Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page1 of 14

SUSANL.CARNEY,CircuitJudge,concurringintheorderdenyingrehearingen
banc:
Theoriginalpanelmajorityopinion,seeMicrosoftCorp.v.UnitedStates,829
F.3d197(2dCir.2016),fullyexplainswhyquashingthegovernmentswarrantis
calledforbySupremeCourtprecedentonextraterritorialityandthetextofthe
StoredCommunicationsAct(SCA),18U.S.C.2701etseq.Becausethepanel
opinionsdidnotincludeadissent,however,Iwriteagain,briefly,torespond
withrespecttoseveralpointsraisedduringourCourtsconsiderationofwhether
tograntthegovernmentspetitionforenbancreviewandreflectedinthedissents
fromdenialofrehearing.1
Thethemerunningthroughthegovernmentspetitionandthedissentsis
theconcernthat,byvirtueoftheresultthepanelreached,U.S.lawenforcement
willlesseasilybeabletoaccesselectronicdatathatamagistratejudgeinthe
UnitedStateshasdeterminedisprobablyconnectedtocriminalactivity.2My

JudgesLynchandBolden,whocomprisedtherestofthepanelthatheardthisappeal,
arenoteligibletoparticipateindecidingwhethertorehearthiscaseenbancbecause
theyare,respectively,ajudgewhoenteredseniorstatusnotlongbeforetheenbancpoll
wasrequestedandadistrictjudgesittingbydesignation.See28U.S.C.46(c)(limiting
enbancvotingtothecircuitjudgesofthecircuitwhoareinregularactiveservice).
1

Inthisregard,itbearsnotingthatanSCAsectionnotatissueinthiscase,18U.S.C.
2702(b)(8),authorizes[a]provider...[to]divulgethecontentsofa
communication...toagovernmentalentity,iftheprovider,ingoodfaith,believesthat
anemergencyinvolvingdangerofdeathorseriousphysicalinjurytoanyperson
2

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page2 of 14

panelcolleaguesandIreadilyacknowledgethegravityofthisconcern.Butthe
SCAgovernsthiscase,andsowehaveappliedit,lookingtothestatutestext
andfollowingtheextraterritorialityanalysisofMorrisonv.NationalAustraliaBank
Ltd.,561U.S.247(2010).Werecognizeatthesametimethatinmanywaysthe
SCAhasbeenleftbehindbytechnology.Itisoverdueforacongressional
revisionthatwouldcontinuetoprotectprivacybutwouldmoreeffectively
balanceconcernsofinternationalcomitywithlawenforcementneedsandservice
providerobligationsintheglobalcontextinwhichthiscasearose.3
Beforegoingfurther,itisworthpointingoutwhatisnotatissueinthis
appeal.First,itiscommongroundthatCongressdidnotintendfortheSCAs
warrantprocedurestoapplyextraterritorially.SeeGovtPet.forRehg11.
Second,althoughthepanelmajoritydeterminedthattheSCAsfocuslieson
protectinguserprivacy,thisdeterminationwasmadeunderthesecondpartof

requiresdisclosurewithoutdelayofcommunicationsrelatingtotheemergency,
bypassingthewarrantproceduresof2703.Anothersectiongivesaproviderimmunity
fromcivilliabilityforavoluntaryproductionofcontentmadeinaccordancewith...
[a]statutoryauthorization...underthischapter.18U.S.C.2703(e).Thepanel
expressednoopinionontheuseofthesesubsections,norhasitbeensuggestedthatthe
exigentcircumstancesofadangerofdeathorseriousphysicalinjuryarepresented
here.
ThisisafactwellappreciatedbytheMembersofCongresswhohaveintroducedabill
proposingrelatedamendments.SeeInternationalCommunicationsPrivacyAct,S.2986,
H.R.5323,114thCong.(2016).
3

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page3 of 14

theextraterritorialityanalysissetforthasacanonofconstructioninMorrisonand
recentlydevelopedfurtherinRJRNabisco,Inc.v.EuropeanCommunity,136S.Ct.
2090(2016).SeeRJRNabisco,136S.Ct.at2101(Ifthestatuteisnot
extraterritorial,thenatthesecondstepwedeterminewhetherthecaseinvolvesa
domesticapplicationofthestatute,andwedothisbylookingtothestatutes
focus.).Ourfocusanalysisdidnotturnonprivacyprotections
independentlyderivedfromtheFourthAmendment.Nordidweexpressor
implyaviewabouthowCongressmaypermissiblylegislatetoenablethe
governmenttoreachdatastoredabroadandunderthecontrolofU.S.
companies;ourreadingoftheSCAdidnomorethanadheretothedictatesof
MorrisoninconstruingtheSCA.Finally,sincetheinstrumentwasissuedbya
neutralmagistratejudgeuponashowingofprobablecause,noonedisputesthat
theMicrosoftwarranthassatisfiedthemoststringentprivacyprotectionsour
legalsystemaffords.
Accordingly,thedispositivequestioninthecase,asweseeit,mightbe
framedaswhetherMicrosoftsexecutionofthewarranttoretrieveaprivate
customerselectronicdata,storedonitsserversinIreland,wouldconstitutean
extraterritorialapplicationoftheSCAinlightofthestatutesfocus,

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page4 of 14

determinedinaccordancewithMorrisonandRJRNabisco.Again,thisisa
questionofstatutoryconstruction.And,unsurprisinginlightoftheneedforan
extraterritorialityanalysis,itrequiresconsiderationoftheconcernsof
sovereigntyandinternationalcomity.
ThepanelmajorityconcludedthattherelevantprovisionsoftheSCA
focusonprotectingtheprivacyofthecontentofausersstoredelectronic
communications.Microsoft,829F.3dat217.Theconcurringopinionnotedthe
difficultyindeterminingastatutesfocusunderMorrison,butagreedthatin
theabsenceofanyevidencethatCongressintendedtheSCAtoreachelectronic
datastoredabroadbyaserviceprovider(andrelatingpotentiallytoaforeign
citizen),theeffectofthegovernmentsdemandhereimpermissiblyfellbeyond
U.S.bordersandthereforetheMicrosoftwarrantshouldbequashed.Id.at23031
(Lynch,J.,concurring).
Guidedbyourdeterminationofthestatutesfocusandlookingatthetext
oftheSCAitself,thepanelmajorityreadthestatutetotreatthelocusofthe
SCAsprivacyprotectionsasattheplaceofdatastorage.Asfurtherdetailedin
themajorityopinion,thisconclusioncomportswiththeSCAsrelianceonthe
factandformofcontentstorageaspredicatestoitsvariousprovisions,aswellas

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page5 of 14

itsuseofthetermofartwarrantanditsrequirementofcompliancewith
FederalRuleofCriminalProcedure41,SearchandSeizurefeaturesusually
associatedwithphysicalaccess.See,e.g.,18U.S.C.2701(a)(prohibitingaccessto
facilit[ies]whereelectroniccommunicationsarestored);id.2702(a)(1)(2)
(prohibitingdisclosureofcommunicationswhileinelectronicstorageor
which[are]carriedormaintainedbyanelectroniccommunicationservice);id.
2703(a)(imposingwarrantproceduresonelectroniccommunicationsthatare
inelectronicstorageinanelectroniccommunicationssystemforonehundred
andeightydaysorless).Wenotedthatthestatuteuses[t]hecircumstancesin
whichthecommunicationshavebeenstored...asaproxyfortheintensityof
theusersprivacyinterests,dictatingthestringencyoftheproceduralprotection
theyreceive.Microsoft,829F.3dat217.Wealsonotedthat2701,byproscribing
unauthorizedaccesstostoragefacilities,notonlylimitsdisclosurebutalso
sheltersthecommunicationsintegrity.Id.at218.Becausetheelectronic
communicationstobeaccessedanddisclosedpursuanttotheMicrosoftwarrant
arestoredinaDublindatacenter,wereasoned,theexecutionofthewarrant
wouldhaveitseffectwhentheserviceprovideraccessedthedatainIreland,an
extraterritorialapplicationoftheSCA.4
4

Thisapproach,inwhichweconsideredseveralnumberedsectionsoftheSCA,isnot

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page6 of 14

Characterizingthestatutesfocusdifferently,asrestingondisclosure,
andofferingadetailedrecitationoftheavailablestatutorysupportforthat
conclusion,5thedissentsargueprimarilythattheSCAseffectoccursattheplace

inconsistentwithRJRNabisco.Ratherthanrequiringaprovisionbyprovisionanalysis
ineveryinstance,asthegovernmentandsomeofthedissenterssuggestinthecontext
oftheirfocusanalysis,seepostat2(Droney,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofrehgen
banc),RJRNabiscoinvolvedlookingattheexpressedcongressionalintentwithregardto
theseparatelyenactedRICOpredicatestatutes,onebyone,inthecontextofan
overarchingstructurethatis,RICO.ThepanelmajorityheresawtheSCAsrelevant
provisions,essentiallyenactedofapiece,asreflectingasinglecongressionalexpression
withrespecttoextraterritorialapplicationastatutorycircumstancequitedifferent
fromtheoneaddressedinRJRNabisco.
Insupportoftheirpositionmydissentingcolleaguescontend,asdoesthegovernment,
thatanSCAwarrantfunctionsmorelikeasubpoenathanatraditionalwarrantand
shouldbetreatedaccordinglyasreachingalldocumentsunderthecontrolofthe
instrumentsrecipient.Seepostat7n.19(Cabranes,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofrehg
enbanc);id.at1(Jacobs,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofrehgenbanc).TheSCAdoes
notaddressapotentialextraterritorialapplicationoftheinstrumentissuedunder
2703indeeditisunlikely,inviewofthehistoricalcontext,thatCongresscouldhave
anticipatedsuchanapplication,muchlessweigheddomesticlawenforcementinterests
againstcountervailingconcernswithinternationalcomity.Inlightoftheimportanceof
theseinterests,itseemsastretchtoconcludethatweshouldreadCongresssdeliberate
choiceofthetermwarranttoreflectaconcurrentintentiontoincorporateintothe
statute,withoutexplicitmention,abodyofcaselawaddressingnotwarrants,butgrand
jurysubpoenas.Cf.id.at7n.19(Cabranes,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofrehgenbanc)
(citingMarcRich&Co.v.UnitedStates,707F.2d663(2dCir.1983)).Eventheterritorial
reachofsubpoenasisnotaneasydetermination,inlightofthemanyintereststhat
courtsmustbalancewhenaddressingdiscoverythathasforeignaspects.See,e.g.,
Restatement(Third)oftheForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStates442(1)(c)(listing
severalfactorscourtsshouldtakeintoaccountwhendecidingwhethertoorder
productionofinformationlocatedabroad).Someofmydissentingcolleaguesalso
emphasizethatthecustomerdataatissuehereisalreadyinMicrosoftspossession.See
postat911(Raggi,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofrehgenbanc).TheSCAconstrainsa
serviceprovidersuseofthatpossession,recognizingtheprovidersroleasan
5

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page7 of 14

ofdisclosure,onU.S.soil.6Thus,solongas(1)thewarrantisservedinthe
UnitedStatesonaproviderdoingbusinessintheUnitedStates,and(2)the
providercanaccesstheuserscontentelectronicallyfromtheUnitedStates,
extraterritorialityneednotevenbeconsidered.7Sincethewarrantrecipienthere

intermediarybetweenthecustomerwhocreatedthecontentandthirdparties.Thus,it
distinguishesinitslevelofprivacyprotectionsbetweencustomerssubstantivecontent
andtheadministrativedatathataprovidermaintainsforitsownpurposeswithrespect
tothosecustomers.See18U.S.C.2703(c)(distinguishingbetweencontentsof
communicationsandinformationsuchasacustomersname,address,andservice
details).

6Asexploredfurtherbelow,althoughtheSCAisbroadlyfocusedonprivacy,itdoes
addressdisclosure,mostparticularlyin2702,asanexceptiontoitsgeneralruleof
maintainingtheconfidentialityofcustomercontent.Seepostat1013(Cabranes,J.,
dissentingfromthedenialofrehgenbanc).ThepanelmajorityreadtheSCAtofocus
foremostonprotectinguserprivacybycontrollingaccesstostoredcommunications
controlsthatapplyeventoserviceproviders(if,forexample,anemployeeexceededhis
orherauthorizationwithrespecttostoreddata).Totheextentthatthemajorityopinion
raisesconcernsabouttheextraterritorialreachofprotectionsfromunlawfulaccessand
disclosuresaffordedbysections2701and2702,id.at14n.36(Cabranes,J.,dissenting
fromthedenialofrehgenbanc)(emphasisadded),onemighttakesomecomfortfrom
theprivacylawsofothercountriesthatwouldapplytoserversontheirterritory(and
thesignificantincentivesforserviceproviderstoguardagainstunauthorizedintrusion).
Moreimportantly,however,thedissentsconcernsaboutthereachoutsidetheUnited
Statesoftheprotectionsestablishedbythestatuteprovideyetanotherreasonfor
congressionaloverhauloftheSCA.
Takentoitslogicalconclusion,thedissentsfocusontheplaceofdisclosuretothe
exclusionofotherfactorswouldmeanthat,solongastherequesteddataistobe
disclosedtothegovernmentwithintheUnitedStates,theSCAhasonlydomestic
application.Butbecause,presumably,datademandedbytheUnitedStatesgovernment
undertheSCAcanalwaysbeexpectedtobedisclosedtothegovernmentintheUnited
Statesabsentspecialcircumstances,noapplicationoftheSCAsdatadisclosure
procedureswouldbeextraterritorial.AtatimewhenU.S.companies,totheirgreat
7

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page8 of 14

isMicrosoft,aU.S.corporation(thoughthereasoningwouldapplyequallywell
toaforeignproviderwhoissufficientlypresentintheUnitedStates),andthe
dataisaccessibleandproduciblebyMicrosofttotheU.S.governmentinthe
UnitedStates,nomoreisneededtoenforcethewarrant.Theinquirystopsthere.
Thepanelmajorityrejectedthisposition,andafewreflectionsillustrate
whywewerecorrecttodoso.First:Thepositionofthegovernmentandthe
dissentersnecessarilyignoressituationsinwhichtheeffectsoutsidetheUnited
Statesarelessreadilydismissed,whicheverlabelischosentodescribethe
focusofthestatute.Forexample,underthedissentsreasoning(aswe
understandit),theSCAwarrantisvalidwhen(1)itisservedintheUnitedStates
onabranchofficeofanIrishserviceprovider,(2)itseekscontentstoredin
IrelandbutaccessibleattheU.S.branch,(3)theaccountholdingthatcontentwas
openedandestablishedinIrelandbyanIrishcitizen,(4)thedisclosure
demandedbythewarrantwouldbreachIrishlaw,and(5)U.S.lawenforcement
couldrequestthecontentthroughtheMLATprocess.8Thishardlyseemslikea

credit,provideelectroniccommunicationsservicestocustomersresidentaroundthe
globe,thisobservationsuggeststhedemeritsoftheanalysis.
Asnotedinthepanelmajorityopinion,MLATsareMutualLegalAssistanceTreaties
betweentheUnitedStatesandothercountries,whichallowsignatorystatestorequest
oneanothersassistancewithongoingcriminalinvestigations,includingissuanceand
8

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page9 of 14

domesticapplicationoftheSCA.Rather,wefinditdifficulttoimaginethatthe
CongressenactingtheSCAenvisionedsuchanapplication,muchlessthatit
wouldnotconstitutethetypeofextraterritorialapplicationwithwhichMorrison
wasconcerned.Indeed,callingsuchanapplicationdomesticrunsroughshod
overtheconcernsthatundergirdtheSupremeCourtsstrongpresumption
againstextraterritoriality,andsuggeststheflawinanapproachtotheSCAthat
considersonlydisclosure.SeeMorrison,561U.S.at269(citingprobabilityof
incompatibilitywithapplicablelawsofothercountriesassignalingabsenceof
congressionalattentiontoextraterritorialapplication);EEOCv.ArabianAm.Oil
Corp.,499U.S.244,248(1991)(observingthatpresumptionagainst
extraterritorialityservestoprotectagainstunintendedclashesbetweenourlaws
andthoseofothernations).

executionofsearchwarrants.Microsoft,829F.3dat221.TheUnitedStateshasentered
intoapproximately56MLATswithforeigncountries,includingallmemberstatesofthe
EuropeanUnion,andholdsrelatedMutualLegalAssistanceAgreementswithothers.
Seeid.n.29;U.S.DeptofState,Treaties&Agreements,
https://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2012/vol2/184110.htm.Asthedissentersfairly
pointout,however,theUnitedStateslacksanMLATrelationshipwithmanycountries,
andtheMLATprocesscanbecumbersome.Seepostat5n.11(Cabranes,J.,dissenting
fromthedenialofrehgenbanc).Inthiscase,theRepublicofIrelandfiledabriefamicus
curiae,acknowledgingitsMLATwiththeUnitedStatesandrepresentingitswillingness
toconsider,asexpeditiouslyaspossible,arequestunderthetreaty.Br.AmicusCuriae
Ireland4,MicrosoftCorp.v.UnitedStates,No.142985(2dCir.December2014).

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page10 of 14

Second:Mydissentingcolleaguestakeissuewiththeideathatprivacy
canhaveaterritoriallocusatallwhenitcomestoelectronicdata,giventheease
withwhichthedatacanbesubdividedormovedacrossbordersandournow
familiarnotionofdataexistingintheephemeralcloud.But,mundaneasit
mayseem,evendatasubjecttolightningrecallhasbeenstoredsomewhere,and
theundisputedrecordhereshowedthatthesomewhereinthiscaseisa
datacenterfirmlylocatedonIrishsoil.9SeeMicrosoft,829F.3dat220n.28.
(Fragmentation,anissueraisedbythegovernmentinitspetitionandbythe
dissentshere,wasnotpresentinthefactsbeforethepanel,andonlyfurther
emphasizestheneedforamodernizedstatute.)WhenCongresspassedthe
StoredCommunicationsActin1986,thestatuteitenactedprotecteddataby
limitingaccesstothefacilitywherethedataisstoredorthroughwhich
electronicservicesareprovided.18U.S.C.2701(a).Itdidnotaddressthe

Microsoftrepresentsintherecordthatitstoresdataindifferentlocationsaroundthe
worldnotatwhim,butforcompetitivecommercialreasons:sothatthedatacanbe
morequicklyrecalledforusersbasedonproximitytotheirreportedgeographic
locations.SeeMicrosoft,829F.3dat202.Therecordcontainsnobasisforspeculatingthat
ithasstoreddatainlocationsengineeredtoavoidanobligationtoproducethedatain
responsetolawenforcementneedsortoenablecriminalactivitytogoundetected.Nor,
althoughacustomercouldcertainlydoso,doestherecordsuggestthatthecustomer
whoseaccountisatissuefalselydesignatedIrelandasitslocationtoescapethereachof
U.S.lawenforcement.ThatcustomercouldaswellbeacitizenofIrelandasofanyother
nation.
9

10

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page11 of 14

citizenshipoftheaccountholder,thenationalityoftheserviceprovider,orany
oftheconcernsthatcanbecited,legitimately,asrelevanttodaytodefininga
soundpolicyconcerningtheprivacyanddisclosureofprotectedusercontentina
globalsetting.Norhavewebeenpointedtoevidencesuggestingthatsovereigns
haverelinquishedanyclaimtocontroloverdataphysicallystoredwithintheir
boundaries.(Irelandcertainlydidnotdosohereinitssubmissionamicuscuriae.)
Althoughtherealitiesofelectronicstoragehavewidelyoutstrippedwhat
Congressenvisionedin1986,wearenotsofarfromthecontextoftheSCAthat
wecannolongerapplyitfaithfully.
Toconnectthesetwopoints:Someofmydissentingcolleagues,seepostat5
(Jacobs,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofrehgenbanc),likethepanel,havenoted
potentialconcernswithreciprocitythatiftheUnitedStatescandirectaservice
providerwithoperationsintheUnitedStatestoaccessdataofaforeigncitizen
storedinaforeigncountry,aforeignsovereignmightclaimauthoritytodothe
sameandaccessdataofaU.S.citizenstoredintheUnitedStates,solongasthe
datawouldbedisclosedabroad.Ifthisconcernholdsanyintuitiveforce,itdoes
soonlybecausethelocationofdatastoragedoesstillhaveimport,andtherefore
reachingacrossphysicalborderstoaccesselectronicdatagivesuspausewhen

11

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page12 of 14

weareonthereceivingendoftheintrusion.Itisforjustthissortofreasonthat
thegovernmenthasenteredintoMLATswithothersovereigns:toaddress
mutualneedsforlawenforcementwhilerespectingsovereignborders.Anditis
forjustthissortofreasonthatthegovernmenthasinothercircumstancestakena
position,somewhatintensionwiththeoneittakeshere,thatcourtsshouldbe
particularlysolicitousofsovereigntyconcernswhenauthorizingdatatobe
collectedintheUnitedStatesbutdrawnfromwithintheboundariesofaforeign
nation.See,e.g.,Br.UnitedStatesAmicusCuriaeOppnPet.WritCert.821,Arab
Bank,PLCv.Linde,No.121485(May2014)(contending,incivildiscovery
context,thatlowercourtserredinfailingtoaccordsufficientweighttothe
foreignjurisdictionsinterestsinenforcingtheirbanksecrecylaws).
Third,andfinally:Theexerciseofselectingafocusandthendetermining
itsterritoriallocushighlightssomeofthedifficultiesinherentinapplyingthe
Morrisonextraterritorialityanalysis.Wherethepanelmajorityandthedissents
divergemostsharplyandmeaningfullyisonthebetterviewofthelegal
consequencesofthefocusinquiry:whereforpurposesofassessing
extraterritorialityaccordingtotheSupremeCourtsprecedentstolocatethe
affectedinterest.Onceweconcludedthatthestatutefocusesonprotecting

12

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page13 of 14

privacy,thepanelmajorityhadtoassessfurtherwhereprivacymightbe
consideredtobephysicallybasedanelusiveinquiry,atbest.Asnoted,the
dissentsemphasizedisclosure,andreasonfromthatpremisethattheplaceof
disclosureestablisheswhethertheproposedapplicationofthestatuteis
domestic.ButwesawtheoverarchinggoaloftheSCAasprotectingprivacyand
allowingonlycertainexceptions,ofwhichlimiteddisclosureinresponsetoa
warrantisone.Considerationsofprivacyanddisclosurecannotbedivorced;
theyaretwosidesofthesamecoin.Bylookingpastprivacyanddirectlyto
disclosure,however,thedissentswouldmovethefocusofthestatutetoits
exceptions,andawayfromitsgoal.Thebetterapproach,whichinourestimation
ismoreinkeepingwiththeMorrisonanalysisandtheSCAsemphasisondata
storage,isonethatlookstothesteptakenbeforedisclosureaccessin
determiningprivacysterritoriallocus.
Withalessanachronisticstatuteorwithamoreflexiblearmaturefor
interpretingquestionsofastatutesextraterritoriality,wemightwellreacha
resultthatbetterreconcilestheinterestsoflawenforcement,privacy,and
internationalcomity.Inananalyticregime,forexample,thatinvitedareviewof
thetotalityoftherelevantcircumstanceswhenassessingastatutespotential

13

Case 14-2985, Document 328, 01/24/2017, 1953056, Page14 of 14

extraterritorialimpact,wemightbeentitledtoconsidertheresidencyor
citizenshipoftheclientwhosedataissought,thenationalityandoperationsof
theserviceprovider,thestoragepracticesandconditionsondisclosureadopted
bytheprovider,andotherrelatedfactors.Andwecanexpectthatastatute
designedafreshtoaddresstodaysdatarealitieswouldtakeanapproach
differentfromtheSCAs,andwouldbecognizantofthemobilityofdataandthe
varyingprivacyregimesofconcernedsovereigns,aswellasthepotentially
conflictingobligationsplacedonglobalserviceproviderslikeMicrosoft.As
notedabove,thereisnosuggestionthatCongresscouldnotextendtheSCAs
warrantprocedurestocoverthesituationpresentedhere,ifitsochose.
Thesewerenotthestatutorycontextandprecedentavailabletothepanel,
however,norwouldtheybeavailabletoourCourtsittingenbanc.Underthe
circumstancespresentedtous,theMicrosoftwarrantwasproperlyquashed.

14