Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
Opinion
Opinion
Wilson, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 9, 2003, this Court denied a motion by Defendant Sharman Networks, Ltd. (“Sharman”) to dismiss for, among other reasons, lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 18, 2003, Sharman filed a First Amended Answer and Counterclaims (“FAAC”). Sharman brings three federal counterclaims against Plaintiffs : (1) “re fusal to deal” in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) “conspiracy to monopolize” in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and (3) declaratory relief as to copyright misuse. Sharman also counterclaims under two provisions of California law, for trust against public policy and unfair business practices.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Further briefing is ordered as provided below.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Shaman’s Business Plan: DRM Management
Sharman distributes Kazaa Media Desktop (the “Kazaa software”), one of the world’s most widely-downloaded peer-to-peer filesharing clients, and operates the Kazaa.com website. Sharman claims that, when it was formed,…