Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
June 9, 2003, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 676.
Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
Senators Introduce Bill to Relax Student Loan Requirements for Online Education

6/5. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Sen. Ben Campbell (R-CO) introduced S 1203, the "Distance Education and Online Learning Act of 2003", a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding distance education. The bill was referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Sen. Mike EnziSen. Enzi (at right) stated that "the Internet has made it possible for prospective students in rural communities, far removed from the university campus, to attend college online."

He continued that "the most significant barriers that distance learners and online education programs must face are those that were created by the Higher Education Act. Under current law, students attending institutions that enroll more than half of their students in distance programs are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance. As a result, many of the communities that this assistance is designed to reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits, including students from rural communities, single mothers, working professionals, and a range of others who are interested in attending college but who cannot afford to do so."

"The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by creating an avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to rural communities and non-traditional students by making them eligible for federal student assistance. It creates an eligibility standard for these institutions that helps to ensure they will provide high quality education programs, while it also protects Federal funding from fraud and abuse", said Sen. Enzi. See, Congressional Record, June 5, 2003, at page S7495.

20 U.S.C. § 1091 pertains to "student eligibility" for government loans, grants and work assistance. The bill would tweak the requirements contained in this section to allow more internet based instruction to qualify for assistance under the Higher Education Act.

For example, subsection (l) (this is the lower case of the letter L), subparagraph (A), currently provided that "A student enrolled in a course of instruction at an institution of higher education that is offered in whole or in part through telecommunications and leads to a recognized certificate for a program of study of 1 year or longer, or a recognized associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree, conferred by such institution, shall not be considered to be enrolled in correspondence courses unless the total amount of telecommunications and correspondence courses at such institution equals or exceeds 50 percent of the total amount of all courses at the institution."

This would be revised. The removed language is crossed out. The added language is in red. "A student enrolled in a course of instruction at an institution of higher education that is offered in whole or in part predominantly through telecommunications and leads to a recognized certificate for a program of study of 1 year or longer, or a recognized associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree, conferred by such institution, shall not be considered to be enrolled in correspondence courses unless the total amount of telecommunications and correspondence courses at such institution equals or exceeds 50 percent of the total amount of all courses at the institution.

The bill would also replace subparagraph (B), which requires, among other things, that "An institution of higher education referred to in subparagraph (A) is an institution of higher education .. for which at least 50 percent of the programs of study offered by the institution lead to the award of a recognized associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree." It would replace subparagraph (B) with the following: "An institution of higher education referred to in subparagraph (A) is an institution of higher education that is not an institution or school described in section 3(3)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998."

SCO And Novell Continue Argument Over Rights in UNIX Operating System

6/6. The SCO Group (SCO), also known as Caldera, reasserted that it is "the owner of the UNIX operating system", and that "all rights to the UNIX and UnixWare technology, including the copyrights, were transferred to SCO as part of the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and SCO dated September 19, 1995."

Background. On March 6, 2003, Caldera (SCO) filed a complaint in state court in Utah against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract in connection with IBM's alleged use of Caldera's proprietary UNIX code. The complaint did not assert copyright or patent infringement.

IBM filed its answer [17 page PDF scan] on April 30, 2003. It asserted that "contrary to Caldera's allegations, by its lawsuit, Caldera seeks to hold up the open source community (and development of Linux in particular) by improperly seeking to assert proprietary rights over important, widely used technology and impeding the use of that technology by the open source community." (Parentheses in original.)

SCO wrote a letter to Linux customers on May 12, 2003. It asserted that "SCO holds the rights to the UNIX operating system software originally licensed by AT&T to approximately 6,000 companies and institutions worldwide (the ``UNIX Licenses´´). The vast majority of UNIX software used in enterprise applications today is a derivative work of the software originally distributed under our UNIX Licenses."

On May 28, 2003, Novell entered the fray. It wrote a letter to SCO in which it stated that "SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents."

Novell added that "SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it. To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights. We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights."

SCO responded in a statement which claims that "SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor." It added that "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights ... SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees."

Amendment No. 2. In the latest exchange, SCO asserted that "Any question of whether the UNIX copyrights were transferred to SCO under the Asset Purchase Agreement was clarified in Amendment No. 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 16, 1996."

SCO asserted that this Amendment No. 2 provides that, "A. With respect to Schedule 1.1(b) of the Agreement, titled "Excluded Assets", Section V, Subsection A shall be revised to read:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise it rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks." See, June 6 SCO release.

Novell responded that "Amendment #2 to the 1995 SCO-Novell Asset Purchase Agreement was sent to Novell last night by SCO. To Novell's knowledge, this amendment is not present in Novell's files. The amendment appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996. The amendment does not address ownership of patents, however, which clearly remain with Novell." See, Novell's June 6 release.

See also, stories titled "Novell Asserts Intellectual Property Rights in UNIX Technology" and "German Software Group Threatens to Sue SCO Over Linux Claims", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 670, May 30, 2003; and "Microsoft Licenses Technology at Issue in Caldera v. IBM", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 669, May 29, 2003.

Oracle Makes Hostile Bid for PeopleSoft

6/6. Oracle made a hostile bid for PeopleSoft on June 6, following PeopleSoft's and J.D. Edwards' June 2 announcement that PeopleSoft would acquire J.D. Edwards.

On June 2, PeopleSoft announced in a release [4 pages in PDF] "a definitive agreement for PeopleSoft to acquire J.D. Edwards, creating the world’s second largest enterprise applications software company. Under the terms of the agreement, stockholders will receive 0.860 PeopleSoft common shares for each outstanding J.D. Edwards common share. Based on the closing price of PeopleSoft stock on May 30, 2003 and J.D. Edwards’ shares outstanding, the transaction is valued at approximately $1.7 billion." See also, J.D. Edwards release.

On June 6, Oracle announced in a release [PDF] that it will "commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of PeopleSoft ... for $16 per share, or approximately $5.1 billion." See also, Oracle document [PDF] titled "Frequently Asked Questions Document".

On June 6, Craig Conway, P/CEO of PeopleSoft stated in a release that Oracle's offer is "atrociously bad behavior from a company with a history of atrociously bad behavior. Obviously it is a transparent attempt to disrupt the acquisition of J.D. Edwards by PeopleSoft announced earlier this week".

PeopleSoft's release added that "PeopleSoft and its Board of Directors is required by law to review all cash tenders regardless of intent, and will provide a definitive recommendation to shareholders shortly thereafter. In the meantime, PeopleSoft advises it shareholders to take no immediate action."

Either transaction is conditioned upon expiration of the applicable Hart Scott Rodino Act waiting period.

US and Chile Sign FTA

6/6. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Soledad Alvear, the Chilean Foreign Minister, signed the U.S. Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Miami, Florida. See, USTR release.

On May 6, President Bush and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong signed the U.S. Singapore FTA at a ceremony at the White House. Singapore has been more supportive of U.S. anti terrorism efforts than Chile. See, story titled "Bush and Goh Sign US Singapore FTA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 656, May 7, 2003.

The U.S. Chile FTA addresses several technology related topics. See, Chapter 13 (pertaining to telecommunications), Chapter 15 (electronic commerce), Chapter 17 (intellectual property), and Chapter 21 (transparency).

This FTA still requires Congressional approval. However, under the trade promotion authority granted to the President last year, the Congress can approve or reject, but not amend, these FTAs.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, announced in a release that he "hopes" to schedule hearing on the Chile and Singapore FTAs "later this month".

Dave McCurdy of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) stated in a release that "Free trade is one of the electronics industry's highest priorities, particularly since more than a third of U.S. jobs in the computer and electronics manufacturing sector are supported by exports ... U.S. high-tech goods and services exported to Chile totaled $865 million in 2001, and it is critical that we keep our manufacturers on a level playing field as others, such as the EU, implement their own FTAs with Chile."

FTC Opposes Class Action Settlement Involving Coupons for Software

6/5. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an amicus curiae brief [PDF] with the District Court of Cleberg County, Texas, in Haese v. H&R Block, a class action regarding tax preparation services. The plaintiffs' lawyers and H&R Block have proposed a settlement under which the plaintiffs' lawyers will get $49 Million as attorneys fees, and the class members will get coupons from H&R Block for tax preparation and planning software, a book containing tax preparation and planning advice, and a rebate on tax preparation services.

The FTC wrote that "Courts and commentators alike have come to view class action coupon settlements with skepticism, and with good reason. Past experience shows some defendants promise to pay high attorneys' fees in exchange for counsel's willingness to accept a settlement consisting of coupons of dubious value that many, if not most, class members are unlikely to redeem. ... The coupon settlement proposed by H&R and class counsel in this consumer class action has some of the indicia that commentators cite as evidence of a collusive deal." See also, FTC release.

Also, the House is scheduled to consider HR 1115, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003", on Wednesday, June 11, or Thursday, June 12. See, Republican Whip Notice. One of the findings of the bill is that "Class members have been harmed by a number of actions taken by plaintiffs' lawyers, which provide little or no benefit to class members as a whole, including (A) plaintiffs' lawyers receiving large fees, while class members are left with coupons or other awards of little or no value".

The bill would provide a number of protections against abusive class actions. For example, it provides that "The court may approve a proposed settlement under which the class members would receive noncash benefits or would otherwise be required to expend funds in order to obtain part or all of the proposed benefits only after a hearing to determine whether, and making a written finding that, the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members".

Treasury Department Announces Rules for Incentive Stock Options

6/9. The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding regulations that "affect certain taxpayers
who participate in the transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of incentive stock options and the exercise of options granted pursuant to an employee stock purchase plan (statutory options)." (Parentheses in original.) See, Federal Register, June 9, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 110, at Pages 34344 - 34370.

The notice further states that "Written and electronically submitted comments and requests to speak, with outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for September 2, 2003, must be received by August 12, 2003."

The Treasury Department stated in a release that incentive stock options (ISO) "provide employees with the ability to acquire employer stock without realizing income when the option is exercised. If the employee holds the stock a required period, any gains on sale of the stock are capital. The exercise price for an ISO must be no less than the fair market value of the stock when the option is issued. An ISO plan must be approved by shareholders, and the amount of ISOs that can be granted to an employee is limited. The employer does not get a deduction."

The Treasury Department added that "Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for any ISO granted after June 9, 2003."

SEC Files Civil Fraud Complaint Against Former Xerox Officers

6/5. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against six former officers of Xerox alleging fraud. The defendants include former CEOs Paul Allaire and Richard Thoman, and former CFO Barry Romeril.

The complaint alleges that defendants "misled investors about Xerox's earnings to polish its reputation on Wall Street and to boost the company's stock price. These results also benefited the defendants with higher compensation and higher prices for personal sales of stock. This complaint alleges that the defendants' fraudulent conduct is responsible for accelerating the recognition of equipment revenues by approximately $3 billion and increasing pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.4 billion in Xerox's 1997-2000 financial results."

The complaint alleges violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act; violations of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1; aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20; and aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(b) of the Exchange Act. In addition to injunctive relief, the complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust enrichment and civil fines.

See also, SEC litigation release. The SEC also stated in a second release that the defendants "have agreed to pay over $22 million in penalties, disgorgement and interest without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations."

DHS Creates Cyber Security Division

6/6. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the creation of a National Cyber Security Division (NCSD), located in the DHS's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIPD).

The DHS stated in a release that the NCSD will "identify, analyze and reduce cyber threats and vulnerabilities; disseminate threat warning information; coordinate incident response; and provide technical assistance in continuity of operations and recovery planning. The NCSD builds upon the existing capabilities transferred to DHS from the former Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, the Federal Computer Incident Response Center, and the National Communications System."

Robert Liscouski, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Infrastructure Protection, will oversee NCSD. However, the DHS has yet to name the person who will head the NCSD.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002, HR 5005 (107th) and Public Law No. 107-296, at Title II, creates the IAIPD, which has primary responsibility for information sharing and cyber security matters. Frank Libutti is the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

Title II of the Homeland Security Act also creates the positions of Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection and Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis. Liscouski holds the former position, and reports to Libutti. The head of the newly created NCSD will be beneath Lisouski. This places the head of the Cyber Security Division at least three levels below Tom Ridge, the Secretary of Homeland Security.

See also, TLJ story titled "DHS and NIST to Collaborate" May 22, 2003; story titled "Bush Fills More Tech Positions at DHS" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 623, March 14, 2003; and story titled "Bush Picks Frank Libutti for Key Tech Position at DHS" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 628, March 21, 2003.

Harris Miller, President of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), stated in a release "While the Director position was not given the rank within the Administration that we believe it merits, the fact that Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Bob Liscouski has agreed to build an organization under him that coordinates the cyber security activities of the various offices within DHS and other agencies, and serves as the central point of contact for the private sector, shows his resolve to address cyber security challenges head-on. We look forward to helping identify the strongest candidates for the job and working with the new cyber czar to get the job done."

Robert Holleyman, P/CEO of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), stated in a release that "This is a welcome move by the Department, and industry looks forward to working closely with this important new unit of DHS ... Over the past two years, the United States has made significant strides in improving our country's physical security. But without cyber security, there is no physical security. Study after study indicates we remain ill-prepared to defend against threats to our critical information networks -- meaning a major virus or cyber attack could wreak havoc on our communications, transportation, utility, financial or other vital information infrastructure."

DC Circuit Upholds FCC's Number Portability Rules for Wireless Carriers

6/6. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [19 pages PDF] in CTIA v. FCC, in which it rejected a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) number portability rules for wireless carriers.

Number portability is the ability of phone service customers to keep their phone numbers when they switch carriers. The FCC promulgated regulations requiring wireless carriers to provide number portability. Its Report and Order was released in 1996. The FCC set a compliance date of June 30, 1999. The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), a group that represents wireless carriers, requested that the FCC forbear from enforcement of its wireless portability rules. Verizon Wireless also sought forbearance. On July 26, 2002, the FCC denied Verizon's forbearance petition, but extended the enforcement deadline to November 24, 2003.

The CTIA and Verizon filed a petition for review of the FCC's order denying permanent forbearance with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in August of 2002. They challenged the statutory authority of the FCC to promulgate a wireless number portability rule, and the FCC's failure to forebear.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review as to the challenge to the statutory authority of the FCC. A petition for review must be filed within 60 days. The petitioners waited several years before filing. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review for failing to forbear.

Tom Wheeler, P/CEO of the CTIA stated in a release that "We are disappointed in the court's decision ... This decision increases the pressure on the FCC to do what they have yet to do -- define the implementation of number portability. There are only 24 weeks between now and the portability deadline, but the basic 'how tos' have yet to be addressed. If there is to be number portability in November, the FCC must announce final rules by Labor Day or consumers will find chaos in the market."

Monday, June 9

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. The House will consider several non tech related items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 12:00 NOON.

The Supreme Court will return from a one week recess.

5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will meet to adopt a rule for consideration of HR 2143, the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act".

Tuesday, June 10

The House will meet at 10:30 AM for morning hour and 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The House will consider several items under suspension of the rules, including HR 1086, the "Standards Development Organization Advancement Act". The House will also consider HR 2143, the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act", subject to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.

8:00 AM - 5:30 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a conference titled "Promoting Creativity: Copyright in the Internet Age". The speakers will include Brad Brown (George Mason University Tech Center), James Burger (Dow Lohnes & Albertson), Richard Epstein (University of Chicago), Mike Godwin (Public Knowledge), Scott Kieff (Washington University), Edmund Kitch (University of Virginia), Stanley Liebowitz (University of Texas at Dallas), Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), James Delong (PFF), Michael Abramowicz (GMU School of Law), Greg Aharonian (Patent News), Michael Einhorn, Bruce Kobayashi (GMU School of Law), Katherine Lawrence (University of Michigan Business School), Adam Mossoff (Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit), Harold Furchtgott Roth, Solveig Singleton (CEI), and William Adkinson (PFF). RSVP to Brooke Emmerick at 202 289-8928 or Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will meet. The agenda includes a discussion of the status of the work of its workforce education and information technology manufacturing competitiveness subcommittees, a discussion of draft report from the subcommittee on the science and technology of combating terrorism, and a discussion of its review of the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 29, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 103, at pages 32037 - 32038. Location: Washington Room (roof level), Hotel Washington, 15th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

1:00 PM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Trade Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled "Implementation of U.S. Bilateral Free Trade Agreements with Chile and Singapore". Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

Wednesday, June 11

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HR 1320, the "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act", under suspension of the rules, and HR 1115, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003", subject to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on several pending nominations, including that of William Pryor to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "The Spectrum Needs of Our Nation's First Responders". The hearing will be webcast. See, notice. Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The The House Commerce Committee will hold a hearing titled "Reauthorization of the Federal Trade Commission: Positioning the Commission for the Twenty-First Century". See, notice. Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a program titled "Taxing the Internet: Questions for Governors and Legislators". Lunch will follow the program. Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado, will speak. See, Cato notice. Location: 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.

2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on "P2P file sharing networks, focusing on personal and national security risks". Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee of Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure will hold a hearing on reauthorization of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

2:30 PM. The House International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere will hold a hearing on Radio and Television Marti. Location: Room 2200, Rayburn Building.

Thursday, June 12

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HR 1320, the "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act", under suspension of the rules, and HR 1115, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003", subject to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Online Communications Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Vinton Cerf. RSVP to Christine Peyton at Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1750 K St., NW, 10th Floor, Room 10E.

Friday, June 13

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Canning Spam: Can We Shift the Cost of Unsolicited E-mail Back to Spammers?". The speakers will be Orson Swindle (Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission), Wayne Crews (Cato), and Dave Baker (Earthlink). See, notice and online registration page. Lunch will be served. Location: Room B-369, Rayburn Building.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a webcast program titled "The Do's and Don'ts of Workplace Email and Web Monitoring". The presenters will be Cathy Bissoon, (Reed Smith) and Susan Getgood (Surf Control). See, notice and registration information.

CANCELLED. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) will hold a meeting. The NRIC will next meet on September 15, 2003 from 1:00 - 4:00 PM. See, notice of cancellation [PDF].

People and Appointments

6/5. The Senate confirmed Peter Keisler to be an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division. Keisler is formerly a telecom lawyer at the law firm of Sidley Austin.

6/2. Broadcom elected Robert Switz to its Board of Directors. He is EVP and CFO of ADC Telecommunications. See, Broadcom release.

6/5. Rambus elected Harold Hughes to its Board of Directors. Hughes worked for Intel from 1974 through 1997. He was then Ch/CEO of Pandesic, an Intel and SAP joint venture. See, Rambus release.

More News

6/4. The Boards of Directors of Palm and Handspring announced a definitive agreement for Palm to acquire Handspring. The Board of Directors of Palm also voted to spin-off operating system subsidiary as PalmSource, Inc. Palm stated in a release that "Palm, Inc. consists of two businesses -- PalmSource, a subsidiary responsible for developing and licensing the Palm OS operating system, and the Palm Solutions Group, a business unit responsible for designing, making and marketing the world's leading handheld devices. Immediately following the completion of the spin-off, Handspring will be merged with Palm, and the merged company will be renamed later in the year." See also, Handspring release. The transaction is conditioned upon the expiration or termination of the waiting period under the Hart Scott Rodino Act.

5/27. The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed their joint amicus curiae brief on the merits with the Supreme Court in Verizon v. Trinko, a case involving the application of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, in the context of telecommunications. See also, TLJ story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Verizon v. Trinko", March 10, 2003.

6/6. The Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published in its website a document titled "NTIA Spectrum News". It summarizes recent NTIA actions related to spectrum policy reform, the appointment of Janet Obuchowski as WRC ambassador, spectrum for Third Generation (3G) wireless systems, and wireless access systems at 5GHz.

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 information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.