| Senate Bill Includes Tax
Credits for Broadband Deployment |
11/8. The Senate
Finance Committee passed the Economic Recovery and
Assistance for American Workers Act of 2001, by a party line
vote of 11 to 10. See, full text
[240 pages in PDF] and one page committee summary
[PDF]. This bill is described by Democrats, who voted for it,
as the "economic stimulus bill".
This version of the bill includes the language of S
88, the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001, which
offers tax credits to incent the deployment of broadband
Internet access facilities in rural, underserved, and
residential areas. S 88 was introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller
(D-WV) early this year, and now has 63 cosponsors in the
Senate.
Specifically, it provides a tax credit of 10% of expenditures
related to deployment of Internet access facilities that
provide transmission of signals at a rate of at least
1,000,000 bits per second (bps) to the subscriber and at least
128,000 bps from the subscriber, when service is provided to
rural or underserved subscribers. It provides a tax credit of
20% of expenditures related to deployment of Internet access
facilities that provide transmission of signals at a rate of
at least 22,000,000 bps to the subscriber and at least
5,000,000 bps from the subscriber, when service is provided in
rural, underserved, or residential subscribers. See, Section
902 of the bill, at pages 214 - 232.
Secretary of Commerce Don Evans had this reaction to the bill
in general: "The bill passed by the Senate Finance
Committee is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill. We must do
better. The President's plan recognizes and respects different
viewpoints and offers a balanced approach that provides short
term relief for those who have lost their job and the promise
of a long-term recovery. Congress needs to act." See, DOC
release.
The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) praised the
bill. It stated that "TIA estimates that its broadband
provisions would have a stimulative impact to the economy of
about $2 billion in increased investment. The accelerated
broadband deployment in turn would have further economic
reverberations through increases, for example, in electronic
commerce and sales of computer hardware and software." TIA
release. |
|
|
| SEC Chairman Addresses
Securities Regulation and Technology |
11/9. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Chairman Harvey Pitt gave a speech
regarding securities regulation in Boca Raton, Florida, to the
Securities Industry Association
annual meeting. He addresses several technology related
topics. He advocated planning for terrorist attacks on the
communications and computer infrastructures used by the
securities industry. He also stated that "new ideas and
technology must be confident of prompt and intelligent
consideration" by the SEC. Finally, he reiterated his
intent to create a CTO position at the SEC.
Critical Infrastructure. Chairman Pitt began by
discussing the terrorist attacks of September 11. He
enumerated several precautions that should be taken by the
securities industry. He stated that "wherever possible,
business continuity planning should seek to avoid reliance on
single points of failure in critical systems. Single points of
failure can occur in ways that are unforeseen, and even odd.
The lines of competing telecom providers may all lie side by
side in old, obscure conduits. Advanced electronic trading
systems may require air conditioning, which is run on city
steam in older buildings. These risk exposures must be
identified and planned around." He also stated that
"critical functions need backup capabilities with fail
over functionality allowing rapid recovery. For significant
securities firms, these backup facilities should encompass
trading and institutional sales operations, as well as back
office systems."
Regulatory Response to New Technologies. Pitt also
addressed regulatory response to new technologies. He stated
that "If government is to perform its critical role, new
ideas and technology must be confident of prompt and
intelligent consideration, with government taking an active
interest in facilitating new ideas, not evidencing fear or
uncertainty, leading to institutional paralysis, in resolving
the thorny regulatory problems that often arise when we are
presented with new products, new technology and new
markets."
SEC Chief Technology Officer. Finally, Pitt stated:
"In the same vein, I believe that we need to create a new
position of Chief Technology Officer. As more and more markets
reflect wholly electronic communications and interaction, for
example, the Commission is in desperate need of the expertise
to understand, inspect and review foundational algorithms. You
and I both know how far the Commission needs to travel to
reach that point of minimal technological competence." |
|
|
| NTIA Chief Addresses
Spectrum Market and 3G |
11/9. Nancy Victory, head of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA), gave a speech
at a conference titled "Practical Steps to Spectrum
Markets". She recited a range of policy questions faced
by the NTIA and other government entities regarding spectrum
management. However, she offered little guidance regarding
either her views, or actions likely to be taken by the NTIA.
Victory stated that there "is a growing concern that
perhaps our general spectrum management policies are outdated
and in need of review. Is the current spectrum allocation
approach based upon use too constricting and impractical for
today's spectrum environment? Should a more free market
approach be used? Should licensees be granted full property
rights in their spectrum? These are all intriguing questions
that should be fully discussed and considered. We at NTIA are
committed to a comprehensive review of spectrum management
policies in an effort to find practical and appropriate
solutions."
Victory also stated that she will convene a "Spectrum
Summit early next year to solicit out of the box ideas".
It will address the "merits and details of market based
management, property or other rights, spectrum flexibility,
trading, auction theory and design, and 'commons approaches.'
"
She spoke at the conclusion of a half day program on spectrum
management issues jointly hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
and the Brookings
Institute. |
|
|
| DOJ Allows Monitoring of
Attorney Client Communications Used to Further Terrorist Acts |
10/31. The Department of Justice's Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
published a notice
in the Federal Register stating that it has adopted an interim
rule regarding monitoring of communications by detainees of
the Bureau of Prisons. It provides that the Attorney General
may order the monitoring of attorney client communications of
detainees whom he suspects are using those communications to
further a terrorist act. See, Federal Register, October 31,
2001, Vol. 66, No. 211, at Pages 55061 - 55066.
The BOP interim rule provides, in part, that "In any case
where the Attorney General specifically so orders, based on
information from the head of a federal law enforcement or
intelligence agency that reasonable suspicion exists to
believe that a particular inmate may use communications with
attorneys or their agents to further or facilitate acts of
terrorism, the Director, Bureau of Prisons, shall, in addition
to the special administrative measures imposed under paragraph
(a) of this section, provide appropriate procedures for the
monitoring or review of communications between that inmate and
attorneys or attorneys' agents who are traditionally covered
by the attorney client privilege, for the purpose of deterring
future acts that could result in death or serious bodily
injury to persons, or substantial damage to property that
would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to
persons."
The interim rule further requires notice to both the detainee
and his attorney that communications are being monitored, and
a statement that "communications between the inmate and
attorneys or their agents are not protected by the attorney
client privilege if they would facilitate criminal acts or a
conspiracy to commit criminal acts, or if those communications
are not related to the seeking or providing of legal
advice".
The DOJ also requests public comments on this interim rule.
Comments are due by December 31, 2001. Send comments to: Rules
Unit, Office of the General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC
Room 754, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. |
|
|
| Sen. Leahy Complains of
Violation of Attorney Client Privilege |
11/9. Sen. Patrick Leahy
(D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, wrote an angry letter
to Attorney General John Ashcroft about the BOP interim rule.
He complained about this "unilateral executive decision
to authorize interception of privileged attorney client
communications between detained persons and their
lawyers." He added that "I am deeply troubled at
what appears to be an executive effort to exercise new powers
without judicial scrutiny or statutory authorization."
"Since we provided you with new statutory authorities in
the USA PATRIOT Act, I have felt a growing concern that the
trust and cooperation Congress provided is proving to be a
one-way street. You have declined several requests to appear
before the Committee to answer questions and have not
responded to requests to provide information on such basic
points as the number of people -- according to some Department
of Justice reports, more than a thousand -- currently detained
without trial and without specific criminal charges under your
authority."
Sen. Leahy's letter also propounded seven questions to be
answered by the Attorney General, including, how is it that
this interim rule is constitutional?, "What statutory
authority supports such interceptions?", and "What
opportunity for prior judicial authorization and judicial
review will there be of the legality of such
interceptions?" |
|
|
| Sen. Byrd Opposes TPA, New
WTO Round, and Crassitude |
11/9. Sen. Robert Byrd
(D-WV), one of the leading protectionists in the Senate, gave
a long winded speech in the Senate in which he opposed both
legislation to give the President trade promotion authority,
and a new WTO round.
"How crass. How crass," said Sen. Byrd. "To
denominate fast track as 'trade promotion authority' is the
acme of crassitude. Hear me down there at the other end of the
avenue: The acme of crassitude! To denominate fast track
legislation as trade promotion authority, or by its acronym,
TPA, is the acme of crassitude. One might better interpret the
acronym TPA as standing for 'tactic to prevent amendments'
".
The House Ways and
Means Committee passed HR 3005,
the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001, by a
vote of 26 to 13 on October 9. It is sponsored by Rep. Bill Thomas
(R-CA), Rep. Cal Dooley
(D-CA), and others. Trade promotion authority (TPA), which is
also known as fast track, gives the President authority to
negotiate trade agreements which can only be voted up or down,
but not amended, by the Congress. TPA strengthens the
bargaining position of the President, and the U.S. Trade Representative, in
negotiations with other nations.
Technology companies that export equipment, software, or
services, and that seek greater protection abroad for their
intellectual property rights, stand to benefit from enactment
of TPA.
Sen. Byrd also stated that "I question whether, in the
current international climate, we should even desire to have a
new global trade round."
Sen. Byrd is also known for his classical allusions. "I
come to bury Caesar, not to praise him," said Sen. Byrd.
"Mr. President, I come to bury fast track authority, not
to praise it!" |
|
|
| Representatives Back TPA |
11/8. Rep. John
Linder (R-GA) spoke in the House in support of TPA. He
stated that "Trade promotion authority allows trade
agreements to be considered as congressional executive
agreements. These agreements represent procedural compromises.
The President forgoes his ability to single handedly negotiate
treaties and, instead, agrees to consult closely with the
Congress to ensure that congressional priorities are heard.
Congress, in turn, commits to an up or down vote, but waives
the right to offer amendments. Some of my colleagues seem to
think that our inability to offer amendments is too great a
sacrifice. What then is the alternative? Without TPA, the
President would unilaterally negotiate a treaty which would
then be presented solely to the Senate for ratification. This
obviously begs the question where is the House. The answer,
absent. Without TPA we have no role, no authority, and no
voice in trade agreements. This is the people's House. Do not
let our voice be silenced. Support TPA." See,
Congressional Record, November 8, 2001, at pages H7913-4.
11/8. Rep. Ken Calvert
(R-CA) spoke in the House in support of trade promotion
authority. He stated that "Software publishers,
broadcasting and telecommunications services employ another
130,000 people in California, a number which would grow if new
trade agreements that would reduce barriers to services and
tariffs on industrial products and agriculture are signed. The
services sector needs successful trade negotiations that
expand substantially opportunities for U.S. trade in services.
Trade negotiating authority plays a crucial role in our
country's ability to negotiate, and implement, these
negotiations; and so we need to move these negotiations
along." See, Congressional Record, November 8, 2001, at
pages H7914.
11/8. Rep. Sam Graves
(R-MO) spoke in support of TPA, on agricultural grounds. See,
Congressional Record, November 8, 2001, at page H7915. |
|
|
|
| House Subcommittee
Considers Market Power and Intellectual Property |
11/8. The House
Judiciary Committee's Courts, Internet and Intellectual
Property Committee held a hearing on market power and
intellectual property. The Subcommittee considered whether
legislation is necessary to make clear that holding a patent
or copyright does not create a presumption of market power for
the purposes of antitrust law analysis. Representatives of the
IPO and ABA said that such legislation is necessary. Rep.
Boucher argued that it is not. Other members of the
subcommittee focused on emerging antitrust and intellectual
property issues involved in the delivery of music over the
Internet.
Rep. Howard Coble
(R-NC), the Chairman of the Subcommittee, presided. He
summarized the issue: "It is alleged that federal court
litigation has resulted in a series of cases and judge made
law on the subject of market power that prejudices copyright,
patent, and trade secret holders. Market power is defined as
the power to control prices or to exclude competition. The
issue is whether the courts have promulgated an overly harsh
standard regarding the presumption of market power. Some legal
observers argue that the situation in courts has worsened
since Congress first examined this area more than a decade ago
and a legislative remedy is need. Other scholars counter argue
that the frustration over the handful of cases on this subject
is exaggerated."
He also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Jefferson
Parish v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984), in which the five
member majority wrote that "if the Government has granted
the seller a patent or similar monopoly over a product, it is
fair to presume that the inability to buy the product
elsewhere gives the seller market power." (See, 466 U.S.
at page 16.)
Rep. Coble also observed that "several distinguished
members of this Committee, including the late Hamilton Fish,
the distinguished gentleman from New York, as well as Chairman
Henry Hyde, and I believe, Sen. Leahy as well, have pursued
bills to address the issue we explore today."
There is no legislation pending now. Rather, supporters of
legislation refer back to bills such as HR
2674, the Intellectual Property Antitrust Protection Act
of 1995, from the 104th Congress. This bill, which did not
become law, provided that "In any action in which the
conduct of an owner, licensor, licensee, or other holder of an
intellectual property right is alleged to be in violation of
the antitrust laws in connection with the marketing or
distribution of a product or service protected by such a
right, such right shall not be presumed to define a market, to
establish market power (including economic power and product
uniqueness or distinctiveness), or to establish monopoly
power." (Parentheses in original.) That bill was
sponsored by Rep. Henry
Hyde (R-IL). Among its cosponsors were Rep. Coble and Rep. James
Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the current Chairman of the full
committee.
Rep. Howard Berman
(D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, stated at
the hearing that "I can see reasonable policy arguments
both for and against the continued existence of this
presumption. Thus, I remain open to being convinced by our
witnesses that legislation is necessary to overturn the
presumption."
Rep. Berman also stated that antitrust and intellectual
property law are not in conflict. Rather, he stated that they
"serve the same goals, namely, promoting competition and
benefiting consumers. That is not to say the IP owners may not
commit antitrust violations in the course of exploiting their
intellectual property rights."
However, he continued that "I know of no reason to
believe that antitrust violations by IP owners occur with any
greater frequency than similar violations in other industries
In fact, IP owners may just as often may be the victims of
antitrust violations. Creators of copyrighted works, like
film, software, and music and books, must often rely on third
parties to distribute, perform, and otherwise find a market
for their works. Those distribution channels have a history of
consolidation and vertical integration, and may even be owned
by competitors. Thus, owners of distribution channels can
potentially commit antitrust violations against copyright
owners. Similarly, copyright owners may often find themselves
relying on third parties, such as device manufacturers, for
protection of their copyrighted works. To the extend antitrust
law is interpreted to prevent such such third parties from
cooperating to protect copyrighted works, it may be straying
from the pro consumer and pro competitive goals both antitrust
and intellectual property law."
The Subcommittee heard from only two witnesses, Ron Myrick,
President of the Intellectual
Property Organization (IPO), and Charles Baker, Chairman
of the American Bar
Association (ABA) section on intellectual property. Both
advocated passing legislation.
IPO Testimony. Myrick said that there is a
"distressing dilution of intellectual property
rights." He argued that mere possession of a patent or
other IPR is insufficient to create market power. He
elaborated that "In markets for toaster, cameras, and
home computers, for example, most products contain patented
features but still face vigorous competition from viable
substitutes."
He also said that exclusive intellectual property rights
create incentives for innovators and investors, particularly
in the high tech industry. This incentive, said Myrick,
"is significantly reduced or undermined if the reward for
innovation and disclosure simultaneously saddles the innovator
with a presumption of market power."
Myrick continued that "The possibility that a presumption
of market power will deter innovation has become even more
likely in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Image
Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d
1195 (1997), which held that, when a seller has market power,
his mere refusal to license a patented product to a competitor
can violate section 2 of the Sherman Act." He
acknowledged that other courts have reached different results,
but added that "the decisions of the Ninth Circuit affect
the legal rights of over 50 million people living in nine
western states -- an area that includes much of our nation's
high tech industries ..."
Myrick also addressed the Microsoft antitrust case. He stated
that the courts "have continued to misunderstand
intellectual property rights. In United States v. Microsoft,
for example, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
compared an intellectual property owner's exercise of the
right to exclude with tortious use of a baseball bat."
ABA Testimony. Charles Baker of the ABA also testified
in favor of legislation. In 1990 the ABA adopted a resolution
stating that it "favors in principal legislation ...
which provides that intellectual property rights shall not be
presumed to define a market or to establish market power in
actions under the antitrust laws". See, prepared
testimony.
He said that "such presumptions are arbitrary, ignoring
real world facts, they have no basis from the point of view of
either intellectual property or antitrust law, and they lower
incentives created by intellectual property law to invest in
new jobs and new industrial facilities based on technological
advances."
ATR/FTC Guidelines. The subcommittee did not hear
testimony from any representative of the Copyright Office,
USPTO, Antitrust Division, or FTC. However, in 1995 the
Antitrust Division and FTC adopted Guidelines for the
Licensing of Intellectual Property which provide that
"The Agencies will not presume that a patent, copyright,
or trade secret necessarily confers market power upon its
owner. Although the intellectual property right confers the
power to exclude with respect to the specific product,
process, or work in question, there will often be sufficient
actual or potential close substitutes for such product,
process, or work to prevent the exercise of market
power."
Rep. Boucher's Opposition. In sharp contrast to the
testimony of Myrick and Baker, Rep. Rick Boucher
(D-VA) argued that their legislative proposals are
unnecessary. He stated: "I am a little bit perplexed
about why we need to pass the bill. ... Let me start by asking
just a baseline question. Would you agree that in the seminal
Supreme Court treatment of this subject, which is the
Jefferson Parish decision of 1984, that the Court basically
said that this presumption of market power only arises when
there is a showing that there is no alternative source for the
product?" He continued that "Joel Klein,
representing the Justice Department was here in 1996 when this
same bill had been placed before the Committee. ... He said,
'In addition to case law, the vast majority of antitrust
scholars and commentators for many years have concluded that
the mere existence of a mere patent, copyright or trade secret
does not necessarily confer market power upon its owner.' And
then he went on to say, and he concluded his testimony by
saying, 'So strong is the consensus on this point that it
raises the question as to whether this bill is really
necessary.' "
Rep. Boucher also stated that "It would appear to me that
the Supreme Court's decision in 1984 basically said that
unless the plaintiff can demonstrate no alternative source for
the product, there is no presumption of market power merely by
virtue of the presence of an intellectual property
interest." Rep. Boucher continued that there has been no
case law since 1984 holding that there is a presumption of
market power in the absence of a showing of no alternative
source.
"I really don't perceive a need to adopt this
legislation," Rep. Boucher concluded. "I am
concerned that if we pass this, in the absence of a clear need
to do it, it is a change to the nation's antitrust laws. We
make those changes very sparingly, and for good reason,
because when we make a change it is going to be interpreted by
the courts to mean something. And, if the Supreme Court, which
already says that there is no presumption in the absence of a
showing of lack of substitutable product, sees that we have
gone ahead and made this change anyway, I am just concerned
about how our action is going to be interpreted, and whether,
for example, it is going to make it more difficult to
establish market power in appropriate cases, where it really
does exist. That will now become a burden upon the plaintiff
in those instances. And, I am also concerned about what effect
this change might have on collateral, well settled, antitrust
policy, such as, for example, the abuse intellectual property
concept."
PressPlay and MusicNet. Rep. Chris Cannon
(R-UT) began by stating that "owners of intellectual
property should have the inherent right to control how that
property is used." He then launched into a discussion of
antitrust and intellectual property issues associated with
online music.
He said this: "While I recognize that the purpose of this
hearing is to address patent issues, I would like to take a
moment to delve into the related topic of copyright in this
context. The music industry is struggling with these issues as
we speak. I have heard the collaboration among the major
record labels to create two entities to address online music
sales and distribution, known as PressPlay and MusicNet. These two
ventures will control approximately 80% of the digital music
content available online by cross licensing each others'
content. Recently, Vivendi
CEO Edgar Bronfman explained how he hoped their candidate,
PressPlay, will work. He said 'PressPlay has what we call an
affiliate model, where we determine the price and we offer a
percentage of that price to the retailing partner, in this
case, either Microsoft or Yahoo or MP3. The reason we have
chosen that, frankly, is because we are concerned that the
continuing devaluation of music will proceed unabated unless
we do something about it. If you allow an AOL or a RealNetwork
or a Microsoft or others who have very different business
models to use music to promote their own business model, and
simply pay the artists and the record companies the minimums,
they can advantage themselves on the back of the music
industry in a way which continues to devalue music. We don't
want to see that happen.' The end of his quote. Do you see
antitrust concerns in such an environment where two
collaborative efforts are able to control 80% of the market to
prevent the so called price devaluation that Mr. Bronfman
intends?"
Rep. Cannon and Rep. Boucher are the sponsors of HR
2724, the Music Online Competition Act (MOCA), which deals
with this topic. Myrick ducked the question by promising to
submit further written testimony later. However, he said that
tradition section one Sherman Act analysis would suffice.
Baker said that "I think the Congress has got to study
this and keep the right balance between the rights" of
owners and the public.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte
(R-VA) attempted to question the witnesses about what affect
the "traditional definition of market power has in the
digital environment" and whether there is a
"multiplier effect" in "a world where
communications are in a network". The witnesses had no
answers. |
|
|
| Information Tech Is
Foundation of Long Term Growth |
| 11/8. Federal
Reserve Board Vice Chairman Roger
Ferguson gave a speech
in which he stated that the "longer term prospects for
the U.S. economy remain sound, just as they were before
September 11. Our flexible markets, entrepreneurial spirit,
well educated work force, and major advances in information
technology provide a sound foundation for the long term growth
of productivity, employment, and standards of living." He
spoke in Washington DC to the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants National Conference on Banks and Savings
Institutions. The title was "Certified Public
Accountants: Partners in Financial Stability." |
|
|
|
| Hollings Tauzin Bill Would
Bar Foreign Government Control of U.S. Telecoms |
11/8. Rep. Billy
Tauzin (R-LA) introduced HR 3268 in the House. Sen. Ernest Hollings
(D-SC) introduced S
1668 in the Senate. These are companion bills titled the
"Foreign Government Ownership Act of 2001". Both
bills would prevent companies controlled by foreign
governments from obtaining any FCC license. They would have
the effect of preventing companies such as Deutsche Telekom
from acquiring U.S. telecommunications companies.
Specifically, these bills would amend Title 47 by adding a new
section 715 that would provide that "no license, permit,
or operating authority under this Act may be granted to or
held by a corporation, joint venture, partnership, other
business organization, trust, or other entity ... if that
corporation, joint venture, partnership, other business
organization, trust, or other entity is directly or indirectly
controlled by a foreign government or its representative
..."
These bills then define "directly or indirectly
controlled" as either "more than 25 percent of the
ownership, voting rights, capital stock, or other interest in
that corporation", "a foreign government or its
representatives has the authority to approve or disapprove the
appointment or employment of any officer of the
corporation", or "a foreign government or its
representative has the authority to exercise control over such
corporation, joint venture, partnership, other business
organization, trust, or other entity in any other
manner".
These bills are revisions of a bill Sen. Hollings introduced
in the 106th Congress -- S 2793.
Sen. Hollings stated that his bill would "bar outright
the transfer or issuance of telecommunications licenses to
providers who are more than 25 percent owned by a foreign
government. It would also bar the transfer of such licenses to
companies controlled by a foreign government. My reasons for
introducing this legislation have not changed from last year.
Nevertheless the events of the past year confirm more than
ever my conviction that foreign governments should not be
permitted to own U.S. telecommunications licenses." See,
Congressional Record, November 8, 2001, at page S11625. |
|
|
| Monday, Nov 12 |
Veterans' Day. The House will not meet. The Senate will not
meet. The FCC will be closed.
Day one of a three day meeting of the ICANN titled "Security
and Stability of the Internet Naming and Address Allocation
Systems". Location: Marina Beach Marriott,
Marina del Rey, California.
10:00 AM. There will be a press conference titled "U.S.
Internet Council State of the Internet Report". For more
information, contact Mark Rhoades at 703 536-5770. Location:
Lisagor Room, National Press
Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington DC. |
|
|
| Tuesday, Nov 13 |
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour and 2:00 PM
for legislative business. No recorded votes are expected
before 6:30 PM. The House will consider a number of measures
under suspension of the rules.
The Senate will meet at 10:30 AM. It will likely take up SJRes
28.
Day two of a three day meeting of the ICANN titled "Security
and Stability of the Internet Naming and Address Allocation
Systems". Location: Marina Beach Marriott,
Marina del Rey, California.
Deadline to submit applications to the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) for grants to finance the acquisition, construction and
installation of equipment, facilities and systems to provide
dial-up Internet access services in rural areas. This is a $2
Million pilot program to encourage entities to provide
Internet service in areas where it is unavailable. See, notice
in Federal Register, August 15, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 158, at
Pages 42836 - 42838.
10:00 AM. The Senate
Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to examine
homeland defense issues, focusing on sharing information with
local law enforcement. The witnesses will be Thomas Carey
(FBI), Bernard Kerik (Commissioner, NYC Police), and Martin
O'Malley (Mayor of Baltimore). Location: Room 226, Dirksen
Building.
5:30 PM. The House Rules
Committee will meet regarding the conference report on HR
2500, the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary
Appropriations Act for FY 2002. This includes funding most of
the technology related agencies and departments, including the
USPTO, FCC, FTC, DOJ, NTIA, NIST, BXA, and SEC. |
|
|
| Wednesday, Nov 14 |
The House will likely take up HR
2500, the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary
Appropriations Act for FY 2002 Conference Report. This
includes funding most of the technology related agencies and
departments, including the USPTO, FCC, FTC, DOJ, NTIA, NIST,
BXA, and SEC.
8:15 AM - 7:00 PM. Day one of a two day conference hosted by
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Northwestern
University Law School titled Securities Regulation in the
Global Internet Economy. See, SEC
release. Location: Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1000 H Street NW,
Washington DC.
8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Cato
Institute will host a conference titled The Future of
Intellectual Property in the Information Age. See, online
conference program. Location: Cato Institute, corner of
Massachusetts Ave. NW and 10th St., Washington DC.
Day three of a three day meeting of the ICANN titled "Security
and Stability of the Internet Naming and Address Allocation
Systems". Location: Marina Beach Marriott,
Marina del Rey, California.
8:30 AM. The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) will host a day
long event titled "Public Policy Forum: International
E-Commerce & Internet Regulation." See, online brochure. Location:
Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street NW (at Connecticut
Ave.), Washington DC.
9:00 AM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Bureau of Export Administration's
Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC). The
ISTAC advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration on technical questions that affect the level of
export controls applicable to information systems equipment
and technology. Part of this meeting will be opened to the
public, and part will be closed. The items on the open session
agenda include Intel IA64 Roadmap, Applied Micro Devices (AMD)
Roadmap, ultra wide band (UWB) technology, and membership
coverage of control list categories 3 (electronics), 4
(computers), and 5 (telecommunications and information
security). Location: Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street
between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington
DC. See, notice in Federal Register, October 30, 2001, Vol.
66, No. 210, at Pages 54749 - 54750.
10:00 The Senate
Judiciary Committee's Technology, Terrorism, and
Government Information Subcommittee will hold a hearing to
examine new technologies for terrorism prevention, focusing on
biometric identifiers. Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will preside. Location: Room 226,
Dirksen Building.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media
Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker
will be Ken Ferree, Chief of the FCC's Cable Services Bureau.
Location: National Association
of Broadcasters, ground floor conference room, 1771 N
Street, NW, Washington, DC.
2:00 PM. FTC Chairman Timothy
Muris will participate in a panel discussion at the
American Bar Association Presidential Showcase Program titled
"Antitrust Initiatives in Europe and the United
States." Location: Willard Hotel, Washington DC.
3:00 - 5:00 PM. The American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion on
the book Free
Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: The Future of the World Trade
Organization (Amazon). The participants will be Claude
Barfield (author), Christopher DeMuth (AEI), Robert Keohane
(Duke), John Jackson (Georgetown University Law School), and
Stephen Krasner (Stanford). Location: AEI, Wohlstetter
Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, 1150 17th Street, NW,
Washington DC. |
|
|
| More Bills Introduced |
11/8. Rep. Earl
Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced HR 3257, a bill to limit the
antitrust exemption applicable to broadcasting agreements made
by professional sports leagues. It was referred to the House
Judiciary Committee.
11/8. Rep. Lynn Rivers
(D-MI) introduced HR 3266, a bill to amend Title 18 (criminal
code) to prohibit unauthorized trafficking in personal DNA
information. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. |
|
|
| Reports on Bills |
11/9. A conference committee issued its conference report HR
2500, the FY 2002 appropriations bill for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related
agencies. This includes funding for most of the technology
related departments and agencies, including the Antitrust
Division, FTC, FCC, NTIA, BXA, SEC, and NIST. See, Report No.
107-278.
11/8. The Senate Judiciary Committee issued its report on S
1319, a bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of
Justice for FY 2002. See, Report No. 107-96. |
|
|
| USPTO Announcement Re Mail
Delays |
| 11/9. The USPTO
issued a statement
that since October 21, 2001 it "has been experiencing an
interruption in delivery of United States Mail sent to our
20231 zip code." The USPTO added that if it "begins
to receive this mail in large batches, it may create internal
processing delays. These delays may remain in effect until the
USPTO is able to eliminate any backlogs which have been
created. For time sensitive correspondence (e.g., after final
amendments) that were mailed during the last few weeks, it may
be desirable to contact the examiner or TC Customer Service
Center to determine whether the paper has been received and
whether alternative delivery options (e.g., facsimile) should
be considered. Under such circumstances, the normal guidance
against duplicate papers is not applicable." The
announcement also addresses alternative methods of delivery,
including express mail, fax, and hand delivery. |
|
|
| People and Appointments |
11/5. Global
Crossing named Mike McDuffie VP for Federal Programs. He
is a retired Army general and former director for logistics
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. Department of
Defense. See, release.
11/8. The Senate confirmed Jay Stephens to be Associate
Attorney General. |
|
|
| More News |
11/8. The U.S. District Court (DDC) issued an order [PDF]
regarding further procedures and deadlines in the the Microsoft
antitrust case.
11/5. Albert Foer, President of the American Antitrust
Institute, sent a letter
to Charles James, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division opposing the EchoStar
DirecTV merger.
11/9. The House Government Reform Committee's Government
Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental
Relations Subcommittee held a hearing titled "Have
Federal Agencies Failed to Protect Their Computer
Systems?" See, prepared
testimony [PDF] of Robert Dacey of the GAO titled "Computer
Security: Improvements Needed to Reduce Risk to Critical
Federal Operations and Assets".
11/9. IBM announced that IBM and the Department of Energy's
National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) to expand IBM's Blue
Gene research project. IBM and NNSA's Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory will jointly design a new supercomputer in
the Blue Gene family -- named Blue Gene/L -- that IBM expects
to operate at about 200 teraflops (200 trillion operations per
second). See, IBM
release. |
|
|
| Subscriptions |
| Starting on January 1, 2002, the Tech Law Journal Daily
E-Mail Alert will be a subscription based service. All persons
who have already subscribed, or who subscribe before December
31, 2001, will be kept on the subscription list until December
31, 2001. The basic rate for a subscription is $250 per year.
However, there are discounts for entities with multiple
subscribers. Free one month trial subscriptions are available.
Also, free subscriptions are available for law students,
journalists, elected officials, and employees of the Congress,
courts, executive branch. The TLJ web site will remain a free
access web site. No hyperlinks will be broken. However, copies
of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert and news items will not be
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page. |
|
|
| About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal is a free access web site and e-mail alert
that provides news, records, and analysis of legislation,
litigation, and regulation affecting the computer and Internet
industry. This e-mail service is offered free of charge to
anyone who requests it. Just provide TLJ an e-mail address.
Number of subscribers: 2,244.
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2001 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|