders Gmail Disclosure, CNet News.com, Mar. 17, 2006, http://news.com.com/Police blotter Judge orders Gmail disclosure/2100-1047_3-6050295.html (reporting on a hearing that contested a court subpoena ordering the disclosure of all e-mail messages, including deleted ones, from a Gmail account).

45.Orin Kerr, Search and Seizure: Past, Present, and Future, Oxford Encyclopedia of Le- gal History (2006).

46. Cf. Orin S. Kerr, Searches and Seizures in a Digital World, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 531, 557 (2005) (“Under Arizona v. Hicks (480 U.S. 321 (1987)), merely copying information does not seize anything.” (footnote omitted)).

47. See, e.g., Google, Google Privacy Policy, http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html (last visited Apr. 6, 2007) (noting that Google discloses personal information only when it has “a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, . . . (d) protect against imminent harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or permitted by law”).

48. SeeOrin S. Kerr, A User’s Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a Legislator’s Guide to Amending It, 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1208, 1208–09 (2004).

49. See 50 U.S.C. § 1861(a) (Supp. III 2003).

50. See id. § 1861(c)–(d).

51. See Letter from William E. Moschella, Assistant Att’y Gen., to L. Ralph Mecham, Dir., Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts (Apr. 30, 2004), available at http://www.fas.org/irp/ agency/doj/fisa/2003rept.pdf; Letter from William E. Moschella, Assistant Att’y Gen., to J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Repres. (Apr. 1, 2005), available at http:/ /www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2004rept.pdf; Letter from William E. Moschella, Assistant Att’y Gen., to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Repres. (Apr. 27, 2007), available at http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2006rept.pdf; see also Office of the Inspector Gen., A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of National Security Letters (2007), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/ s0703b/final.pdf. Some have suggested that the Justice Department may have misused the authority granted to it by FISA. See, e.g., Dan Eggen & Susan Schmidt, Secret Court RebuVs Ashcroft,Wash. Post, Aug. 23, 2002, at A01, available at http://www.washingtonpost. com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51220-2002Aug22?language printer; Carol D. Leonnig, Secret Court’s Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data, Wash. Post, Feb. 9, 2006, at A01, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/ 08/AR2006020802511_pf.html.

52. See USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, 18 U.S.C. § 2709(c) (2006). This provision has been found unconstitutional in Doe v. Gonzales, 500 F.Supp.2d 879 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

53. See 12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5)(A), (D) (2000 & Supp. IV 2004); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681u, 1681v(a) (2000 & Supp. IV 2004); 18 U.S.C. § 2709(a) (2000 & Supp. IV 2004); 50 U.S.C. § 436 (2000).

54. See 18 U.S.C. § 2709(a) (2000).

55. See id. § 2709(b).

56. See Barton Gellman, The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny,Wash. Post, Nov. 6, 2005, at A1.

57. See John Solomon, FBI Finds It Frequently Overstepped in Collecting Data,Wash. Post, June 14, 2007, at A1.

58. See The Company v. United States, 349 F.3d 1132, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) (establishing that eavesdropping on vehicle operators could not be allowed, primarily because it disabled the proper functioning of the company’s communication with the vehicle if there were to be an emergency); see also Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that prohibiting an ISP from communicating its receipt of a national security letter is an impermissible prior restraint on speech); supra Ch. 5, Regulability and the Tethered Appliance.

59. 365 U.S. 610 (1961).

60. See id. at 610, 615–18.

61. SeeWarshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. D’Andrea, 2007 WL 2076472, *3 (D. Mass. July 20, 2007) (quoting Warshak v. United States, 490F.3d 455); cf. LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure § 2.6 at 721 (4th ed. 2006). But cf. U.S. v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that individuals “may not, however, enjoy such an expectation of privacy in transmissions over the Internet or e-mail that have already arrived at the recipient,” in a suit involving a probationer); U.S. v. Hambrick, 225 F.3d 656 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that consumers have no legitimate expectation of privacy in noncontent consumer information, such as name and billing address, provided to their ISP).

62.Orin Kerr, The Volokh Conspiracy, A Series of Posts on Warshak v. United States, http://volokh.com/posts/1182208168.shtml (last visited June 23, 2007).

63. See Posting of Jacobson to Free Software Found. Blog on GPL Compliance and Licensing, Employers: Don’t Panic, http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/nopanicing (Feb. 17, 2006, 15:52).

64. See 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2000) (defining the DMCA safe harbor protections).

65. See James Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, An Empirical Look at Software Patents, 16 J. Econ. & Mgmt. Sci. 157 (2007).

66. Id.

67. See James Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, The Software Patent Experiment, 14–15 (Research on Innovation Working Paper, 2004), available at http://www.researchoninnovation .org/softpat.pdf. Software companies that assert strong intellectual property rights can also deter the work of standards-setting organizations by claiming ownership of some part of a standard. See Mark Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations (Boalt Working Papers in Public Law, Paper No. 24, 2002), available at http://repositories .cdlib.org/boaltwp/24/.

68. See Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting, in Innovation Policy and the Economy 12 (2001), available at http://faculty .haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf.

69. In Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954), a distinction was made between copyright and patent: “Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea—not the idea itself.” Over-patenting can be seen in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Questions and Answers—USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html (last visited May 15, 2007). One manifestation of the breadth of what can be patented is the famous patent issued in 2002 for swinging sideways while on a swing. That patent was issued to a five-year-old child. See U.S. Patent No. 6,368,227 (issued Apr. 9, 2002).

70. See Posting of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes to Gear for Geeks, Ballmer: Linux “Infringes our intellectual property” http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p 154 (Nov. 17, 2006, 06:55), discussing Steve Ballmer’s assertion that Linux infringes Microsoft’s patents at the Professional Association for SQL Server conference in Seattle on November 16, 2006); Roger Parloff, Microsoft Takes on the Free World, Fortune,May 14, 2007, http://money .cnn.com/magazines/ fortune/ fortune_archive /2007/05/28/100033867/index .htm?source yahoo_quote; Posting of Cory Doctorow to BoingBoing, Ballmer: Linux Users Are Patent-Crooks http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/17/ballmer_linux_users _.html (Nov. 17, 2006, 07:44). For more information on the third version of the General Public License, see GPLv3 Final Discussion Draft Rationale, http://gplv3.fsf.org/ rationale,pdf, at 24, and GPLv3 Process—March update, http://gplv3.fsf.org/processdefinition.

71. Ronald J. Mann, Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 961, 978–82 (2005).

72. See 17 U.S.C. § 507 (2000); 35 U.S.C. § 286 (2000). For patents, the statute of limitations applies only to monetary damages; injunctions may be prevented through the doctrines of estoppel and laches. See A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R. L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1040–43 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Other countries set different time limits for their statute of limitations. See, e.g., Doerte Haselhorst, German IP Law Update, IP Intelli- gence: Europe, Winter 2002, http://www.howrey.com/europe/newsletter/Winter 2002a/10.html; Posting of Patent Hawk to Patent Prospector, Patent Litigation in China, http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2006/04/patent_litigation_in_china.html (Apr. 30, 2006, 14:17).

73. See Zittrain, supra note 31.

74. Laches is defined as “[u]nreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim—almost always an equitable one—in a way that prejudices the party against whom relief is sought,” or as “[t]he equitable doctrine by which a court denies relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed in asserting the claim, when that delay has prejudiced the party against whom relief is sought,” Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (8th ed. 2004). The use of the laches defense to prevent sandbagging is seen, for example, in Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U.S. 463 (1924) (denying claims of patent infringement where the rights-holder “stood by and awaited developments” for eight years), and Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 (1923) (rendering patent rights unenforceable where an inventor made claims after a nine-year delay to maximize profits). However, the bounds of the laches doctrine remain largely unclear. See, e.g., Lynda Calderone & Tara Custer, Prosecution Laches as a Defense in Patent Cases, Flaster Greenberg Newsletter (Nov. 2005), available at http://www.flastergreenberg.com/pdf/PatentArtic_prf3.pdf; Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson, 422 F. 3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (showing that courts may be reluctant to accept laches except under extreme circumstances).

75. Claims might allege that proprietary code infringes a free software license by incorporating free software. Much free software is copylefted, a licensing scheme that allows anyone to freely modify and copy it, but not to incorporate it into proprietary code. See GNU Project, What Is Copyleft?, http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ (last visited May 15, 2007); Wikipedia, Copyleft, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft (as of May 15, 2007, 06:00 GMT).

76. See, e.g., Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004).

77. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks 278 (2006).

78. Id. at 275.

79. 17 U.S.C. § 504 (West 2006).

80. See Creative Commons, Choose a License available at http://www.creativecommons .org/license/ (last visited Mar. 22, 2007).

81.One example of such an authentication system is Microsoft’s Sender ID. SeeMicrosoft, Sender ID, http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/technologies/senderid/default .mspx (last visited May 15, 2007).

82. See, e.g., David R. Johnson et al., The Accountable Internet: Peer Production of Internet Governance, 9 Va. J.L. & Tech. 9 (2004), available at http://www.vjolt.net/vol9/issue 3/v9i3_a09-Palfrey.pdf (discussing the imperfections of filtration).

83. See Yochai Benkler, Some Economics of Wireless Communications, 16 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 25 (2002) (suggesting that open wireless networks will be more efficient at optimizing wireless communications capacity than spectrum property rights will be).

84. SeeMichel Marriott, Hey Neighbor, Stop Piggybacking on My Wireless, N.Y. Times, Mar. 5, 2006, § 1, at 11 (explaining some of the dangers of open wireless networks).

85. See, e.g.,4Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 12.04[3] (2005).

86. As noted in Chapter 6, one might argue in Wikipedia’s case that anyone editing Wikipedia is actually an agent of Wikipedia, and therefore not “another” service provider under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c). See Ch. 6, note 49.

87. Geoff Goodell et al., Blossom: A Perspective Access Network, http://afs.eecs.harvard .edu/~goodell/blossom (last visited May 15, 2007) (describing the philosophy, design objectives, and implementation of the Blossom network, which seeks to allow users to specify the perspective from which they view Internet resources).

88. See Owen Gibson, New York Times Blocks UK Access to Terror Story, Guardian, Aug. 30, 2006, at 4, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1860876,00 .html; Tom Zeller Jr., Times Withholds Web Article in Britain, N.Y. Times, Aug. 29, 2006, at C7, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/business/media/ 29times.html. For the original New York Times article, see Don Van Natta Jr. et al., Details Emerge in British Terror Case, N.Y. Times, Aug. 28, 2006, http://www.nytimes .com/2006/08/28/world/europe/28plot.html.

89. For most arguments of this type, one implication is that “grassroots”-style democracy in the form of mass public participation will be more democratic on the Internet than in traditional governmental settings. But see Neil Weinstock Netanel, Cyberspace Self-Governance: A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic Theory, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 395 (2000). Netanel argues that the sorts of principle-based checks in most democracies, such as antidiscrimination principles and equality in the basic rights of citizenship, are not sustainable in an unregulated cyberspace environment. As applied in this case, Netanel’s argument might cast doubt on the net worth of “tricks” or technologies that seem to simultaneously promote democracy and undermine state sovereignty. See id. at 412–27 (discussing cyberpopulism); cf. Andy Kessler, Network Solutions, Wall St. J., Mar. 24, 2007, at A11 (describing the communities enabled by Facebook, in which user-specified preferences and privacy are carefully maintained in order to facilitate user openness).

90. Lawrence Lessig, Code: Version 2.0, 309 (2006).

91. In this case, the distinction is not between conduct rules and decision rules, but between conduct rules and enforcement. Meir Dan-Cohen, Harmful Thoughts: Essays on Law, Self, and Morality 125–72 (2002); see also Gautham Rao, The Federal Posse Comitatus Doctrine: Slavery, Compulsion, and Statecraft in Mid-Nineteenth Century America, 26.1 L. & Hist. Rev. (forthcoming 2008) (describing the difficulties of persuading U.S. citizens in the North to assist in the return of escaped slaves to the South before the Civil War), available at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/lhr/rao26_1 .pdf.

92. SeeTim Wu, When Code Isn’t Law, 89 Va. L. Rev. 679, 707 (2003) (disputing Lessig’s argument and suggesting that instead of looking at code as law, society should understand code as a mechanism for avoiding and thus shaping law, in a similar fashion to how tax lawyers look for loopholes); id. at 689 (analyzing law-following behavior using an economic compliance model, which states that people obey laws when disobedience yields greater harms than benefits, and therefore concluding that code—and, by extension, code’s ability to circumvent regulation—can easily be understood as a productive part of the process of law).

93. In May 2007, anonymous browsing services had the following use levels as studied by Hal Roberts of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Anonymizer: no data; dynaweb: 24 mil hit/day/700k users/day est.; ultrareach: 70 mil hits/day/1mil users/ day est.; circumventor: 30 installs/day; psiphon: 8,000 servers/80,000 users est.; jap: 6,000 concurrent clients; tor: 1 Gbps. E-mail from Hal Roberts to Jonathan Zittrain (May 31, 2007 at 21:44 EDT) (on file with the author).

94. See, e.g., File Pile, http://www.filepile.org (last visited May 15, 2007).

95. Oink, http://oink.me.uk (last visited May 15, 2007).

96. See Doug Lichtman & David Jacobson, Anonymity a Double-Edged Sword for Pirates Online, Chicago Trib., Apr. 13, 2000, at N25 (describing the music industry’s attempt to “take aim at the pirates’ ships” by flooding file-sharing sites with thousands of decoy files with names similar to popular songs).

97. For one such proposal, see William W. Fisher III, Promises to Keep 199-259 (2004). But see Salil Mehra, The iPod Tax: Why the Digital Copyright System of American Law Professors’ Dreams Failed in Japan, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2008), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract 1010246 (noting that a digital recording tax in Japan similar to the proposals made by Fisher and others failed to produce its intended result).

98. See, e.g., Terry Frieden, 27 Charged in Child Porn Sting, CNN.com, Mar. 16, 2006, http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/childporn.arrests/index.html (describing a child pornography bust by the U.S. Department of Justice in early 2006 and the use of Internet security measures to try to keep file-sharing out of the eye of the law, and showing that the eventual infiltration of this group by law enforcement was due to the fact the group was open—even if only a little—to new members not personally known by existing members).

99. See, e.g., Robert J. Bunker, Networks, Terrorism and Global Insurgency 150 (2006) (noting, in the context of a general analysis of the effects of networks on terrorism and global conflict, that Al Qaeda has been “increasing its use of the Internet for propaganda, recruiting and training purposes”); Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism 406–12 (2003) (describing how the Internet facilitates the interests of terrorists, such as through their use of chat rooms, which improve communication with new recruits and existing members, especially when members are separated by a large distance); D. Whittaker, Terrorists and Terrorism in the Contemporary World 39 (2004) (discussing Internet use by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, in Sri Lanka, to “pump out propaganda and to recruit their ranks”). See generally Gabriel Weimann, Terror on the Internet (2006);

100. Benkler, supra note 77, at 287–88.

101. See Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty, in Four Essays on Liberty 122 (1969).