|Supreme Court Returns from Recess
|1/13. The Supreme Court returned
from its long holiday recess. It released no opinions. However, it did release a
List [32 pages in PDF]. What is most significant is the cases that the Supreme
Court decided not to review.
First, it denied certiorari in a case involving personal jurisdiction based
upon Internet activities (ALS Scan v. Digital Services Consultants). Second,
the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a copyright case involving the fair use
defense (Ty v. Publications International).
Finally, the Supreme Court issued an order in the Intel v. Advanced Micro
Devices. It stated, in part, that "The Solicitor General is invited to file a
brief in this case expressing the views of the United States." See, stories
|Supreme Court Requests Solicitor General
Brief in Intel v. AMD
|1/13. The Supreme Court
announced in its
List [32 pages in PDF] that the
Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in
Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices. On June 6, 2002, the
U.S. Court Court of Appeals (9thCir)
opinion [10 pages in PDF] in this case holding that discovery is available
in the U.S. pursuant to
§ 1782 for a complainant in an Article 82 antitrust matter
before the European Commission.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)
filed a complaint with the
Directorate General-Competition of the
alleging that Intel violated
Article 82 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits "abuse by one or
more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market."
AMD then sought discovery from Intel under
§ 1782, which provides that "The district court of the district
in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his
testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for
use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal ..."
AMD sought documents from Intel pertaining to another antitrust
action in the U.S. against Intel (Intergraph case). Intel objected.
AMD sought to compel discovery in the
U.S. District Court (NDCal). The District Court held that the EC
action was not a proceeding within the meaning of Section 1782. AMD
The Court of Appeals stated that Section 1782 is broad and
inclusive and includes quasi judicial and administrative bodies, and
preliminary investigations leading to judicial proceedings. It held
that "the EC is an administrative body and that the investigation
being conducted by its Directorate is related to a quasi- judicial
or judicial proceeding. AMD has the right to petition the EC to stop
what it believes is conduct that violates the EC Treaty, to present
evidence it believes supports its allegations, to have the EC
evaluate what it presents and to have the resulting action (or
inaction) reviewed by the European courts. Although preliminary, the
process qualifies as a ``proceeding before a tribunal´´ within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782."
Moreover, the Appeals Court held that Section 1782 does not
"require a threshold showing on the party seeking discovery that
what is sought be discoverable in the foreign proceeding." The
Appeals Court reversed and remanded to the District Court.
case has attracted outside attention. For example, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus
curiae brief. It argued that "Under the Ninth Circuit's ruling, any company
that operates abroad can obtain nearly unlimited access to the
business documents and competitive plans of its business rivals by filing a
complaint with the European Commission and then seeking discovery under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1782. Under the Ninth Circuit's decision, the company is allowed this
discovery without taking on any costs or risks of litigation, even though the
discovery is not necessary to the decisionmaking of the Commission. By breezing
past the statutory requirements that limit Section 1782 discovery to an
person" "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international
tribunal" and ignoring the discovery rules of the European Commission, the
Ninth Circuit's ruling, if not reviewed by this Court, would open the door to
businesses seeking to harass and obtain sensitive information from their
U.S.-based rivals by exploiting the liberal discovery rules of the United
Perhaps the Solicitor General himself,
Ted Olson, will
not file the brief. Prior to his appointment as Solicitor General, he was a
partner in the law firm of
Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, which represents AMD in this case. O'Melveny
& Myers represents Intel.
|Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Personal
|1/13. The Supreme Court denied
certiorari in ALS Scan v. Digital Service Consultants, a case regarding personal
jurisdiction over an out of state Internet Service Provider (ISP). On June 14, the
U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its
that the District Court lacks personal jurisdiction. (This is SCUS No.
ALS Scan is a Maryland corporation with its place of
business in Columbia, a Maryland suburb situated between Washington DC and
Baltimore. ALS Scan is in the business of taking girly pictures, which it
then markets over the Internet. ALS Scan alleges that Alternative Products
and Robert Wilkins copied some of its photographs, and published them in
their web sites for commercial gain. Digital Service Consultants is an ISP
in Georgia that provides web hosting services to Alternative Products and
ALS filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (DMd) against
Digital, Alternative, and Wilkins alleging copyright infringement. Digital
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Digital
alleged that it has no office or customers in Maryland, that it derives no
revenues from Maryland, and that it does not advertise in Maryland, except
by having a web site. The District Court granted Digital's motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. ALS filed this interlocutory appeal. The
Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Appeals Court hinted that Supreme Court review might be appropriate.
It wrote that "Until the
due process concepts of personal jurisdiction are reconceived and
rearticulated by the Supreme Court in light of advances in technology ..."
However, the Supreme Court did not take the hint. It denied certiorari.
See also, stories titled "Internet Shoes: Two Appeals Courts Address Internet
Based Personal Jurisdiction", "Fourth Circuit Holds No Personal Jurisdiction
Over Out of State Web Host", and "DC Circuit Suggests Personal Jurisdiction Over
Out of State Online Brokerage", all published in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 452, June 17, 2002.
There have also been several more recent cases addressing personal
jurisdiction based upon Internet contacts. On January 9, 2003, the U.S.
District Court (CDCal) issued an opinion in MGM
v. Grokster in which it denied Sharman Network's motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Sharman, which now owns the key assets of Kazaa,
is organized in
Vanuatu. Sharman provides
free software, known as the Kazaa Media Desktop (KMD), that can be downloaded and used
to search for and exchange digital music, movies, and other mostly copyrighted
works, using FastTrack file sharing technology. The Court based its finding of
personal jurisdiction largely on
the fact that Sharman had made the KMD software available to about two million
residents of California. See, story titled "District Court Squeezes Sharman on Internet Based Personal Jurisdiction"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 581, January 13, 2003.
On December 10, 2002, the
High Court of Australia issued its
Dow Jones v. Gutnick, a case involving
personal jurisdiction and other procedural issues in a tort action
brought in Australia for an allegedly defamatory news story published on the
Internet by Dow Jones, a U.S. publisher. The Court held that because of
publication on the Internet, the Australian courts have jurisdiction. See,
story titled "High Court Rules Australia
Has Jurisdiction Over Dow Jones Based on Web Publication",
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 564, December 10, 2002.
On December 13, 2002, the The
U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its
pages in PDF] in
Young v. New Haven Advocate, holding that a court in Virginia
does not have jurisdiction over two small newspapers, and their editors and
reporters, located in Connecticut, who wrote allegedly defamatory stories about
a Virginia prison warden and published them on the Internet. The Court held that
the web publication did not establish minimum contacts because the newspapers
are not directed at a Virginia audience. See, TLJ story titled
Circuit Rules in Internet Jurisdiction Case.
|E-Commerce Proponent to Become Solicitor
General of Texas
|1/13. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
announced that Ted Cruz will leave his position as Director of the FTC's Office
of Policy Planning at the end of January to become Solicitor General of the State of Texas. See,
At the FTC Cruz has been active in studying and advocating the reduction of
unnecessary regulatory barriers to electronic commerce. In his new job in Texas, he will
represent a state known for imposing barriers to e-commerce. Texas ranked 31st
in the Progressive Policy Institute's
statistical study [huge
PDF file] titled "The Best States for E-Commerce". This
March 2002 study rated Texas low in particular for its regulatory barriers to Internet
based sales of automobiles and wine, and mortgage lending.
He testified on September 26, 2002, at the
House Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection hearing titled "State
Impediments to E-Commerce: Consumer Protection or Veiled Protectionism?" See,
He co-signed a
letter from the FTC and Department of
Justice (DOJ) to the American Bar Association (ABA) regarding the ABA's
proposed definition of the practice of law. One of the issues addressed in this
long letter was the impact on e-commerce. This letter stated that "In addition
to the significant restrictions on consumer choice and increases in consumer
costs that flow from an overly broad definition of the practice of law in the
non-electronic realm, such restrictions are also likely to impede substantially
the growth of e-commerce and software-based solutions. The Internet is changing
how many goods and services are delivered, and consumers benefit from the
increased choices and convenience and decreased costs that the Internet can
deliver. Yet over-broad restrictions on the practice of law can impair the
growth of e-commerce by (1) prohibiting or increasing the costs of electronic
provision of forms or other legal self-help computer programs, (2) negatively
impacting Internet mortgage lenders who rely on lay real estate closers, and (3)
restricting the ability of providers to experiment and develop new forms of
Internet services touching on legal matters that could benefit consumers
He co-signed a comment to the
state of Connecticut on March 27, 2002, criticizing state bans on sales of
contact lens by out of state vendors as unnecessary to protect health, and an
impediment to e-commerce. He co-signed an
amicus curiae brief
[PDF] filed with the U.S. District Court (Okla) in a case filed by an Internet
based casket retailer against the state of Oklahoma challenging the
constitutionality of Oklahoma's Funeral Services Licensing Act. Cruz also helped
organize a workshop at the FTC on October 8 through 10,
2002, titled "Possible Anticompetitive Efforts to Restrict Competition on the
web site, with links to testimony of participants.
Before his appointment at the FTC, Cruz was briefly Associate Deputy Attorney
General at the Department of Justice. Before that, he was a Domestic Policy
Advisor on the Bush Cheney campaign. He also assisted in the preparation of
briefs for the U.S. Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court on behalf of George
Bush during the Florida election contest. Before that, he was an associate at
the Washington DC law office of Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal. He also clerked for
Judge Mike Luttig (4th Cir) and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
|Consumer Groups Write Senate Commerce
Committee Re Regulation of Bells
|1/13. The Consumers Union (CU)
and the Consumer Federation of America
(CFA) wrote a letter to
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and
Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), the
Chairman and ranking Democrat on the
Senate Commerce Committee, regarding impending Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) actions pertaining to "competition in local telephone and
advanced Internet service markets".
The two groups argue in the letter that "Congress has a simple choice
to make: either regulate the Bell's wires to
promote competition by preserving unbundled network element (``UNE´´) pricing and
availability, or deregulate at the wholesale level, allowing the Bells to expand
their local market dominance into long distance. If you choose the latter
course, it is virtually certain that the vast majority of consumers will never
see meaningful competition for their local and long distance needs, and
therefore the states and FCC will need to regulate to prevent inflated prices
and discriminatory practices."
They added that "The only thing that Congress must not permit is the
path that appears to be
favored by Chairman Powell-deregulation of the Bell monopolies -- a path that
short-circuits local competition in violation of the Act without any protection
for consumers. That would be the worst of both worlds -- no regulation to protect
consumers and no competition to keep prices and service quality in check."
|Sen. Grassley Writes FBI Re FISA Warrants
|1/9. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) wrote a
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director
Robert Mueller in which he expressed his concern that the FBI recently gave an
award for "meritorious service", and a monetary bonus, to Spike Bowman, who is
Deputy General Counsel.
Grassley (at right) wrote that Bowman "who is in charge of the FBI's National
Security Law Unit, has a great deal of authority at the FBI over the use and
processing of warrants sought under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),
one of the FBI's most important tools against terrorists." Sen. Grassley
continued that Bowman had played a role in denying the request for a FISA
warrant for Zaracarias Moussaoui prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11,
Sen. Grassley concluded that "By granting this award and a monetary bonus,
you are sending the wrong signal
to those agents who fought -- sometimes against senior FBI bureaucrats at
headquarters -- to prevent the attacks. This also fits with a disturbing pattern
of rewarding wrongdoing or mistakes by top officials at the FBI that I hoped
would end during your tenure. Also, you have said that the FBI must admit its
mistakes, but it seems that is not happening in this case."
Sen. Grassley is a senior member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees
the FBI and Department of Justice.
|Reps. Boucher and Doolittle Introduce
Digital Fair Use Bill
|1/7. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
introduced HR 107
[10 pages in PDF], the "Digital Media
Consumers' Rights Act of 2003". This is essentially the same bill as
HR 5544 (107th), a bill by the same title that the two introduced late in
the 107th Congress. See,
titled "Reps. Boucher and Doolittle Introduce Digital Media Consumer Rights
Act", October 3, 2002.
The bill would do several things. First, it would require that certain
information be placed on the labels of music discs, and that a violation would
constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice within the meaning of the
Federal Trade Commission Act. However, this is not the more important part of
the bill. It does serve, however, to give the
House Commerce Committee primary
jurisdiction. The House Judiciary
Committee, which has jurisdiction over intellectual property issues, is more
protective of the interests of intellectual property owners.
Second, and more importantly, the bill would roll back the anti-circumvention
provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Specifically, it would create fair use exceptions to the bans on circumvention
of technological measures to protect copyrighted works. It would also provide an
exception for scientific research into technological protection measures.
Rep. Boucher (at
right) discussed his bill
in a statement
that he submitted for the Congressional Record of January 7. He said that "The
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) tilted the balance in our
copyright laws too heavily in favor of the interests of copyright owners and
undermined the longstanding fair use rights of information consumers, including
research scientists, library patrons, and students at all education levels. With
the DMCRA, we intend to restore the historical balance in our copyright law that
has served our nation well in past years."
The bill is also cosponsored by Rep.
Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Rep. Patrick
Kennedy (D-RI). See also, Rep. Boucher's
and section by section analysis
of the DMCRA.
Explanation of Key Fair Use Provisions of Bill. Currently,
§ 1201(a)(1)(A) of the Copyright Act, which was added in 1998 by the DMCA,
provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." See,
Then, § 1201(a)(2)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture, import,
offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product,
service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily designed
or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"
Furthermore, § 1201(b)(1)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture,
import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology,
product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily
designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a
technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner
under this title in a work or a portion thereof;"
The Boucher Doolittle bill would add to both of these sections an exception
for scientific research. Specifically, the bill provides that "Subsections
(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(A) ... are each amended by inserting after ‘‘title’’ in
subsection (a)(2)(A) and after ‘‘thereof’’ in subsection (b)(1)(A) the
following: ‘‘unless the person is acting solely in furtherance of scientific
research into technological protection measures’’."
Then, there is the critical part of the bill. Currently, § (c)(1) provides
that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or
defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
The Boucher Doolittle bill would add to this sentence the following phrase: "and
it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in
connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not
result in an infringement of the copyright in the work".
Also, the bill would add to § (c) the following new subparagraph: "(5) It
shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make
noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling
significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work."
Reaction. Rep. Boucher released a
supporters of the bill. It includes corporations, such as Intel, Sun
Microsystems, Philips, and Verizon. It also include library and university
groups. Finally, it includes groups more focused on digital copyright issues such a
The bill also has its critics. For example,
Business Software Alliance (BSA)
VP for Policy Robert Cresanti stated in a
release that "We have important reservations, however, about the changes his
bill would make to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. The DMCA provides important tools in the fight against piracy.
We fear that broad exemptions to the DMCA could undermine the core purpose of
the Act -- that technological measures can have an important and proper role in
curbing piracy. Our principal reservation is that the bill could make it harder
for software companies to take action against pirates."
|Sen. Edwards Proposes Including Internet in Emergency
|1/9. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and
Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) introduced S 118,
The Emergency Warning Act of 2003, a bill to expand the national emergency warning
system. It was referred to the Senate
Commerce Committee, of which both are members.
Sen. Edwards spoke in the
Senate in support of this bill. He said that "In the event of a terrorist attack
or natural disaster, Americans must know how to respond. In the first terrible
hours on September 11, 2001, in Washington, in New York, and across the country,
most of us didn't know what to do." He said that "the first thing we need to do
is to update our emergency warning system." See, Cong. Rec., January
9, 2002, at S153-4.
Sen. Edwards (at right) issued a
states that "The Commerce Department would be responsible for developing new
technologies to issue warnings, modeled on the existing system used by the
department's National Weather Service. Commerce also would oversee research into
new tools for disseminating warnings to more people, including the Internet,
cell phones, special rings on traditional telephones and new television
technology to activate sets that are not turned on." Sen. Edwards
also released a
the bill which contains similar language.
He also elaborated in his Senate statement that "There are a lot of
things the system could do using existing technology. For
example, it could alert Americans in their homes through a special phone ring.
These warnings could reach people as they sleep in their homes. For people on
the move, the system could use cell phones, which can already be programmed to
broadcast emergency warnings to all users in a certain area -- even if those folks
are just passing through. Pagers and beepers can achieve the same result.
Televisions can be programmed to come on automatically and provide alerts in the
event of a disaster."
The National Weather Service (NWS) is a
part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) which is a part of the
Department of Commerce (DOC). However, the Emergency Alert System (EAS) is
controlled by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which
is independent of the DOC.
The U.S. for a long time had an Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). It was
replaced in 1994 by the Emergency Alert
System (EAS). The EAS is covered by Part 11 of the Rules of the FCC. See,
47 C.F.R. §§ 11.1, et seq. Currently, all broadcast stations, cable systems and
wireless cable systems are required to install EAS equipment,
although there is an exception for nonparticipating national sources.
The FCC updated its EAS rules in February of 2002. See,
Report and Order
in the proceeding titled "In the Matter of Amendment of Part 11 of the
Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System". This is EB Docket
No. 01-66. In its discussion of programmed channels of wireless cable systems
the FCC's Report and Order makes clear that "Programmed channels do not include
channels used for the transmission of data services such as Internet."
|Rep. Honda Introduces Nanotechnology Bill
|1/9. Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)
introduced HR 283, the Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Advisory Board Act of
2003. It was referred to the House
Science Committee, of which he is a member. Rep. Honda also introduced a
similar bill last fall,
Rep. Honda (at right) stated in a
release that "The nanotechnology industry could become one of the new
engines of our economy, and will have a dramatic impact on society ... It is of
utmost importance that the United States lead in the development of the
nanotechnology industry. My legislation will make sure that the federal
government has an aggressive, achievable, and measurable plan."
The bill provides that "There is established the Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology Advisory Board (in this Act referred to as the ``Advisory
Board´´). The Advisory Board shall operate in coordination with the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and shall provide advice to the
President and the National Science and Technology Council on research investment
policy, strategy, program goals, and management processes relating to
nanoscience and nanotechnology."
The bill is cosponsored by Rep. Sheila Lee (D-TX), Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA),
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Rep. Joe Hoeffel
(D-PA), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC).
|More New Bills
|1/8. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
introduced HR 247, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce
(which includes the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office), Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. The bill covers the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It was
referred to the House
1/8. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM)
introduced HR 329, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to
make grants for regional workshops designed to permit educators in elementary
and secondary schools to share
strategies for mathematics and science instruction. It was referred to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
1/9. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduced S 113
and S 123, bills to exclude United States
persons from the definition of "foreign power" under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA). The bills were referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee, of
which he is a member.
|More Court Opinions
|1/13. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued
[MS Word] in Plant
Genetic Systems v. Dekalb, a patent infringement case
involving the issue of enablement. The U.S.
District Court (DConn) concluded that certain claims of PGS's
U.S. Patent No. 5,561,236 titled "Genetically engineered plant cells and
plants exhibiting resistance to glutamine synthetase inhibitors, DNA fragments
and recombinants for use in the production of said cells and plants" were
invalid for lack of enablement.
35 U.S.C. § 112
requires that a patent application must "contain a written description of the
invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full,
clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to
which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use
the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of
carrying out his invention." The Appeals Court affirmed.
1/9. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (FedCir)
issued its opinion [MS
Word] in Oakley v. Sunglass Hut, a
patent infringement case involving the sunglasses lens technology. The
District Court (CDCal) granting
Oakley a preliminary injunction on its claim of infringement of its
U.S. Patent No. 5,054,902. The Appeals Court affirmed.
1/9. The U.S.
District Court (DC)
issued a Memorandum Opinion [PDF] in
v. Ashcroft regarding discovery of electronic evidence.
See also, McPeek v. Ashcroft, 202 F.R.D. 31 (D.D.C. 2001).
1/9. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its
pages in PDF] in Daimler
Chrysler v. Bloom, a
trademark case involving the licensing of 1-800 numbers. Bloom is
a former Mercedes dealer who used the vanity number 1-800-637-2333.
This is one of many numbers that corresponds to 1-800-MERCEDES. He is no longer a
Mercedes dealer, but his licensing company, MBZ, licenses use of this number to
Mercedes dealers around the country for use in their area codes. Daimler Chrysler
and Mercedes filed a complaint against Bloom and MBZ in
U.S. District Court
that this licensing violates the Lanham Act, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act,
and state trademark and unfair competition laws. The District Court granted
summary judgment to Bloom and MBZ. The Appeals Court affirmed. It held that
"the licensing of a toll-free
telephone number, without more, is not a ``use´´
within the meaning of the Lanham Act, even where one possible alphanumeric
translation of such number might spell-out a protected mark."
1/9. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its
v. Valley Forge Insurance Company,
a case regarding an insurer's duty to defend its insured in a patent
infringement case under a commercial general liability policy, with personal
injury and advertising injury clauses. Homedics was sued for patent
infringement. Homedics file two actions in
Court (CDCal) against
various insurers for breach of contract, and for a declaration of duty to
defend. An insurer filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. The District Court granted the motion. Homedics appealed. The Court
of Appeals affirmed. Patent infringement claims are not an advertising injury.
|1/13. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) released the list of top patent
recipients in 2002. The top ten, in order, are IBM, Canon, Micron, NEC, Hitachi,
Matsushita, Sony, GE, HP, and Mitsubishi. See,
|Tuesday, January 14
|9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce
Committee will hold a hearing titled the "State of the Competition in
the Telecom Industry". Media contact: Andy Davis (Hollings) at 202
224-6654. The hearing will be webcast by
Capitol Hearings. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee will hold a hearings on the nomination of Tom Ridge to be
Secretary of Homeland Security. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir)
will hear oral argument in Peninsula Communications v. FCC, No.
01-1273. Petitioner is a radio broadcaster operating on the Kenai Peninsula in
south central Alaska. Judges Henderson, Randolph and Garland will preside.
Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the USPTO
to assist it in writing a report to the Congress regarding technological
protection systems for digitized copyrighted works and to prevent
infringement. This report is required by the Technology, Education and
Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002 (TEACH). See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 9, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 236, at
Pages 72920 - 72921. For more information, contact Michael Shapiro at 703
305-9300 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
|Wednesday, January 15
|9:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. See,
agenda. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW,
Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).
10:00 AM. The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) will hold a launch event for its new government wide payroll program
titled e-Payroll. RSVP to Rusty Asher at 202 606-2402. Location: OPM,
The Pendleton Room, Theodore Roosevelt Building, 1900 E Street, NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the NIST
regarding it plans to disseminate new data regarding condensed phase infrared
spectra through the Internet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 16, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 241, at
|Thursday, January 16
|12:15 PM. The FCBA's
Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "Engineering
Issues". The speakers will be John Wong and Michael Lance of FCC's Media
Bureau. For more information, contact Lisa Cordell at 202 939-7900. RSVP to
Wendy Parish at email@example.com. Location:
NCTA, 1724 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
12:15 PM. The FCBA's
Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be
planning for the new year. For more information, contact Yaron Dori at
firstname.lastname@example.org or Ryan Wallach at
Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th St., NW, Confr. Rm. 9E-407.
The FCBA's Diversity Committee
and Young Lawyers Committee will
host a series of Law School Outreach Programs for law students interested in
practicing communications law at Washington DC area law schools.
The event at American University will be held at 4:30 PM. The event at Catholic
University will be a 6:00 PM. The event at
George Mason University will be at 4:45 PM. The event at Georgetown University
Law Center will be at 5:30 PM. The event at Howard University will be at 4:30
|Friday, January 17
|EXTENDED AGAIN, TO FEBRUARY 18.
|Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [15 pages in PDF] in its proceeding
titled "In the Matter of Digital Broadcast Copy Protection". This NPRM
proposes that the FCC promulgate a broadcast flag rule, and seeks comment on
this, and related questions. This is MB Docket No. 02-230. See,
FCC release [PDF] and
Order [PDF] of October 11, 2002 extending deadlines. See also,
Order [PDF] of January 3, 2003.
|Monday, January 20
|Martin Luther King Day. The FCC will be closed.
The Securities and Exchange Commission's
(SEC) final rule
providing relief for Internet investment advisers goes into effect. The rule
exempts certain investment advisers who provide advisory services through the
Internet from the prohibition on SEC registration. The rule change permits
advisers whose businesses are not connected to any state to register with the
SEC instead of with state securities authorities. See also,
notice in Federal Register,
December 18, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 243, at Pages 77619 -77626, and story titled
"SEC Amends Rule for Internet Investment
Advisers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 568, December 16, 2002.
For more information, contact Marilyn Barker or Jamey Basham 202
|Tech Law Journal is instituting several new practices and procedures with the
New Year. All of these changes have one central purpose -- protecting the rights
of the author, David Carney.
The Tech Law Journal web site and the Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
(TLJ Alert) are both authored and published by David Carney. This is a business.
The sole source of revenue for this business is subscription payments for the
TLJ Alert. Yet, it is currently being widely infringed.
This is undermining the financial viability of the business.
from the Publisher, which summarizes the new practices and procedures.
Subscription Information page for price schedule, methods of payment, and
regarding "E-Mail Monitoring".
regarding "Disclosure of Information to Third Parties".
to law students explaining why free subscriptions for law students will end
after the January 17 issue.
of state officials' subscriptions" explaining why free subscriptions for
state government officials will end after the January 17 issue.
Form and Contract (for
firms, companies, groups, and other entities), or the shorter
Form and Contract (for
persons subscribing individually). These contracts are for new paying
subscribers, and paying subscribers renewing their
subscriptions. Persons receiving free subscriptions (journalists
and government officials) should not sign a contract. Paying
subscribers whose subscription term has not expired should not
sign a contract, until their existing subscription term expires
and they resubscribe.
And finally, see revised
|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 subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All