WPC* iNor[ q4(Ĉ̡1H5[ـ3qӊ`,WB7%ZQ%~):DCĉ1NJUvz;pɤ/idqL(cтm:Շ6kJf[{Ϧ=ɬiOMie؞od|OזbwDLh}25Ӏby*rtVǹ^˩U)96+Sȡo?K:~{崛{ƌp5Z1:/t'X&R8\fC? ,Qjk84xɯB0%S Q=cϹ# e,"ř 4V2^ J!Q󔛻8e ~SԚnS 9nwqcp4)BJ ^} 8(+Dj~hNU~V^h7hK_N{ˍuQkV7#! %# 0D) 0(m 0 ] # # ^ ! w@- 4m   m b E f a   >UNUFR BUFU>9UFGUFcUFe!!UF##UF &>R&UF*N*HP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,,,,,,0(X(#$  0  ($  $  =&G&XXdd=    1    _"Reverseengineering"involvesgainingaccesstothe  functionalelementsofasoftwareprogram.Methodsofreverseengineeringincludeobservingtheprograminoperation,performingastaticordynamicexaminationoftheindividualcomputerinstructionscontainedwithintheprogram,andusingaprogramknownasadisassemblertotranslatethebinarymachinereadableobjectcodethatrunsonthecomputerintothehumanreadablewordsandsymbolsknownassourcecode.SeegenerallySonyComputer   Entertainment,Inc.v.ConnectixCorp.,203F.3d596,599600(9th `  Cir.2000),petitionforcert.filed,69U.S.L.W.3023(U.S.June 6   30,2000)(No.0011).(d:2$ !    =&Dz&XXdd=    0    $  =&G&XXdd=    4    _Thatruleprovidesinpertinentpartthatallordersgranting  injunctivereliefshallbind"thepartiestotheaction,theirofficers,agents,servants,employees,andattorneys,and...thosepersonsinactiveconcertorparticipationwiththemwhoreceiveactualnotice...."Fed.R.Civ.P.65(d).;)  Ӏ    D D   6)6XrtyBar>3|x U- -TABLE A   $  =&G&XXdd=    3    _Anaffirmancebyanequallydividedcourtdeniesprecedential  forcetotheopinioninquestion.SeeRutledgev.UnitedStates,  517U.S.292,304(1996).Itdoesnot,however,tarnishearlieropinions.  $  =&G&XXdd=    5    _Inmountingthisargument,theappellantsplacegreatweight  onMicrosystems'sstatementsanditstransmissionofacopyoftheinjunctiontotheappellants.Butthedirectionoftheinjunctionisforthedistrictcourttodetermine,andthestatementsandactionstowhichtheappellantsadvertareinnowayattributabletothecourt. 4 $  =&G&XXdd=    6    _Tobesure,theappellantscomplainthattheywereput  betweenarockandahardplacebecauseinterventionwouldhaveforcedthemtowaivetheirjurisdictionaldefensesandsubmittothedistrictcourt'sjurisdiction.ButthisseemstobeanotherwayofsayingthattheymadeacalculateddecisionthattheinjunctionsoughtbyMicrosystemswouldnotaggrievethemenoughtowarranttakingwhateverriskswereattendanttointervention.Thereisnothingremotelyunfairaboutbeingputinthatposition.Litigationstrategiesalmostalwaysinvolvebalancingofriskandreward,andthefundamentalrationalebehindthe"nointervention,noappeal"rulecounselsinfavorofholdingtheappellantstothepredictableconsequencesoftheirstrategicchoice.SeeDopp,947  2  F.2dat512;Kennyv.Quigg,820F.2d665,667(4thCir.1987).  $  =&G&XXdd=    2    _Thepermanentinjunction,togetherwithcertaincommentsof  thedistrictcourt,appearsintheofficialreporter.See  MicrosystemsSoftware,Inc.v.ScandinaviaOnlineAB,98F.Supp. \ 2d74(D.Mass.2000).Thecourt'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawarenotreported.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular.Courier New Regular d<Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular&Courier Regular  $=+&XXdd=      1    _"Reverseengineering"involvesgainingaccesstothe  functionalelementsofasoftwareprogram.Methodsofreverseengineeringincludeobservingtheprograminoperation,performingastaticordynamicexaminationoftheindividualcomputerinstructionscontainedwithintheprogram,andusingaprogramknownasadisassemblertotranslatethebinarymachinereadableobjectcodethatrunsonthecomputerintothehumanreadablewordsandsymbolsknownassourcecode.SeegenerallySonyComputer |  Entertainment,Inc.v.ConnectixCorp.,203F.3d596,599600(9th P  Cir.2000),petitionforcert.filed,69U.S.L.W.3023(U.S.June $ t  30,2000)(No.0011)..Courier New Regular  $=-&XXdd=      2    _Thepermanentinjunction,togetherwithcertaincommentsof  thedistrictcourt,appearsintheofficialreporter.See  MicrosystemsSoftware,Inc.v.ScandinaviaOnlineAB,98F.Supp. X 2d74(D.Mass.2000).Thecourt'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawarenotreported..Courier New Regular  $=/&XXdd=      3    _Anaffirmancebyanequallydividedcourtdeniesprecedential  forcetotheopinioninquestion.SeeRutledgev.UnitedStates,  517U.S.292,304(1996).Itdoesnot,however,tarnishearlieropinions..Courier New Regular  $=1&XXdd=      4    _Thatruleprovidesinpertinentpartthatallordersgranting  injunctivereliefshallbind"thepartiestotheaction,theirofficers,agents,servants,employees,andattorneys,and...thosepersonsinactiveconcertorparticipationwiththemwhoreceiveactualnotice...."Fed.R.Civ.P.65(d)..Courier New Regular  $=3&XXdd=      5    _Inmountingthisargument,theappellantsplacegreatweight  onMicrosystems'sstatementsanditstransmissionofacopyoftheinjunctiontotheappellants.Butthedirectionoftheinjunctionisforthedistrictcourttodetermine,andthestatementsandactionstowhichtheappellantsadvertareinnowayattributabletothecourt..Courier New Regular 4 $=5&XXdd=      6    _Tobesure,theappellantscomplainthattheywereput  betweenarockandahardplacebecauseinterventionwouldhaveforcedthemtowaivetheirjurisdictionaldefensesandsubmittothedistrictcourt'sjurisdiction.ButthisseemstobeanotherwayofsayingthattheymadeacalculateddecisionthattheinjunctionsoughtbyMicrosystemswouldnotaggrievethemenoughtowarranttakingwhateverriskswereattendanttointervention.Thereisnothingremotelyunfairaboutbeingputinthatposition.Litigationstrategiesalmostalwaysinvolvebalancingofriskandreward,andthefundamentalrationalebehindthe"nointervention,noappeal"rulecounselsinfavorofholdingtheappellantstothepredictableconsequencesoftheirstrategicchoice.SeeDopp,947    F.2dat512;Kennyv.Quigg,820F.2d665,667(4thCir.1987)..Courier New Regular !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3' Letter3'T ? * !     %XXX(X%|X%XUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#%XX%|#  %ɫX%XFortheFirstCircuit#%XX%ɫY##(XDzXX%X#   A') ` dE<` A  No.001503@| | MICROSYSTEMSSOFTWARE,INC.,ETAL.,@Plaintiffs,Appellees,@tt)v.@ SCANDINAVIAONLINEAB,ETAL.,@Defendants,Appellees.@<< ____________________@WALDO_JAQUITH_,LINDSAY_HAISLEY_,ANDBENNETT_HASELTON_,@XX%Appellants.A') ` dE<f` A g @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS @  @@[Hon.EdwardF.Harrington,U.S.DistrictJudge] H @ _____________________@'Before  @@((_Selya_,CircuitJudge, &v Wallace,*SeniorCircuitJudge, L and_Tauro_,**DistrictJudge. " A') ` dE<}` A ~        ChristopherA.Hansen,withwhomSarahR._Wunsch_,DavidL. c " _Sobel_,andJessica_Litman_wereonbrief,forappellants. 9!#   CharlesR._Nesson_,Lawrence_Lessig_,JonathanL._Zittrain_,and "_$ Diane_Cabell_onbriefforthemselvesasamicicuriae. "5%   AndrewGross o onbriefforAssociationforComputingMachinery # & CommitteeonLawandComputingTechnology,amicuscuriae.  IrwinB.Schwartz,withwhomWilliamC._Nystrom_,ColleenC. g% ( Cook,andSchwartzand_Nystrom_,LLCwereonbrief,forplaintiffs =&!) appellees.*'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   ($, "  SI#)s$- `@36795`@S SI#)s$-  @36793 @S _ 0&)I%. 0  September2  5   7  ,2000 _ SID*&0" `@36795 `@ S(#)s$1  (* !________________*OftheNinthCircuit,sittingbydesignation.**OftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation.  -(3?   =Xdd= 8)V)XXdXXd8*,X` XX* ` _SELYA_,CircuitJudge. Thisappealtrailsinthewakeof  apermanentinjunctionenteredbytheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMassachusettsthatrestrainedthenameddefendants"Eddy_L.O._Ԁ_Jansson_,Matthew_Skala_,andthecompaniesthathosttheirrespectivewebpages(ScandinaviaOnlineABand_Islandnet.com_)"and"theiragents,employees,andallpersonsinactiveconcertorparticipation"withthemfrompublishingorotherwiseusingabypasscodeknownas"cp4break.zip"or"_cphack.exe_."Thenameddefendantsstipulatedtotheentryoftheinjunction,butthree_nonparties_Ԁ"Waldo_Jaquith_,Lindsay_Haisley_,andBennett_Haselton_Ԁ"nowattempttoappeal.Theyclaimtohavecopiedtheproscribedcodefromthenameddefendants'webpagesandassertthattheinjunctionimpermissiblyinterfereswiththeirrighttocontinuepostingitontheir"mirrorsites." ` Althoughthisproceedingtakesplaceagainstthefuturisticbackdropofcyberspace,itsresolutionliesintraditionalprinciplesofstanding.Applicationofthoseprinciplesrequiresustoterminatetheattemptedappeal.Consequently,wehavenooccasiontoreachthetangledissuesofcopyrightandFirstAmendmentlawthatsimmerbeneaththesurfaceoftheappellants'plaints. I.BACKGROUND  '8#*  ` Theplaintiffs,MicrosystemsSoftware,Inc.andMattel,Inc.(collectively,Microsystems),developedanddistributed"_Cyber_ \+&. _Patrol""ablockingdevicecovetedbyparentswhowishtopreventtheirchildrenfromroamingintosalaciousInternetvenues.Thissoftwareprogramcontainsasecretlistofobjectionablewebsitesand,onceinstalled,preventscomputerusersfromaccessingthosesites. ` Itissaidthateveryactionproducesanequal,yetopposite,reaction.Soitwashere:shortlyafterMicrosystemsintroducedCyberPatrol,JanssonandSkalareverseengineereditandwroteabypasscodethatenabledusersnotonlytothwarttheprogrambutalsotogainaccesstothelistofblockedsites.  * #  1      ׀   Theythenpostedthebypasscodeontheirownwebsitesandgaveblanketpermissionforotherstocopyit.Theappellantstookadvantageofthisoffer. ` Microsystemswasnotpleased.OnMarch15,2000,itbroughtsuitseekinginjunctivereliefagainstthedefendantsand"thosepersonsinactiveconcertorparticipationwiththem."Microsystemscomplainedthatitwassufferingirreparableinjurybecause"[m]ultipleindividualsthroughouttheUnitedStatesand !l" theworld...havedownloaded,copiedandcreated'mirror'Websites"revealingthebypasscode.Whenthedistrictcourtissuedatemporaryrestrainingordertwodayslater,Microsystemsemailedcopiesofit,alongwithsundrysupportingdocuments,tovariouspersons(includingtheappellants).Itscoverletterstatedinpertinentpart:8 ` OnMarch17,2000,UnitedStatesDistrictJudgeEdwardHarringtonenteredatemporaryrestrainingorder...prohibitinganyfurtherpublicationof"CP4break.sip"orcphack.exe"oranyderivativethereof,whichlikelyviolateUnitedStatescopyrightlaws...IthascometoourattentionthatyourWebhostingserviceorWebsiteispublishingoneorbothofthoseprohibitedfiles.ThisletterandtheenclosedWorddocumentsand*unifileswillplaceyouonnoticeofJudgeHarrington'sorder. ` x` x Microsystemsalsoservedtheappellantswithsubpoenasdirectingthemtodiscloseinformationconcerningtheidentityof"[e]achandeverypersonwhoproduced,received,viewed,downloadedoraccessed[thebypasscode]oranyderivativethereoffromyourWebsiteorWebsitehostingservice." ` Theappellantspromptlyremovedthebypasscodefromtheirwebsites.Theythenfiledspecialappearancesinthependingcaseand,withoutsubmittingtothecourt'sjurisdiction,movedtoquashthesubpoenas.Theyalsoprofferedoppositionstothependingmotionforpreliminaryinjunction.Notably,however, theydidnotmovetointervene. N*%-  ` OnMarch24,thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotionto quash.Threedayslater,thecourtheldahearingonthemotionforpreliminaryinjunction.Atthatsession,Microsystemsadvisedthecourtthatithadreachedanaccordwiththenameddefendantsandprofferedaproposedfinaldecreethatpurportedtoprohibitthedefendantsandthosepersons"inactiveconcert"withthemfrompostingthebypasscode.Notwithstandingtheappellants'nonpartystatus,thedistrictcourtallowedthemtoargueinoppositiontotheentryoftheinjunctionandtofileasupplementalmemorandum.TheappellantssubmittedthismemorandumonMarch28.Laterthatday,thecourtenteredthepermanentinjunction,accompanyingitwithfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.  , #  2       d  ` Microsystemslostnotimeinfurnishingtheappellantswithnoticeoftheinjunction.Theappellantsunsuccessfullysoughtastay"thedistrictcourtdeniedit,declaringthattheyhad"nostandingtopursueanyappeal...inviewofthefactthattheyha[d]neverintervenedinthecase""andsimultaneouslyfiledanoticeofappeal. II.ANALYSIS  "$  ` Theexistencevelnonofappellatestandingcallsfora $& quintessentiallylegaljudgment,tobemadewithoutdeferenceto <&!( thetrialcourt'sview.SeeInreCusumano,162F.3d708,713(1st  Cir.1998);  seealsoNewHampshireRighttoLifePoliticalAction \ Comm.v.Gardner,99F.3d8,12(1stCir.1996)(applyingdenovo X reviewtotrialcourt'sstandingdetermination).Becausestandingisasinequanontotheprosecutionofasuitinafederalcourt,theabsenceofstandingsoundsthedeathknellforacase.See Sea  \  ShoreCorp.v.Sullivan,158F.3d51,54(1stCir.1998).Thesame   holdstrueforappeals:iftheputativeappellantslackstandingtoappeal,theonlyrolefortheappellatecourtistomemorializethatfactandsimultaneouslyterminatetheproceeding.SeeWarth   v.Seldin,422U.S.490,49899(1975);UnitedStatesv.AVXCorp., h 962F.2d108,113(1stCir.1992). ` Asageneralrule,onlypartiestoacivilactionarepermittedtoappealfromafinaljudgment.SeeMarinov.Ortiz, l 484U.S.301,304(1988)(percuriam).TheSupremeCourt,initsmostrecentpronouncementonthesubject,hasdescribedthisruleas"wellsettled."Id.Historyconfirmstheaccuracyofthat p  description.See,e.g.,Karcherv.May,484U.S.72,77(1987); !l" UnitedStatesexrel.Louisianav.Jack,244U.S.397,402(1917); "$ ExparteLeafTobaccoBd.ofTrade,222U.S.578,581(1911)(per t$& curiam);ExparteCockcroft,104U.S.(14Otto)578,57879(1882);  &p!( ExparteCutting,94U.S.(4Otto)14,2021(1877);Doppv.HTP '#*  Corp.,947F.2d506,512(1stCir.1991). x)$,  ` Forpurposesofthe"onlyapartymayappeal"rule,the term"party"includesnotonlythosewhoarepartiesinthecasewhenjudgmentisentered,butalsothosewhoproperlybecomeparties(as,say,byintervention).SeeMarino,484U.S.at304.   Thetermsometimesencompassesthosewho"haveactedorbeenrecognizedasparties,"butbysomeoversightwerenotformallymadeparties.ExparteCutting,94U.S.at2021;seealsoSangre   deCristoCommunityMentalHealthServ.v.UnitedStates(Inre d  Vargas),723F.2d1461,1464(10thCir.1983).Finally,theterm `  alsoextends,inlimitedcircumstances,tothosewhowereparties"tosomeearlierjudgmentcalledintoquestionbytheappeal."Dopp,947F.2dat512.Theappellantsplainlydonotqualifyas d partiesunderanyofthesedefinitions. ` Ofcourse,exceptionsexisttovirtuallyeveryrule,andcourts,fromtimetotime,haveendeavoredtocraftexceptionstotherulethatonlypartiesmayappealfromanadversejudgment.Byandlarge,theSupremeCourthasbeeninhospitabletotheseendeavors.Marinoillustratesthepoint.Intheunderlyingcase, !l" theSecondCircuithaddismissedanappealtakenbynonparties,butsuggestedindictumthattherewereseveralexceptionstotherulethatonlypartiesmayappealfromanadversejudgment.See  &p!( HispanicSoc'yofNewYorkCityPoliceDep'tv.NewYorkCity '#*  PoliceDep't,806F.2d1147,1152(2dCir.1986).Althoughthe x)$, MarinoCourtsubsequentlyaffirmedthejudgment,ittookpainsto  addacaveat: 8 ` TheCourtofAppealssuggestedthattheremaybeexceptionstothisgeneralrule,primarily"whenthenonpartyhasaninterestthatisaffectedbythetrialcourt'sjudgment."806F.2dat1152.Wethinkthebetterpracticeisforsuchanonpartytoseekinterventionforpurposesofappeal.... @  ` x` x 484U.S.at304.    ` Webelievethatthismessageisreasonablyclear.Whilethereisanexceptiontothe"onlyapartymayappeal"rulethatallowsanonpartytoappealthedenialofamotiontointervene,seeid.,thesituationdifferswheninterventionisreadily h available.Inthatevent,courtsarepowerlesstoextendarightofappealtoanonpartywhoabjuresintervention.SeeFelzenv.  Andreas,134F.3d873,874(7thCir.1998),aff'dsubnom.byan l equallydividedCourt,CaliforniaPub.Employees'RetirementSys. h v.Felzen,525U.S.315(1999).  . #  3         ` Theappellantslabortoconvinceusthat,Marino p  notwithstanding,weoughttorecognizealongstringofexceptionstotherulemandatingpartystatusasaprerequisitetoanappeal. Wearenotpersuaded.Marino,aswereadit,teachesthatifany t$& exceptionstotheruleexist,thoseexceptionsarefewandfarbetween.  ` Turningfromthegeneraltothespecific,weaddressthe X appellants'principalarguments.First,theyvenerateourstatementthat"whenalowercourtspecificallydirectsanorderatanonpartyorenjoinsitfromacourseofconduct,"thenonpartymayenjoyarighttoappeal.Dopp,947F.2dat512(dictum).They   thennotethattheinjunctioninthiscasepurportstobindnotonlythenameddefendantsbutalso"thosepersonsinactiveconcertorparticipation"withthem.Usingthisphraseasaspringboard,theyjumptotheconclusionthattheinjunctionwasspecificallydirectedatthem,andclaimthatitthereforefitswithintheDopp d dictum.Werejectthisconstruct. ` Tostatetheobvious,adictumisnotaholding"andtheDoppdictummaybenomorethanmerebuzznacking.Weneednot h probethatpointtoodeeply,however,because,evenifweassumeforargument'ssakethattheDoppdictumhassomeforce,the p  resultantexception,narrowinallevents,seeid.(describing !l" exceptionas"isthmian"),wouldnotapplyatallinthiscase.TheboilerplateterminologycontainedintheinstantinjunctionmerelyparrotsthelanguageofFederalRuleofCivilProcedure65(d).  0 #  4      ׀So  &p!( phrased,theinjunctioninnowayattainsthedegreeofspecificitynecessarytoopenthegatestothepotentialexceptionthatDopp \ envisioned.Cf.Keithv.Volpe,118F.3d1386,1391n.7(9thCir. X 199 7 )(holdingthatanonpartywhowashaledintocourttorespond   toashowcauseorderhadappellatestandinginasubsequentappealofthatorder). ` Inarelatedvein,theappellantsassertthatthelowercourt'sfindingsoffactpropelthemintoasafeharbor.Inparticular,theynotethecourt'sfindingthat"multipleindividualsthroughoutMassachusettsandtheUnitedStatesdownloaded,copiedandcreated'mirror'sitesontheinternet,whichreplicatedtheBypassCode,"andthat"many...didsofortheavowedpurposeofseekingtoprevent[thedistrictcourt]fromawardingmeaningfulrelief."Thisfinding,theysay,specificallydirectstheinjunctionatthem.Butthislineofargumentationelevateshopeoverreason.Thedescription"multipleindividualsthroughouttheUnitedStates"isbreathtakinglybroad.Thereisnothingintherecordthatlimitsitsapplicationtotheappellants orthataimsthecourt'sukaseintheirdirection.  2 #  5       "$  ` Theappellantsnextattempttolureusintoweighingthe equitiesofthecase,asseveratingthatitisunfairtoforcethemintoajudicialproceedingandthenpreventthemfromprosecutinganappeal.Wehavetworejoinders,eitherofwhichisfullydispositiveofthematter. ` Firstandforemost,theappellants'asseverationisadoctrinalmisfit.Althoughitdrawssomesustenancefromthecaselaw,see,e.g.,CommodityFuturesTradingComm'nv.TopworthInt'l, d  Ltd.,205F.3d1107,1113(9thCir.2000),theasseveration `  overlookstheabecedarianprinciplethatacourtthatlacksadjudicatorypowerhasnoauthorityoveracase.SeeSteelCo.v. h CitizensforaBetterEnvironment,523U.S.83,94(1998);Exparte d McCardle,74U.S.(7Wall.)506,514(1868).Sincestandingis  jurisdictionalinnature,thatprincipledictatesthatwhere,ashere,theputativeappellantslackstanding,thecourtlackspowertoassayandreconciletheequitiesofthecase.SeeFelzen,134  F.3dat87778.Consequently,equitableconsiderationsareimmaterialtoourdeterminationofthestandingissue. ` Second"andequallydevastatingtotheappellants'position"theequitiesdonotfavorpermittingthemtoappeal.Afterenteringtheproceedingsinasuccessfulefforttoquashthesubpoenasthathadbeenserveduponthem,theappellantsdidnotquitthefieldvictorious,but,rather,electedtoexpandtheirroleandcontestthemeritsofthecasebeforethedistrictcourt. $+t&. Atthesametime,theymadeastrategicchoicenottointerveneintheproceedings.Byintervening,seeFed.R.Civ.P.24,the \ appellantscouldhavebecomeparties,entitledtoboththatstatus'sbenefits(includingtherighttoappealanunfavorablejudgment)anditsburdens. ` Inourview,thedecisiontoforgointerventionworksaforfeitureofanyclaimtoappellatestanding.Thosewhoaspiretolitigateissuescannothaveitbothways:theycannotevadepotentialliabilitybydecliningtoseekpartystatusandstillexpecttobetreatedaspartiesforthepurposeoftestingthevalidityofanensuingdecree.  4 #  6      ׀Cf. UnitedStatesv.Tierney,760 h F.2d382,388(1stCir.1985)("Havingone'scakeandeatingit,too,isnotinfashioninthiscircuit."). ` Movingahead,theappellantsmaintainthattheyshouldbepermittedtoappealbecausetheyhaveaninterestthatisaffectedbythedistrictcourt'sjudgmentandtheywerepermittedtovindicatethatinterestbyparticipatingintheproceedingsbelow. p  Somecourtshaverecognizedexceptionstothe"onlyapartymayappeal"ruleinanalogouscases.See,e.g.,Kaplanv.Rand,192 \ F.3d60,6667(2dCir.1999).Totheextentthatthesecasesareauthorityfortheappellants'position,werespectfullydeclinetofollowthem.Amereinterestintheoutcomeoflitigationwillnot `  sufficetoconferstandinguponanonparty.SeeMarino,484U.S.  \  at304;Felzen,134F.3dat874;J.A.Shultsv.ChampionInt'l   Corp.,35F.3d1056,1060(6thCir.1994);seealsoGuthriev. d  Evans,815F.2d626,627(11thCir.1987).Aswehavesaid,"the `  factthatanorderhasanindirectorincidentaleffectonanonpartydoesnotconferstandingtoappeal.Iftherulewereotherwise,Pandora'sjarwouldbeopen,andstrangerstoalitigatedcasecouldpopinandoutoftheproceedingsvirtuallyatwill."Dopp,947F.2dat512. l  ` Bythesametoken,mereparticipationintheproceedingsbelowwillnotsufficetoconferstandinguponanonparty.Afterall,theofficerswhobecamethenonpartyappellantsinHispanic p  Societyparticipatedintheproceedingsbeforethedistrictcourt, !l" see806F.2dat1152,buttheSupremeCourtfoundthattheylacked "$ standingtoappeal,seeMarino,484U.S.at304;seealsoCroyden t$& Assocs.v.Alleco,Inc.,969F.2d675,679(8thCir.1992)(noting  &p!( thattheMarinoCourtdidnotperceivetheMarinoappellants' '#* participationintheproceedingsbelowaswarrantinganexceptiontothegeneralrule).Thus,werejecttheappellants'claimthat $+t&. participationbelow,evenifcoupledwithanindirectinterestinthejudgmentsoughttobeappealed,confersstanding. ` Ablyrepresented,theappellantstakeyetanothertack.Theyremonstratethatiftheyarenotpermittedtoappealatthisjuncture,theywillforfeitanyopportunitytocontesttheinjunctiononthemerits.Intheirview,thiswoulddeprivethemofdueprocess. ` Thisargumenthasacertainsuperficialallure,because"thevalidityandtermsofaninjunction[ordinarily]arenotreviewableincontemptproceedings."G.&C.MerriamCo.v.   WebsterDictionaryCo.,639F.2d29,34(1stCir.1980).Thisrule h appliesbothtothosewhowerepartiestotheunderlyingcase,see, d e.g.,NLRBv.UnionNacionaldeTrabajadores,611F.2d926,928n.1  (1stCir.1979),andtononpartiesinactiveconcertorparticipationwiththeenjoinedparty,see,e.g.,NBAProps.,Inc. h v.Gold,895F.2d30,3334(1stCir.1990).   ` Theattractivenessoftheappellants'argumentdiminishesratherrapidly,however,whenonerecallsthattheappellantsfiledtwomemorandawiththedistrictcourtandcontestedthemeritsoftheinjunctionatahearing.Moreimportantly,theyhadeveryopportunitytointerveneandpurposefullydeclinedtodoso.Inthesecircumstances,whateverpredicamenttheyenvisionisoftheir ownconstruction. x)$,  ` Evenifmorewereneeded"andwedoubtthatitis"the adjudicativeframeworksurroundingcontemptproceedingsfullyprotectsnonparties'constitutionalrights.Ifcontemptproceedingsareinfactundertaken,theforumcourtwillresolvethefactspecificquestionofwhetherthecitednonpartywasinactiveconcertorparticipationwiththenameddefendant.Ifso,thenameddefendantwillbedeemedthenonparty'sagent,andthenonparty'srighttodueprocesswillhavebeensatisfiedvicariously.SeeMerriam,639F.2dat35;AlemiteMfg.Corp.v. `  Staff,42F.2d832,83233(2dCir.1930)(L.Hand,J.).If,   however,thepartyprosecutingthecontemptproceedingfailstoshowactiveconcertorparticipation,afindingofcontemptwillnotlie.SeeZenithRadioCorp.v.HazeltineResearch,Inc.,395  U.S.100,112(1969);Merriam,639F.2dat35. l  ` Weexplainbrieflywhy,ineitheroftheseevents,dueprocessisnotatrisk.Contemptproceedingsoperatetoensurethatnonpartieshavehadtheirdayincourt.Inordertoholdanonpartyincontempt,acourtfirstmustdeterminethatshewasinactiveconcertorparticipationwiththepartyspecificallyenjoined(typically,thenameddefendant).SeeMerriam,639F.2d t$& at35;Alemite,42F.2dat83233.Thismeans,ofcourse,thatthe  &p!( nonpartymustbelegallyidentifiedwiththatdefendant,or,atleast,deemedtohaveaidedandabettedthatdefendantintheenjoinedconduct.SeeMerriam,639F.2dat35;Alemite,42F.2dat $+t&. 83233.Theexistenceofsuchalinkagemakesitfairtobindthenonparty,evenifshehasnothadaseparateopportunitytocontesttheoriginalinjunction,becauseherclosealliancewiththeenjoineddefendantadequatelyassuresthatherinterestsweresufficientlyrepresented.SeeNBAProps.,895F.2dat33;Merriam, `  639F.2dat37;cf.RegalKnitwearCo.v.NLRB,324U.S.9,14  \  (1945)("[D]efendantsmaynotnullifyadecreebycarryingoutprohibitedactsthroughaidersandabettors,althoughtheywerenotpartiestotheoriginalproceeding."). ` Thecoin,however,hasaflipside.Anonpartywhohasactedindependentlyoftheenjoineddefendantwillnotbeboundbytheinjunction,and,ifshehashadnoopportunitytocontestitsvalidity,cannotbefoundincontemptwithoutaseparateadjudication.Seeid.;seealsoAlemite,42F.2dat832(declaring l thatadecreewhichpurportstoenjoinnonpartieswhoareneitherabettorsnorlegallyidentifiedwiththedefendant"isprotanto  brutumfulmen,"andmaysafelybeignored).Thistriedandtrue p  dichotomysafeguardstherightsofthosewhotrulyarestrangerstoaninjunctivedecree.Itdoesnotoffenddueprocess.  "$  III.CONCLUSION  t$&  ` Tosummarize,weholdthatnonpartieswhohavehadtheopportunitytoseekintervention,buthaveeschewedthatcourse,lackstandingtoappeal.SeeMarino,484U.S.at304;Dopp,947 )$, F.2dat512.Whiletheremaybeisolatedexceptionstothisrule @+&. "amatteronwhichwetakenoview"theinstantappealfallscomfortablywithinthemainstream.Becausetheappellantslackstanding,wecangonofurther. ` Appealdismissed.Costsinfavorofplaintiffs `  appellees.