|Federal Circuit Rules in Rambus v.
|1/29. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir)
issued its split opinion
[MS Word] in Rambus
v. Infineon, a patent infringement case involving dynamic random
access memory (DRAM) products. The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's
judgment of non-infringement, as a matter of claim construction. It also
reversed the District Court's denial of a motion to set aside a jury verdict of
fraud based on failure to disclose patent and patent application information to
a standard setting body.
Introduction. In addition to claim construction issues, this case
involves Rambus's participation in what was known as the Joint Electron Device
Engineering Council (JEDEC). This body developed and issued technical standards
for a form of computer memory known as synchronous dynamic random access memory
(SDRAM), and later, double data rate (DDR) SDRAM. Rambus attended meetings for
years, but did not disclose that it had pending patent applications that, when
granted, might contain claims that would be infringed by devices made
pursuant to the standards being developed. A trial jury of the District Court
returned a verdict of fraud against Rambus based upon this non-disclosure conduct.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals overturns this. However, Rambus still faces a
Trade Commission (FTC) administrative complaint, based upon essentially the same
facts, but which alleges violation of antitrust law.
Background. Rambus is a Delaware corporation based
in Los Altos, California, that develops and licenses memory technologies to
companies that make semiconductor memory devices. It does not actually produce
semiconductors. Infineon is one company
that makes semiconductor products.
District Court. In 2000, Rambus filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (EDVa) against Infineon
alleging infringement of four of its patents, U.S. Patent 5,954,804, U.S. Patent
No. 5,953,263, U.S. Patent No. 6,034,918, and U.S. Patent No. 6,032,214. Infineon
counterclaimed for fraud under Virginia state law, based upon Rambus's non-disclosure
to the JEDEC of its patents and patent applications related to the SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM standards.
The District Court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of
non-infringement in favor of Infineon. The trial jury returned a verdict that
Rambus committed fraud during both the SDRAM and DDR-SDRAM standardization
process. Rambus moved for JMOL of no fraud, and alternatively, for a new trial.
The District Court denied this motion as to the SDRAM standard, but granted it
as to the DDR-SDRAM standard (on the basis that Rambus had left the JEDEC before
work officially began on the DDR-SDRAM standard). The District Court further
granted an injunction against Rambus, and awarded Infineon attorneys fees. Both
Appeals Court. A three judge panel of the Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment of non-infringement, and remanded the issue of infringement to the District Court. The Court was
unanimous on this issue.
Judge Randall Rader wrote the
opinion of the Court, in which Judge
William Bryson joined. Recently appointed
Sharon Prost dissented in part, on the fraud issue.
Judge Rader wrote that "because substantial evidence does not support the
implicit jury finding that Rambus breached the relevant disclosure duty during
its participation in the standards committee, this court reverses the denial of
JMOL that let the fraud verdict stand."
He reasoned that "To prove fraud in Virginia, a party must show by clear and
convincing evidence: 1) a false representation (or omission in the face of a
duty to disclose), 2) of a material fact, 3) made intentionally and knowingly,
4) with the intent to mislead, 5) with reasonable reliance by the misled party,
and 6) resulting in damages to the misled party. ... A party's silence or
withholding of information does not constitute fraud in the absence of a duty to
disclose that information."
Then, after a lengthy analysis of the evidence regarding the JEDEC's policies
with respect to duties to disclose, he concluded that "In this case there is a
staggering lack of defining details in the EIA/JEDEC patent policy. When direct
competitors participate in an open standards committee, their work necessitates
a written patent policy with clear guidance on the committee's intellectual
property position. A policy that does not define clearly what, when, how, and to
whom the members must disclose does not provide a firm basis for the disclosure
duty necessary for a fraud verdict. Without a clear policy, members form vaguely
defined expectations as to what they believe the policy requires -- whether the
policy in fact so requires or not. JEDEC could have drafted a patent policy with
a broader disclosure duty. It could have drafted a policy broad enough to
capture a member’s failed attempts to mine a disclosed specification for broader
undisclosed claims. It could have. It simply did not."
He then concluded that the evidence does not support, by clear and convincing
evidence, the jury's verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the JEDEC's
Finally, Judge Rader also wrote in the opinion of the Court, that, as a
result of the rulings on non-infringement and fraud, the District Court's
injunction is moot, and the award of attorneys fees is vacated.
Prost Dissent. Judge Prost wrote in her lengthy dissent on the fraud
issue that "substantial evidence supports
the jury's verdict that Rambus committed actual fraud under Virginia state law."
its first JEDEC meeting in December 1991 and became a member in February 1992.
At the time Rambus joined JEDEC, it had several pending patent applications
derived from the ’898 patent application, which has spawned more than a thousand
claims in dozens of continuation and divisional applications. Rambus also had a
specific plan for using its pending patent applications against anyone using the
SDRAM standard. ... Rambus did not, in fact, inform anyone at JEDEC about its
pending patent applications by the end of 1992. Instead, Rambus continued to
attend JEDEC meetings for three more years, watching the SDRAM standard evolve
and then amending its patent applications to try to cover features of the
She continued that "The record is
replete with additional and specific instances of Rambus employees attending
JEDEC meetings, taking notes of what was discussed, identifying instances where
Rambus already had claims covering what was discussed, and then seeking claims
to cover what they learned at the JEDEC meetings. Yet Rambus
``did not tell the
people at JEDEC that what they were proposing for standardization infringed
FTC Antitrust Action Against Rambus. Rambus' legal troubles are not
over. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also has
an open proceeding against Rambus. It arises out of the same set of facts.
However, it is based upon allegations of violation of federal antitrust law, not the Virginia
law of fraud.
On June 19, 2002, the FTC filed an administrative
Rambus alleging anti-competitive behavior in violation of Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) in connection in the JEDEC standards setting
process. The complaint alleges that Rambus "has illegally monopolized, attempted
to monopolize, or otherwise engaged in unfair methods of competition in certain
markets relating to technological features necessary for the design and
manufacture of a common form of digital computer memory, known as dynamic random
access memory, or ``DRAM.´´"
The FTC alleges that Rambus engaged in anticompetitive behavior by
"participating in the work of an industry standard setting organization, known
as JEDEC, without making it known to JEDEC or to its members that Rambus was
actively working to develop, and did in fact possess, a patent and several
pending patent applications that involved specific technologies proposed for and
ultimately adopted in the relevant standards. By concealing this information --
in violation of JEDEC's own operating rules and procedures -- and through other
bad faith, deceptive conduct, Rambus purposefully sought to and did convey to
JEDEC the materially false and misleading impression that it possessed no
relevant intellectual property rights."
Section 5 of the FTCA, codified at
15 U.S.C. § 45,
provides, in part, that "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce,
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby
declared unlawful." See also, story titled "FTC Files Administrative
Complaint Against Rambus" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 455, June 20, 2002.
Sean Royall, Deputy Director of the FTC's Bureau
of Competition, and lead trial counsel, stated in a
on January 29, 2003 that "Our trial team is reviewing the Federal Circuit's
decision to determine what if any bearing it may have on the Commission's
federal antitrust suit against Rambus. However, given the significant
differences in the factual and legal issues raised by the FTC's antitrust claims
and Infineon's fraud claims, we do not expect that this ruling will have a
substantial impact on our case going forward."
The FTC also noted that Virginia law requires a
heightened "clear and convincing evidence" standard or proof, while the FTC is
merely to required to satisfy a lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard
of proof in the administrative proceeding.
The administrative proceeding is scheduled for hearing on April 9, 2003.
Rambus Reaction. Geoff Tate, CEO of Rambus, stated in a
"We are pleased by today's rulings ... Today's rulings help substantiate
the importance of our past inventions and
allow us to continue our focus on technology leadership."
John Danforth, SVP and General Counsel of Rambus, stated that
"Today's rulings are not just about Rambus ...They greatly illuminate a wide
range of issues related to standards setting and intellectual property. We
believe that the Federal Circuit has done a thorough job of clarifying these
issues and that their work merits close attention."
|SEC Files Complaint Against KPMG and
Partners Re Xerox Audits
|1/29. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) filed a civil
in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against KPMG and four KPMG partners, Joseph Boyle,
Michael Conway, Anthony Dolanski, and Ronald Safran, alleging securities fraud
in connection with their auditing of Xerox's
accounting. See also, SEC
The complaint alleges that KPMG and "certain KPMG partners permitted Xerox
Corporation (``Xerox´´) to manipulate its accounting practices and fill a $3
billion ``gap´´ between actual operating results and results reported to the
investing public from 1997 through 2000. The fraudulent scheme allowed Xerox to
claim it met performance expectations of Wall Street analysts, to mislead
investors and, consequently, to boost the company's stock price. The KPMG
defendants were not the watch dogs on behalf of shareholders and the public that
the securities laws and the rules of the auditing profession required them to
The complaint continues that "Instead of putting a stop to Xerox's fraudulent
conduct, the KPMG defendants themselves engaged in fraud by falsely representing
to the public that they had applied professional auditing standards to their
review of Xerox's accounting, that Xerox's financial reporting was consistent
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (``GAAP´´) and that Xerox's reported
results fairly represented the financial condition of the company. There was no
watchdog at Xerox. KPMG's bark sounded no warning to investors; its bite was
The four count complaint alleges (1) violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2)
violation of Section 10A of the Exchange Act, (3) aiding and abetting violations
of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20,
and (4) aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(b) of the Exchange Act and
Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1.
|House Commerce Committee Members Write FCC
in Opposition to UNE-P
|1/29. Twenty-two members of the
House Commerce Committee wrote a
[5 page PDF scan] to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regarding unbundled network elements.
They wrote that "The '96 Act prescribed three methods of competitive entry
for CLECs: reselling an ILEC's service, using a CLEC's facilities exclusively,
and using a CLEC's facilities in combination with an ILEC's facilities through
the purchase of unbundled network elements from the ILEC. However, the FCC
distorted the '96 Act's requirements to manufacture a fourth method of entry by
creating the unbundled network element platform or UNE-P -- in essence a
back-door way of forcing the ILECs to resell the entire local phone service. To
further exacerbate the problem, the FCC developed a pricing model for the
UNE-P that is based on a hypothetical cost model rather than on actual operating
"As a result," the Congressmen wrote, "the FCC created a regulatory
fiction that provided CLECs with a
disincentive to invest in their own facilities. No competing carrier has an
incentive to risk capital and invest in its own facilities when it can simply
lease an ILEC's network elements at below-cost prices and resell the service."
They argued that "the UNE-P is a regulatory fiction that must be eliminated."
They also argued that "in the context of the Triennial Review, the FCC must
produce a sensible national policy regarding which network elements meet the '96
Act's stringent ``necessary and impair´´ analysis and, therefore, must be
provided on an unbundled basis. Delegation of that determination to the states
would be a gross abdication of the FCC's statutory responsibility and a clear
violation of the law."
They also listed several "elements that should not have to be provided on an
unbundled basis", including "circuit switching" and "fiber loops and subloops
used to transmit packet-based services".
The letter was signed by Billy Tauzin (R-LA),
John Dingell (D-MI),
Fred Upton (R-MI), Joe Barton (R-TX),
Nathan Deal (R-GA), Richard Burr (R-NC), John Shimkus (R-IL), Vito Fossella (R-NY),
Roy Blunt (R-MO), Steve Buyer (R-IN), Mary Bono (R-CA), Lee Terry (R-NE), Charles
Bass (R-NH), Greg Walden (R-OR), George Radanovich (R-CA), Rick Boucher (D-VA),
Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Al Wynn (D-MD),
Eliot Engel (D-NY), Gene Green (D-TX), and Chris John (D-LA).
|FCC Amends Cable Home Wiring Rules
|1/29. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) released its
Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order [59 pages in PDF] in
its proceeding titled "In the Matter of
Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring Customer Premises Equipment In the
Matter of Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992; Cable Home Wiring". This is CS Docket No. 95-184 and MM
Docket No. 92-260.
This document pertains to the FCC's rules that are intended to
foster opportunities for multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD) to
provide service in multiple dwelling unit buildings (MDU)
by establishing procedures regarding
how and under what circumstances the existing cable home run wiring would be
made available to alternative video service providers.
The document states that the FCC now
amends its rules "to provide (1) that, in the event of sale, the home run wiring
be made available to the MDU owner or alternative provider during the 24-hour
period prior to actual service termination by the incumbent, and (2) that home
run wiring located behind sheet rock is physically inaccessible for purposes of
determining the demarcation point between home wiring and home run wiring."
This document also states that "We
decline to restrict exclusive contracts for the provision of video services in
MDUs, finding that the record does not demonstrate a need for government
intervention with marketplace forces and privately negotiated contracts.
Similarly, we decline to ban perpetual contracts for the provision of video
services in MDUs or subject such contracts to a fresh look window."
Commissioner Kevin Martin wrote a
in which he dissented in part. He wrote that "I am not persuaded that we have
the statutory authority to regulate ``home run´´ wiring. .. I question whether
these general provisions authorize the Commission to regulate the disposition of
that part of a cable wire that runs from the demarcation point in a multiple
dwelling unit to the point at which the wiring becomes devoted to an individual
subscriber. Moreover, the interpretation of these provisions in this item offers
no limitation on our authority, and thus I am not sure what this interpretation
would not allow us to do."
|People and Appointments
|1/29. Jule Sigall was named the
Copyright Office's Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs,
effective February 10. He was previously an attorney in the Intellectual
Property and Technology practice group of the law firm of
Arnold & Porter. Before that, in
1997-1998, he worked in the Copyright Office's Office of Policy and
1/29. Ted Turner will step down as Vice Chairman of AOL Time Warner,
effective at the Annual Shareholders Meeting in May. See,
1/29. The Wall Street Journal wrote an
stating that William Esrey, Sprint's
Ch/CEO, will step down, and that
Gary Forsee, currently at BellSouth,
"is expected to succeed him." Sprint stated in a
that "Sprint has declined to comment on media speculation regarding management
biography of Forsee states that he is Vice Chairman, and is "responsible for
all of BellSouth's domestic operations". He also previously worked for Sprint.
1/29. Richard Smith was named acting Chief of the Policy Division of
the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB). Nancy Stevenson was
named Acting Deputy Chief. The appointments are effective during the time that
Michele Walters, Chief of the Policy Division, is on parental leave. See,
release [MS Word].
1/29. Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement Jimmy Gurulé
will leave his position on February 10. See,
and resignation letter.
1/29. President Bush nominated six people to be U.S. District Court Judges:
Richard Bennett (Maryland), Louise Flanagan (Eastern District of
North Carolina), Leon Holmes (Eastern District of Arkansas), James
Selna (Central District of California), Philip Simon (Northern
District of Indiana), and Theresa Springmann (Northern District of
House release. Judge Selna is a former
O'Melveny & Myers partner who focused on antitrust law. He was appointed to
the Superior Court of the State of California for
Orange County in 1998. See,
|1/29. The Department of Commerce's (DOC)
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
Foreign Policy Report. The BIS, which is still also referred to as the
Bureau of Export Administration (BXA), announced in this report that it extends
its foreign policy export controls to January 20, 2004. The report covers, among
many topics, high performance computers (at
Chapter 9) and encryption products (at
1/29. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
notice in the Federal Register containing its final amended Telemarketing
Sales Rule (TSR), and its Statement of Basis and Purpose. The FTC announced
its amended TSR last month. This notice sets effective dates. The amended rule will
become effective March 31, 2003. However, full compliance with the caller
identification transmission provision is required by January 29, 2004. Also, the
FTC will announce later the date by which full compliance with the
``do-not-call´´ registry provision will be required. See, Federal Register,
January 29, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 19, at Pages 4579-4679. See also,
1/29. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its split
opinion [9 pages in PDF] in AT&T
Broadband v. IBEW, holding that the
Norris LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-15, forbids a District Court from enjoining
the arbitration of a labor dispute. The International
Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW) contended that AT&T Broadband had failed to negotiate in good
faith to reach agreements covering three bargaining units. It demanded
arbitration under a master agreement between AT&T and the IBEW. AT&T argued that
the master agreement called for mediation rather than arbitration. The IBEW
called upon the presiding neutral of a standing arbitral body. AT&T then filed a
complaint in U.S. District Court (NDIll) seeking an
injunction of the arbitration.
1/29. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
announced that it filed an administrative
Educational Research Center of America, Inc. and Student Marketing Group, Inc.,
as well as two individual officers and directors, alleging violation of the
Federal Trade Commission Act. The complaint states that "respondents have
collected personal information from high school and middle and junior high
school students through surveys ..." It further states that "respondents have
represented, expressly or by implication, that information collected from
students through the Surveys is shared only with colleges, universities, and
other entities providing education-related services. ... In truth and in fact,
information collected from students through the Surveys is shared not only with
colleges, universities, and other entities providing education-related services,
but also with commercial entities for marketing purposes." The FTC and
respondents also entered into an
Consent Order which bars future misrepresentation, requires disclosure of
how information will be used, and requires destruction of certain data already
collected. However, there is no fine. See also,
|House Commerce Committee Passes Do Not Call
|1/29. The House
Commerce Committee approved by unanimous voice vote, without amendment,
the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act. The bill is sponsored by
Rep. Billy Tauzin
(R-LA), the Chairman of the Committee, and Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the ranking Democrat.
This bill authorizes the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) to collect fees for the implementation and enforcement of its
"do-not-call" registry. The FTC released its amended Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)
on December 18, 2002, which included creation of the do-not-call registry. This
allows consumers to opt out of receiving unwanted telephone solicitations.
It also prohibits telemarketers from calling those telephone numbers listed
on the registry.
While the final vote was unanimous, opposition was voiced during debate. For
example, Rep. Ted Strickland
(D-OH) argued that telemarketing provides jobs
for people who work in call centers, and this bill threatens those jobs. He
added that with decreasing costs for international calls, these jobs are
already being threatened by foreign based call centers.
Also, Rep. Joe Barton
(R-TX) offered, but then withdrew, two proposed
amendments. One would have provided that no category of calls would be
automatically exempted. The other would have reduced the fine for violations
from $11,000 per incident to $1,000 per incident. He acknowledged that his
amendments lacked support on the Committee.
Rep. Tauzin responded that by including an exemption for political
solicitations, the rule will be less likely to be overturned by the Courts
as a violation of the First Amendment.
|Rep. Tauzin Discusses Possible Legislation
|1/29. Rep. Billy
Tauzin (R-LA), Chairman of the
House Commerce Committee, spoke with
reporters after the Committee's mark up session on January 29. He discussed
possible legislation related to broadband and the transition to digital
He was asked whether another "Tauzin Dingell bill" would be introduced in the 108th
Congress. He responded that "before we file any bills, we are trying to see just how far
the FCC will go, and how much they will complete. And, we are getting a better
sense of that as we move along."
Rep. Tauzin (at right)
added that "the industry has a number of other issues
besides broadband. And, the industry, long distance, local, the whole kit and
caboodle of them, are attempting to find some consensus for us on several of the
key issues. We give them a chance to do that. I have given them until February
15th to report to my Committee on any consensus they reach in these areas, to
see if we can, and possibly add those consensus features to whatever bill we
file. But, we will be, in all likelihood, filing another bill."
Rep. Tauzin also stated that "I will be consulting with Sen. McCain,
obviously. He has offered broadband bills in the past." He elaborated that "I
want to go back and examine those, and meet with him, and discuss with him, what
of those provisions are still important, and which he is interested in. He is a
strong deregulator, as I am, and I think we will find a lot of common ground
before we begin moving. John Dingell is again committed to work with me to see
if we can pass these in the House."
He was also asked whether the House Commerce Committee would request the FCC
Commissioners to testify on matters such as the pending triennial review. He
responded that "We are getting a good feel for that without formal hearings. And we are
learning from them and their staffs what they are doing and what they think they
might. I frankly want to get a good read on what they are likely to be able to
do before we proceed. Once I know that I will feel comfortable enough to
He added that he speaks with FCC Chairman Michael Powell and the other
Commissioners. "We stay in close touch. And our staffs are also staying in
He was also asked about the digital television transition. He stated that
"It is still very very controversial
here. My compliments to all the players, however. I mean, we made great progress
in the last year."
"But, it still remains
controversial in a number of key points, and they still need to work out a
number of things. What we will do this year is, with some degree of patience, to
continue to press them forward on their own negotiations. But, at some point,
recognizing that if we don't legislate before August, we are not likely to be
able to legislate. At some point in the next several months we may in fact want
to legislate in those areas were it is clear they are not going to be able to
reach an agreement. I would be delighted to find out that that is not necessary.
And we will be pushing to that end."
He also discussed the timeline for any DTV related legislation. He said that
he has not given the parties involved in negotiations a deadline, "other
than the fact that they know
we reached the point last year where we forwarded out some, a draft piece of
legislation, in order to give them a look a what legislation would look like, if
in fact they reached final agreement. That alone prompted a number of
agreements, as you know, as you saw. There was some real progress made between
the time we left Congress last year and the time we convened again -- some of it
very positive. And, I continue to get good reports. So, I don't know that we
need to give any hard deadlines yet, except , I think that all of the players
know that I am working under some very tight time constraints in terms of what
we can have time to pass into law before we get into a Presidential year cycle.
They know that. I know that. So, without stating a time limit, everybody knows
that we are under the gun to get something done."
|Thursday, January 30
|8:30 AM. Rep.
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chairman of the
House Science Committee,
will give a speech to the University Research Associates.
Location: Lecture Room, National Academy of Sciences, 2101
Constitution Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Commerce Committee will
hold a hearing to examine media ownership, focusing on consolidation in
the radio industry. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
9:30 - 11:30 AM. The
Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection (I3P)
will release a report titled "2003 Cyber Security Research
and Development Agenda". The speakers will include Richard
Clarke (Chairman of the President's Critical Infrastructure
Protection Board), Michael Vatis (Chairman of I3P), Catherine
Allen (CEO of BITS, Financial Services Roundtable), Robert
Holleyman (P/CEO of the Business Software Alliance), and Harris
Miller (President of the Information Technology Association of
America). The I3P is a consortium of 23 cyber security research
organizations, from academia, national labs and nonprofit
institutions. The report will identify areas requiring research
and development. Location: JW Marriott Hotel, 14th St. &
Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Judiciary Committee
will hold a business meeting to consider pending calendar business. The agenda
includes consideration of the nomination of Miguel Estrada
to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir),
S 151, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the
Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act)
which pertains to virtual pormography, and consideration of
S 153, the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act. See,
Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
9:30 AM. The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing to examine
the nominations of
Paul McHale to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Security, and Christopher Henry to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
10:00 AM. The
Senate Finance Committee will meet. It will vote on the
nomination of John Snow to be Secretary of the Treasury.
Location: 215 Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. David Dorman, CEO of
AT&T, will speak on the future of the
telecommunications industry. Location:
National Press Club, Zenger Room, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
4:00 PM. The Cato Institute will host
an event titled "Who Are the Real Free Traders in Congress?" to release a
study of voting records on trade issues. The speakers will be
Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI),
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Dan
Griswold (Cato). See,
notice and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
|Friday, January 31
|12:00 NOON. The Progress & Freedom
Foundation (PFF) will host a briefing titled "The FCC & Telecom
Recovery: A Scorecard for Evaluating the Rules". The speakers will be
Randolph May (PFF), Thomas Lenard (PFF), Solveig Singleton (Competitive
Enterprise Institute), Adam Thierer (Cato
Institute), and Jeffrey Eisenach (PFF). RSVP to Rebecca Fuller at 202
289-8928 or email@example.com. Location:
Room B-340, Rayburn Building.
12:00 NOON. The Federalist
Society will host a lunch titled "Antitrust and IP".
For more information, contact Jessi King at 822-8138. Location:
First Amendment Lounge, National
Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its
[78 pages in PDF] titled "Guidelines for the Security Certification and
Accreditation of Federal Information Technology Systems". This is NIST
Special Publication 800-37. It was written by Ron
Ross and Marianne Swanson in the NIST's Information Technology Laboratory's
Computer Security Division, with input from others.
Send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on
whether it should change its rules restricting telemarketing calls and
facsimile advertisements. This is CG Docket No. 02-278. See, original
in the Federal Register, earlier
of extension [PDF], and further
notice in Federal
Register of extension.
Deadline to submit applications to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for membership on the FCC's
Consumer Advisory Committee. For more information, contact Scott Marshall at
202 418-2809 email@example.com.
|Monday, February 3
|10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of
will hear oral argument in Bell Communications v. Fore Systems, No.
02-1083. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
in response to its
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the proceeding titled "In the matter of
Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum Based Services to Rural Areas and
Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies To Provide Spectrum Based
Services". This is WT Docket No. 02-381. For more information, contact
Robert Krinsky at 202 418-0660. See also,
notice in the Federal Register, January 7, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 4, at Pages
723 - 730.
EXTENDED TO FEBRUARY 18.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (FNPRM), released
last month, regarding whether providers of various services and devices not
currently within the scope of the FCC's 911 rules should be required to
provide access to emergency services. This is CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB
Docket No. 99-67. See,
notice in the Federal Register, January 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 15, at
Pages 3214 - 3220. See also,
Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright
in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding
the form, content, and manner of service of notices of termination under Section
203 of the Copyright Act.
17 U.S.C. § 203
pertains to the termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author.
in the Federal Register, December 20, 2002 Vol. 67, No. 245, at Pages 77951 -
77955. For more information, contact David Carson, CO General Counsel, at 202
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
(FTC) regarding MSC.Software's
December 30, 2002,
petition [8 page
PDF scan] for approval of its proposed divestiture of Nastran software to EDS.
The petition is titled "Petition of MSC.Software Corporation for Approval of Proposed
Divestiture". It was filed in the FTC's administrative proceeding titled
"In the Matter of MSC.Software Corporation".
This is FTC Docket No. 9299. In August 2002, the FTC and MSC also
entered into an
Agreement Containing Consent Order [22 pages PDF] which provides that MSC
must divest at least one copy of its current advanced Nastran software,
including the source code. The divestiture will be through royalty free,
perpetual, non-exclusive licenses to one or two acquirers who must be approved
by the FTC. For more information, contact Daniel Ducore of the FTC's Bureau of
Competition at 202 326-2526.
|Tuesday, February 4
|? Tentative date for a hearing at 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, February 5
|10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir) will hear oral argument in Altima Communications v. USITC,
No. 02-1110. The U.S. International Trade
Commission barred the import by Altima
Communications, a Broadcom subsidiary, of certain ethernet networking
products found to infringe Intel patents.
Fish and Richardson represents Intel in this matter. Location: Courtroom 402,
717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir)
will hear oral argument in Crossroads Systems v. Chaparral Network Storage,
No. 02-1158. This is an appeal from the
U.S. District Court (WDTex) in a
patent infringement case involving storage router technology. (D.C.
No. 00-CA-217-SS.) Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir)
will hear oral argument in Digital Privacy v. RSA Security, No.
02-1440. This is an appeal from the
U.S. District Court (EDVa) in a patent infringement case involving the
pre-boot protection of unauthorized use of computer programs and data.
Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.
11:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host
a panel discussion titled "Battle over the Broadcast Flag: The IP Wars and
the HDTV Transition". The speakers will be Fritz Attaway
Picture Association of America), Jim Burger (Dow
Lohnes & Albertson), Mike Godwin (Public
Knowledge), and Andy Setos (Fox Entertainment Group). See,
notice and registration
page. Lunch will follow. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
1:00 PM. The House
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
will hold a hearing titled "Health of the Telecommunications
Sector: A Perspective from Investors and Economists". See,
notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
|Thursday, February 6
|3:30 PM. Madhavi Sunder (Professor of Law, University of California at
Davis Law School) will give a lecture titled "IP3: Intellectual Property,
Identity Politics, and the Internet Protocol". For more information,
contact Julie Cohen at
Georgetown University Law Center, Faculty Lounge, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding
BellSouth's December 20, 2002
Petition for Forbearance [16 pages in PDF] from application of the separate subsidiary
provide international directory assistance service. BellSouth asked the FCC to
forbear from applying the structural separation requirements of
47 U.S.C. § 272
to allow BellSouth to provide international directory assistance service on an
integrated basis together with its local and nonlocal directory assistance
services. See, FCC
notice [2 pages in PDF]. This is CC Docket No. 97-172.
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