| McCain Introduces Consumer
Broadband Bill |
8/1. Sen. John McCain
(R-AZ) introduced S 2863
[17 pages in PDF], the "Consumer Broadband Deregulation
Act". The bill would add a new title to the
Communications Act of 1934, titled "Consumer Broadband
Services". It would provide that "neither the
Commission, nor any State, shall have authority to regulate
the rates, charges, terms, or conditions for the retail
offering of consumer broadband service."
However, the McCain bill would leave the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), state and local governments free to regulate non
consumer broadband services. It provides that "Nothing in
this section precludes the Commission, or a State or local
government, from regulating the provision of any service other
than consumer broadband service, even if that service is
provided over the same facilities as are used to provide
consumer broadband service."
The McCain bill would further provide that "Except as
provided in subsection (b), neither the Commission nor any
State or political subdivision thereof shall have authority to
require a consumer broadband service provider to afford an
Internet service provider access to its facilities or services
for the purpose of offering a consumer broadband
service." Subsection (b) applies to entities that are
required by the FCC "to afford an Internet service
provider access to its facilities or services for the purpose
of providing consumer broadband service on the date of
enactment of the Consumer Broadband Deregulation Act".
The McCain bill also contains language pertaining to rights of
way based obstacles to broadband deployment. For example, it
provides that "A State or local government may not
require compensation from consumer broadband service providers
for access to, or use of, public rights of way that exceeds
the direct and actual costs reasonably allocable to the
administration of access to, or use of, public rights of
way."
The McCain bill also would amend 47 U.S.C.
§ 251 regarding unbundled access and collocation
requirements.
The McCain bill defines "consumer broadband
services" as "interstate residential high speed
Internet access services." It further provides that
"high speed" means whatever the FCC, by rule, says
it means.
The bill also defines "Internet access service" as
"a service that combines computer processing, information
storage, protocol conversion, and routing with
telecommunications to enable users to access Internet content
and services."
Other Broadband Bills. There are already numerous other
different proposals in the Senate relating to promoting
broadband deployment. For example, Sen. John Breaux (D-LA),
and others, introduced S 2430,
the Broadband Regulatory Parity Act of 2002, on April 30,
2002. It would require the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to promulgated "regulations to ensure that ... all
broadband services, and all broadband access services, are
subject to the same regulatory requirements, or no regulatory
requirements".
Sen. John Rockefeller
(D-WV) introduced S 88,
the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001, on January 22,
2001. This bill would offer a 10% tax credit per year for five
years to companies that deploy "current
generation broadband" telecom technologies to
both residents and businesses in rural or underserved urban
areas, and offer a 20% tax credit per year for five years to
companies that invest in "next generation broadband"
services to all residential customers.
Sen. Sam Brownback
(R-KS) introduced S 1126,
the Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of
2001, and S 1127,
the Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001, on June 28, 2001.
Walter McCormick, P/CEO of the U.S.
Telecom Association, and a former Senate Commerce
Committee staff member, stated in a release
that "It has become increasingly clear that there is an
extreme regulatory disparity that has delayed the deployment
of broadband across the nation and consumers, telecom workers
and the economy are all feeling the negative effects. USTA
supports legislative efforts to speed deployment for both
residential and business customers and urges the Senate to
take action as soon as possible to ensure stability in the
telecom sector and to help bolster the nation's economy." |
|
|
| Microsoft Addresses
Compliance with Proposed Settlement in Antitrust Case |
8/5. Microsoft
released a statement
regarding its "Microsoft Settlement Program", its
name for its efforts to comply with the proposed settlement
agreement with the Department
of Justice (DOJ) and some of the states which brought
antitrust actions against it. The statement addresses several
of the requirements imposed upon Microsoft by the proposed
settlement agreement, including use by third parties of
technology used by server operating system products to
interoperate with a Windows operating system product, new
uniform licensing terms for original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), and other subjects.
Microsoft entered into a proposed settlement agreement with
the DOJ and nine state Attorneys General in November of 2001.
The proposed settlement agreement was revised on February 27,
2002. Some non-settling states refused to join in the proposed
settlement agreement. The Court has not yet entered final
judgment. However, Microsoft has agreed to abide by the
agreement pending final resolution. There is an August 6, 2002
deadline in the agreement for compliance with certain
requirements of the agreement.
The DOJ Antitrust Division
also issued a statement
titled "Microsoft Consent Decree Compliance Advisory --
August 5, 2002", which addresses Section III.E. of the
proposed settlement agreement.
The DOJ advisory states that "Section III.E. of the
Proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to make available
for use by third parties on reasonable and non-discriminatory
terms certain technology used by server operating system
products to interoperate with a Windows operating system
product. Under the terms of Section III.E., Microsoft must
offer this technology for license no later than August 6,
2002. Microsoft has informed the Department that it will begin
to offer these licenses and start the process of negotiating
the terms with prospective licensees on August 6, and that
information concerning the licenses will be available on
Microsoft's website on that day."
The DOJ advisory continues that "Microsoft last week
provided the Department and representatives of the settling
states with drafts of the licenses that it proposes to offer.
The licenses are complex and present novel issues that require
comprehensive analysis. The Department has not pre-cleared the
licenses. The Department is undertaking a careful and thorough
review and evaluation of the terms of the proposed licenses to
determine whether the licenses comply with the Proposed Final
Judgment." |
|
|
| Sen. Cleland Introduces
Bill to Limit Online Collection of Information About Children |
8/1. Sen. Max Cleland
(D-GA) introduced S 2839, the Children's Electronic
Access Safety Enhancement (CEASE) Act. This is a bill to
regulate the collection and use of information about children
by Internet content management service providers, such as
companies which provide filtering technologies to schools and
libraries.
Section 1 of the bill is its title.
Section 2 of the bill provides, in part, that "A provider
of Internet content management services shall, before entering
into a contract or other agreement to provide such services to
or for an elementary or secondary school or library, notify
the local educational agency or other authority with
responsibility for the school, or library, as the case may be,
of the policies of the provider regarding the collection, use,
and disclosure of information from or about children whose
Internet use will be covered by such services." The bill
also covers the form of the notice, and modifications of
policy.
Section 3 of the bill both prohibits the collection of
information of about children, and regulates the collection of
such information. First, it provides that "A provider of
Internet content management services to or for an elementary
or secondary school or library may not collect through such
services personal information from or about a child who is a
student at that school or a user of that library." Then,
it provides that if a provider of Internet content management
services collects such information, it shall provide notice to
the school and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and treat
such information in a manner that is consistent with the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA).
The COPPA provides, in part, that "It is unlawful for an
operator of a website or online service directed to children,
or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is
collecting personal information from a child, to collect
personal information from a child in a manner that violates
the regulations prescribed under" the Act. See, 15
U.S.C. § 6502.
Section 4 of the bill would amend the definitions section of
the COPPA.
Cleland's bill would amend the definitional section of the
COPPA, 15
U.S.C. § 6501, by adding a new paragraph that would
include Internet content management services within the
meaning of web site operator for the purposes of the COPPA.
Sen. Cleland explained his bill in a statement in the Senate.
First, he said that "the bill requires an Internet
filtering government contractor to disclose its treatment of
collected information to the school or library with which it
is contracting. Additionally, if changes to these policies are
made, the filtering company must inform the school or library
of these changes. If adequate notice is not provided, the
entity has the option to cancel the contract. Armed with such
information about the company's practices, the school or
library officials can make an informed decision of whether it
wishes to contract with a particular company." See, Cong.
Rec., August 1, 2002, at page S7905.
He continued that "The Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act, COPPA, which passed Congress and was signed
into law in 1998, prohibits the collection of personal
information about children on commercial websites. In the
second section of my legislation, a similar COPPA prohibition
would extend to Internet content management services at
schools and libraries. If personal information is collected on
a child, the provider is required to inform the school or
library and the Federal Trade Commission and to indicate how
it will treat this information so that it will not be
disclosed or distributed. When children go to schools and
libraries, these environments are supposed to be safe."
Sen. Cleland argued that "Parents and guardians should
not have to worry about how their children's personal
information may be compromised, especially by a company that
markets itself to protect children and in some cases
facilitate learning. I believe my legislation will help put to
rest such concerns." |
|
|
|
| FBI Loses 317 Laptops |
8/5. The Department of
Justice's (DOJ) Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) audited and released a
series of reports on the control of laptop computers and
weapons at five DOJ components. It found a total of 400
missing laptops, and 775 missing weapons. For the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), it reported 317 missing laptops and 212 missing
weapons. Moreover, the OIG found that the FBI does not know if
sensitive data has been lost. See, Executive
Summary [43 pages in PDF].
The OIG audited and reported on the FBI, Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
The OIG report concluded that "We were unable to
determine the types of information contained in the 400 lost
laptop computers because the components generally did not
record the sensitivity of the information stored on the lost
laptops. For example, the classification level of at least 218
lost, missing, or stolen FBI laptop computers was unknown. Due
to the nature of the intelligence and law enforcement work
conducted by the components, however, it is possible that the
missing laptop computers would have been used to process and
store national security or sensitive law enforcement
information that, if divulged, could harm the public."
Moreover, the OIG found that "Our review of records
related to the lost laptop computers revealed that for the
majority of the losses, the components could not determine if
sensitive data had been lost because the written loss reports
did not detail the contents of the lost machines. The FBI
reported to us that the classification level of at least 218
of the lost, missing, and stolen laptop computers was
unknown."
The OIG further reported that "With respect to laptop
computers, the DEA could not provide us with the number of
losses due to the unreliability of its data. The FBI reported
317 of its more than 15,000 laptop computers as missing while
the USMS reported 56 of its 1,450 laptops as missing."
The OIG stated that this constitutes a "lack of
accountability for sensitive Department property", and
called for the DOJ "to increase its oversight role"
and "to tighten controls that are currently weak,
inadequate, or not fully implemented."
Finally, the report found that at the FBI the average time
between the discovery of the loss of a laptop and the initial
written report of that loss was 225 days.
The OIG audited or reported on the loss of laptop computers by
only five of the DOJ's components. It did not audit and report
on other DOJ components, such as the Antitrust Division (which
collects large quantities of confidential business information
in its merger reviews, investigations, and evaluations), the
Tax Division, the Criminal Division, or any of the U.S.
Attorneys Offices.
Sen. Charles Grassley
(R-IA), a member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, which oversees the DOJ, stated in a release
that "It's no surprise that hundreds of computers and
guns are missing from the Justice Department, but that doesn't
make it any easier to swallow. This problem has real
consequences, in criminal acts and danger to national
security."
See also, hyperlinks to the various OIG reports: The
Department of Justice's Control Over Weapons & Laptop
Computers (Report No. 02-31), The
Drug Enforcement Administration's Control Over Weapons &
Laptop Computers (Report No. 02-28), The
Federal Bureau Of Investigation's Control Over Weapons And
Laptop Computers (Report No. 02-27), The
Federal Bureau of Prisons' Control Over Weapons & Laptop
Computers (Report No. 02-30), and The
U.S. Marshals Service's Control Over Weapons & Laptop
Computers (Report No. 02-29). |
|
|
| GAO Releases Report
Criticizing Bush's Relaxing of MTOPS Levels for HPC Exports |
8/5. The General Accounting
Office (GAO) released a report [37
pages in PDF] titled "Export Controls: More Thorough
Analysis Needed to Justify Changes in High Performance
Computer Controls".
Background. The United States government regulates the
export of computers and microprocessors. It imposes export
controls on the export of computers and microprocessors based
upon an old performance measure -- million theoretical
operations per second (MTOPS). Individual computers and
microprocessors with an MTOPS rating above a certain level are
called "high performance computers" (HPC). Exports
of computers and microprocessors with MTOPS ratings above a
control threshold to certain countries -- known as Tier 3
countries -- such as Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and
Russia, require notice to the Department of Commerce of intent
to export.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 (Public Law
106-65, 113 stat. 798) gives the President authority to set
the MTOPS level above which computers exported to Tier 3
countries are subject to government regulation, provided that
he submits a report to Congress justifying his action. As
technology has advanced, the MTOPS threshold level has
repeatedly been raised.
On January 2, President Bush announced that the relaxation of
certain controls on the export of high performance computers
and microprocessors. Specifically, for Tier 3 countries, he
raised the threshold from 85,000 MTOPS to 190,000 MTOPS. See,
January 2, 2002 letter
from Bush to Congressional leaders informing them of the
change. See also, White
House release and statement
by the Deputy Press Secretary.
There has long been controversy in the regulation of computer
exports. Defense and intelligence agency hawks, and some
members of Congress on the committees which oversee defense
and intelligence agencies, have sought to rigorously limit the
export of computers and microprocessors. In contrast, some
proponents of the high tech industry, and proponents of free
trade and economic growth, have sought to relax export
controls.
GAO Report. The present GAO study reflects the
criticism and opposition within the Congress to relaxing
export restraints.
The GAO report states that the President's "report
justifying the changes in control thresholds for high
performance computers focused on the availability of high
performance computers. However, we found that the
justification did not fully address the requirements of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 1998."
For example, the GAO wrote that the President's report's
"prediction that computers capable of performing at the
new threshold will be widely available through foreign and
domestic companies by early 2002 has not materialized. We
found that only 1 of 10 companies cited in the report produces
computers with this capability. Other companies do not plan to
do so until 2003, or later, and some do not plan to do so at
all."
The GAO also wrote that the President's report "contains
little relevant analysis of the potential military uses of
computers with performance capabilities between the old and
new thresholds."
Finally, it concludes that the President's report "does
not adequately address what impact computers that perform at
levels between the old and new thresholds would have on
national security."
The report also assumes that MTOPS remains a reliable measure
of computing capability, and that its remains relevant,
despite technology for the clustering of multiple computers,
because of difficulties encountered by other countries in
operating clustered computers.
The report was prepared for the Chairmen and ranking members
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Banking
Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the House
International Relations Committee. |
|
|
| Sen. Kerrey Introduces Bill
for Relief of NextWave Re-Auction Winners |
8/1. Sen. John Kerry
(D-MA) and Sen. Sam
Brownback (R-KS) introduced S 2869, a bill pertaining to
the auction of spectrum currently tied up in the NextWave
litigation. It was referred to the Senate Commerce
Committee, of which both Sen. Kerry and Sen. Brownback are
members.
Sen. Kerry explained his bill in a statement in the Senate. He
said that "due to the uncertain legal status of licenses
related to that FCC Auction No. 35, several companies have
contingent liabilities in the millions or billions of dollars.
These contingent liabilities are damaging the companies'
ability to acquire additional spectrum to meet the urgent
needs of wireless consumers and to roll out new and innovative
services to consumers. The affected providers are the
successful bidders for wireless spectrum that the Federal
Communications Commission auctioned in Auction No. 35. Some of
the spectrum had previously been licensed to companies,
including NextWave Personal Communications Inc., whose
bankruptcy filings and subsequent failure to pay amounts due
to the FCC for their licenses led to the cancellation of those
licenses." See, Cong. Rec., August 1, 2002, at page
S7939.
Sen. Kerry continued that the bill would require "the FCC
promptly to refund to the winning bidders the full remaining
amount of their deposits and down payments. In addition, it
gives each winning bidder an opportunity to elect, within 15
days after enactment, to relinquish its rights and to be
relieved of all further obligations under Auction No. 35.
Those who choose to retain their rights and obligations under
Auction No. 35 will nonetheless be entitled to the return of
their deposits and down payments in the interim. If and when
the FCC is in a position to deliver the licenses at issue to
those who remain obligated, they will be required to pay the
full amount of their bid in accordance with the FCC's existing
regulations. Those who elect to terminate their rights and
obligations under Auction No. 35 will be free to pursue other
opportunities to acquire spectrum and serve consumers."
Background. NextWave
obtained spectrum licenses at FCC auctions in 1996. The FCC
permitted NextWave to obtain the licenses, and make payments
under an installment plan, thus creating a debtor creditor
relationship between NextWave and the FCC. NextWave did not
make payments required by the plan, and filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition. The FCC cancelled the licenses. It then
proceeding to re-auction the disputed spectrum. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir)
ruled in its June 22, 2001 opinion
that the FCC is prevented from canceling the spectrum licenses
by § 525
of the Bankruptcy Code.
The FCC petitioned the Supreme Court for
writ of certiorari. The Court granted certiorari. The Supreme
Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday, October 8, 2002, in FCC
v. Nextwave, Case No. 01-653, and Arctic Slope Corp. v.
Nextwave, Case No. 01-657. |
|
|
|
| FCC Suspends Enforcement of
CIPA for Libraries Seeking E-Rate Subsidies |
8/5. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice
in the Federal Register that as of August 5, 2002, it has
suspended enforcement against libraries those sections of 47
CFR § 54.520 that were adopted to implement 47 U.S.C. §
254(h)(6). That is, it has suspended enforcement of the
Children's Internet Protection Act as it applies to libraries
(but not schools).
The Children's
Internet Protection Act (CIPA) [PDF] requires schools and
libraries receiving e-rate subsidies from the FCC to utilize
certain technological protection measures, such as pormography
filtering software, on computers with Internet access. The
CIPA is codified in Section 254, the universal service section
of the Communications Act.
Pending resolution by the courts of a constitutional challenge
to the CIPA as it applies to libraries, the FCC has suspended
its rules as they apply to libraries. The FCC notice states
that "Because the court's decision does not address the
constitutionality of the CIPA requirements as they apply to
schools, all of the CIPA requirements as codified at sections
254(h)(5) and 254(l) and implemented by the Commission's rules
remain in effect for schools."
Specifically, the FCC wrote that "we suspend enforcement
of 47 CFR 54.520(c)(2)(i) and (iii), 54.520(c)(3), and
54.520(d) as they apply to all libraries, to the extent that
these provisions require any library to filter or certify to
such filtering under 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6). We further suspend
enforcement of 47 CFR 54.520(g)(1) as it applies to all
libraries."
See, Federal Register, August 5, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 150, at
Pages 50602 - 50603. |
|
|
| Tuesday, August 6 |
Michigan primary election. Rep. John Dingell
(D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee,
and Rep. Lynn Rivers
(D-MI) are running for the Democratic nomination in the same
district.
Deadline to submit comments to the Customs Service in response
to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the
Customs Regulations pertaining to the importation of
merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark to clarify the limit on
the amount of a civil fine which may be assessed by Customs
when merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark is imported. See, notice
in the Federal Register. |
|
|
| Wednesday, August 7 |
| 10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Honeywell
International v. Hamilton Sundstrand, No. 02-1005. This is
an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DDel) in a patent
infringement case involving aircraft turbine engines in which
the Court found Honeywell's patents valid, and awarded $46
Million in damages. Location: 717 Madison Place, NW, Courtroom
402. |
|
|
| Thursday, August 8 |
Day one of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC.
9:00 AM. Qwest Communications
will release its second quarter 2002 results at approximately
6:00 AM EDT. It will host a conference call at 9:00 AM EDT.
The participants will include Ch/CEO Richard Notebaert and
VCh/CFO Oren Shaffer. The event will be web cast.
See, Qwest
release.
9:30 AM. The FCC will hold a
meeting. The agenda
includes three items: (1) consideration of a NPRM regarding
digital broadcast copy protection; (2) consideration of a
Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion
regarding its policies and rules for conversion of the
broadcast television service to digital technology; this is MM
Docket No. 00-39; and (3) consideration of a Report and Order
regarding various Part 22 rules that have become outdated due
to technological change, increased competition in CMRS, or
supervening rules; this is WT Docket No. 01-108. Press
contact: Maureen Peratino or David Fiske at 202 418-0500. See,
FCC
release.
9:45 AM. The U.S.
District Court (DC) will hold a hearing in EPIC v. DOJ,
D.C. No. 2002 cv 0063. The EPIC filed
a complaint
against the Justice Department and Treasury Department,
pursuant to the under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
seeking records pertaining to the federal government's
purchase of personal information of individuals from private
sector database companies. Judge Colleen Kotelly will preside.
Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW, Courtroom 11.
Deadline to submit comment to the FCC regarding
the NTIA's
July 23 document
titled "An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating
Advanced Mobile Wireless (3G) Systems in the 1710-1770 MHz and
2110-2170 MHz Bands". The FCC has incorporated this
viability assessment into its Advanced Wireless Services proceeding
in ET Docket No. 00-258. See, public
notice [PDF]. |
|
|
| Friday, August 9 |
Day two of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC.
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force
will hold a public workshop titled "Spectrum Rights
and Responsibilities". First, Thomas Krattenmaker (Mintz
Levin) will give an historical view of spectrum rights and
responsibilities. Second, there will be a panel titled
"New Technologies and Spectrum Usage Rights". The
moderators will be Charla Rath (Verizon Wireless) and Paul
Kolodzy (FCC); the panelists will be David Farber
(University of Pennsylvania), David
Siddall (Paul Hastings),
Peter Pitsch (Intel),
Victor Tawil (MSTV), Steve
Sharkey (Motorola),
Bruce Fette (General
Dynamics), and Gee Rittenhouse (Lucent). Third, there will
be a panel titled "Modeling Licensed and Unlicensed
Spectrum Usage Rights". The moderators will be Michele
Farquhar (Hogan & Hartson)
and David Furth (FCC); the panelists will be Martin
Cave (Warwick Business School), Tom
Hazlett (Manhattan
Institute), Steve Stroh (Focus On Broadband Wireless
Internet Access), Michael
Calabrese (New
America Foundation), Larry Miller (LMCC/ AASHTO), David
Wye (AT&T Wireless), Michael Kurtis (Kurtis & Associates),
Jennifer Warren (Lockheed
Martin), and Joe Gatusso (NTIA). See, FCC
notice [PDF]. Webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting
Room, 445 12th Street, SW. |
|
|
| Saturday, August 10 |
| Day three of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC. |
|
|
| Sunday, August
11 |
| Day four of six of the American Bar
Association's annual meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC. |
|
|
| Monday, August 12 |
Day five of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
"regarding the sunset of the statutory requirements under
section 272 imposed on Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) when
they provide in-region, interLATA services and seeks comment
on whether, and if so, under what conditions, the structural
and nondiscrimination safeguards established in section 272
should be extended by the Commission either generally or with
respect to specific states." See, notice
in the Federal Register, June 21, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 120, at
Pages 42211 - 42215. |
|
|
| People and Appointments |
8/1. The Senate confirmed David Gross to be Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for International Communications
and Information Policy in the Bureau of Economic and Business
Affairs, and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications
and Information Policy.
8/1. The Senate confirmed Kathie Olsen and Richard
Russell to be Associate Directors of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
8/1. The Senate confirmed the following judicial nominees: Henry
Autrey (to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri), Richard Dorr (U.S.D.C,
Western District of Missouri), David Godbey (U.S.D.C
for the Northern District of Texas), Henry Hudson (U.S.D.C.
for the Eastern District of Virginia), Timothy Savage (U.S.D.C.
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania), Amy St. Eve
(U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois), David
Cercone (U.S.D.C. for the Western District of
Pennsylvania), and Morrison England (U.S.D.C. for the
Eastern District of California).
8/5. William Maher began work as the new Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) Wireline Competition
Bureau. |
|
|
| More News |
8/5. The National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement
Coordination Council (NIPLECC) published a notice
in Federal Register requesting comments regarding its agenda
and mission. The NIPLECC is co-chaired by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). See, Federal
Register, August 5, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 150, at Pages 50633 -
50634. See also, the NIPLECC's 2000
report.
8/5. President Bush gave a speech
at a Mike Fisher for Governor event in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, in which he addressed trade promotion authority.
He stated that "I also am the first governor -- President
-- in a long period of time to have what they call trade
promotion authority. It means that we're going to open up
markets for U.S. products, markets for the products of
Pennsylvania farmers, markets of the products of Pennsylvania
high tech companies. A confident nation is a nation willing to
trade. And this nation, as a result of the bill I just got and
am signing tomorrow, will be a free trading nation." |
|
|
| About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert 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, and
executive branch, and state officials. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert and
news items are not published in the web site until one month
after writing. See, subscription
information page.
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|