Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
August 6, 2002, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 485.
TLJ Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues
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.