|Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Nixon
v. Missouri Municipal League
6/23. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari in Nixon
v. Missouri Municipal League, and related petitions, regarding 47 U.S.C.
§ 253(a) and state statutes that prohibit political subdivisions from offering
telecommunications services. See,
Order List [12 pages in PDF] at page 2.
The three consolidated petitions are Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League
(S.C. No. 02-1238 ), FCC v. Missouri Municipal League (S.C. No. 02-1386),
and Southwestern Bell v. Missouri Municipal League (S.C. No. 02-1405).
The Court ordered that "The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.
The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument."
In these petitions, the Nixon (as Attorney General of Missouri), the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and
Southwestern Bell, each sought review of the
pages in PDF] of the
U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) in Missouri Municipal League v. FCC, 299
F.3d 949 (2002). See, FCC's
petition for writ of certiorari [71 pages in PDF], Nixon's
petition for writ of
certiorari [37 pages in PDF], and the
respondents' brief in opposition [PDF] to granting certiorari.
The 8th Circuit vacated an FCC
Memorandum Opinion and Order [18 pages in PDF] denying a request that it
preempt a Missouri statute that prohibits political subdivisions of the state
from offering telecommunications services. The 8th Circuit held that the term
in 47 U.S.C. § 253(a)
includes political subdivisions of states. See, story titled "8th Circuit
Rules States Cannot Bar Municipalities From Providing Telecom Services" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 492, August 15, 2002.
The opinion of the 8th Circuit is in conflict with the
of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir)
in City of Abilene v. FCC, 164 F.3d 49 (1999). The FCC, by a Memorandum
Opinion and Order, also known as the Texas Preemption Order, declined to
preempt a Texas statute that is very similar to the Missouri statute. The City
of Abilene and others filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir).
The DC Circuit issued its
in 1999 upholding the FCC order.
Missouri Statutes, Section 392.410(7), provides that, subject to certain
enumerated exceptions, "No political subdivision of this state shall provide or
offer for sale, either to the public or to a telecommunications provider, a
telecommunications service or telecommunications facility used to provide a
telecommunications service for which a certificate of service authority is
required pursuant to this section."
47 U.S.C. § 253(a)
provides that "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local
legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of
any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications
service." (Emphasis added.)
Various municipalities and municipal organizations filed a petition with the FCC asking
that it preempt this statute for being in violation of § 253(a).
The FCC denied the request to preempt by
Memorandum Opinion and Order (MOO) released on January 12, 2001.
(This is CC Docket No. 98-122.) The FCC wrote that "We do not preempt the
enforcement of HB 620 to the extent that it limits the ability of municipalities
or municipally owned utilities, acting as political subdivisions of the state of
Missouri, from providing telecommunications services or facilities. As we found
in the Texas Preemption Order, the term ``any entity´´ in section 253(a)
of the Act was not intended to include political subdivisions of the state, but
rather appears to prohibit restrictions on market entry that apply to
independent entities subject to state regulation."
The FCC added that "municipal entry into telecommunications could raise
issues regarding taxpayer protection from economic risks of entry, as well as
questions concerning possible regulatory bias when a municipality acts as both a
regulator and a competitor."
The municipal entities then filed a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals. Southwestern Bell and Nixon (Missouri) intervened in
support of the FCC. The National
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) and the
United Telecom Council supported the municipal
parties, as amici curiae.
The Appeals Court vacated the FCC order, and remanded. It reasoned that "The
dispute hinges on the meaning of the phrase ``any entity´´ in § 253 of the Act.
More precisely, do the words ``any entity´´ plainly include municipalities and
so satisfy the Gregory plain statement rule? We hold that they do."
The Supreme Court held in Gregory v. Ashcroft, that a court must not
construe a federal statute to preempt traditional state powers unless Congress
has made its intention to do so unmistakably clear in the language of the
The Appeals Court concluded "that because municipalities fall within the
ordinary definition of the term ``entity,´´ and because Congress gave that term
expansive scope by using the modifier ``any,´´ individual municipalities are
encompassed within the term ``any entity´´ as used in § 253(a)."
Other States. Missouri is not the only state that bans local
governments from providing telecommunications services. Nor were the petitions
for writ of certiorari in the Missouri case the only petitions received by the
Supreme Court. Also on June 23, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, without opinion, in
Nebraska Telecommunications Association v. Lincoln, Nebraska, a
related case arising in the state of Nebraska. See,
Order List [12 pages in PDF] at page 9.
This case is Nebraska Telecommunications Association and Nebraska Cable Communications
Association v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska, S.C. No. 02-1591.
Nebraska has a law prohibiting a political subdivision of the state from
holding a permit as a contract carrier of intrastate
telecommunications service. See, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 86-128(1)(b) and 86-575(2)
(Cum. Supp. 2002), and In re Lincoln Electric System, 655 N.W.2d
363 (Neb. 2003).
See also, amicus
brief [24 pages in PDF] in the Nebraska case submitted by the Independent
Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA), National
Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA),
U.S. Telecom Association (USTA), and the
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of
Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO).
See also, Iowa Tel. Ass'n. v. City of Hawarden, 589 N.W. 2d 245 (Iowa 1999).
International Trade Negotiations. In March, 2003, the
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) made an "Initial
Offer" [120 pages in PDF] to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) regarding opening access to telecommunications,
information, and other services. The USTR states in the section regarding "basic
telecommunications services" that the U.S. would commit to "Maintain an absence
of national government ownership in public telecommunications service
suppliers". See, story titled "USTR Proposes to Liberalize Trade in
Telecommunication and Information Services" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 655, May 5, 2003.
|More Supreme Court News
6/23. The Supreme Court denied
certiorari, without opinion, in Dickson v.
Microsoft, a class action against Microsoft and original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) alleging violation of antitrust laws. This is S.C. No.
Order List [12 pages in PDF] at page 8.
6/23. The Supreme Court released several opinions and an order list on
Monday, June 23, 2003, and announced that "The Court will take a recess from
today until Thursday, June 26, 2003." See,
List [12 pages in PDF] at page 12.
|Representatives Baird & Inslee Introduce
6/19. Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) and
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced
the "Fair, Transparent, and Competitive Internet Naming Act of 2003". The bill
would require the Comptroller General to conduct a study regarding "the business
practices, procedures, accountability, and administration" of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
This study would examine whether the ICANN has operated in accordance with
the terms of the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department
of Commerce and ICANN, whether the MOU provides for adequate oversight by the
federal government, and whether persons and entities would be better served by a
different relationship between the ICANN and the federal government (such as
would exist with application of the Administrative Procedure Act or the Federal
Advisory Committee Act to the ICANN).
The study would also examine whether "any decision by ICANN to approve the
request of a private entity to manage and operate a Wait Listing Service for
expired Internet domain names is consistent with the purpose and principles of
the Memorandum of Understanding, whether any such decision would have the effect
of awarding a monopoly to such private entity, and the effects any such decision
would have on existing Internet domain name registrars and on other users of the
The bill would also impose a moratorium on the Department of Commerce. It
provides that the "(1) Secretary of Commerce may not take any action to alter
the system and procedures for registration of Internet domain names from such
system in effect on June 19, 2003, and any action taken during such period
before the date of the enactment of this Act may not be given any effect during
the remainder of such period, and (2) any decision or determination to alter
such system, including by providing for any entity to implement a Wait Listing
Service of domain name registration, and any authority granted to alter such
system, shall not be effective during such period, regardless of whether such
decision or determination is made before or after the date of the enactment of
Rep. Baird issued a
release which states that "Domain Registrars across the country have expressed
concern over ICANN’s recent agreement to implement an exclusive Wait List
Service (WLS) for customers interested in registering domain names that are in
use by others. Customers may currently purchase ‘expired’ domain names through a
number of registrar firms. If the WLS becomes reality, as currently envisioned
by ICANN, domain registrars around the country will be edged out of competition.
This agreement is contrary to competition principles detailed in the very same
Memorandum of Understanding that provided ICANN with control of the DNS."
The Comptroller General is the head of the
General Accounting Office (GAO), which is the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of the Congress. The bill was referred to the
House Commerce Committee.
|U.S. Focuses on Trade and Tech in Islamic
6/24. On June 23, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
Robert Zoellick gave a
at the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan. He stated that "in a nearby
valley, adjacent to the campus of Jordan University, you can see the offices of
Estarta Solutions, where 170 Jordanians
are busy developing advanced business software. This dynamic company produces a
variety of products, from Arabic word processors for Macintosh computers to
banking software. Last year, under the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, Estarta
earned $1 million in export sales to the United States, and Microsoft announced
that it would be making a major investment in the company."
He continued that "The president and co-founder of this start-up, Ennis Rimawi, is one of
a new generation who are making their mark as innovators and
entrepreneurs in the global economy. Rimawi and his colleagues are
reviving a proud past -- when the Middle East was the vibrant core of
global trade -- and charting a brighter future: for Jordan, the Middle
East, and the world."
Microsoft release of May 22, 2002.
Zoellick noted the economic success of Arab Americans living in the U.S., and
concluded that "A rebirth of commerce and intellectual discovery awaits only an
awakening of economic liberty throughout their homelands."
(at right) added that "Open markets and trade have a long lineage in this part of the world.
The Holy Quran urges the faithful to ``Let there be trading by mutual
Zoellick was also in Bahrain. On June 19 he held a press
conference with Bahrain Minister of Finance and National Economy Abdullah Saif.
Zoellick said that "we're very proud about the prospect of launching a free
trade agreement with Bahrain." See,
He stated that when the U.S. negotiates free trade agreements, "we make then
very comprehensive economic partnerships". He said that in addition to removing
"all tariffs or taxes on goods or agriculture ... we also try to open up the
services market, we try to have a
high standard for intellectual property, we try to develop openness in
transparency rules, we try to open up government procurement ..."
He added that "our agreement will not only deal with goods and
services, but will deal with concepts about e-commerce."
He was asked when a U.S. Bahrain FTA will be signed. He responded that "we
have to negotiate it first". However, he added that
"we believe that the steps that Bahrain has already taken to open up its
economy, to strengthen its intellectual property rights, to open up its
telecommunications system could mean that we hope we can proceed relatively
In addition, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf traveled to Washington DC
and met with President Bush on June 24. The White House press office released a
document which states that "A Trade and Investment Framework Agreement will
be concluded to create a formal structure that will expand our bilateral
economic partnership and promote investment. An additional $75 million in
private sector lending to Pakistan will be guaranteed by OPIC. A Five-year trade
capacity-building program will be launched under the auspices of the U.S.
Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development Program." It also provides
that "A Science and Technology Agreement will be concluded to promote
cooperation in these areas, especially in support of scientific exchanges."
Musharraf stated at a joint press conference with President Bush that "As a
result of this commitment, two important agreements will be signed during my
visit to the United States. One relates to the trade and investment framework
agreement, the TIFA, which would help move towards an eventual free trade
agreement, the FTA." He added that "The other relates to an agreement on
cooperation in the field of science and technology, which would provide impetus
to growth and development." See,
|Amici File Brief In Support of RIAA in DMCA
6/20. The Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA) and other groups filed an
curiae brief [38 pages in PDF] with the U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) in Verizon v. RIAA, arguing that a
17 U.S.C. § 512(h)
subpoena may be used to obtain the identity of an anonymous peer to peer
infringer from his ISP.
The brief concludes that "In the DMCA, Congress,
after years of considering the competing issues involved, took on the latest
threat to copyright -- balancing the tremendous benefits of the Internet and
digital technology against the very significant risks they pose to the
intellectual property of present and future copyright owners. One cannot find in
Title II the purported right to anonymity that Verizon invokes on behalf of the
serial infringers at issue in this proceeding, and the others who are similarly
inflicting massive injury on copyright owners. For the reasons set forth above,
the Court should decline the invitation to create such a right. Amici
respectfully submit that the Court should affirm the
District Court’s Orders."
Amici also include the Business Software
Alliance (BSA) and the Digital Software Association. The amici also include
other groups representing musicians, artitists, actors, photographers, writers,
directors and publishers. Amici also include the National Football League, and the
Commissioner of Baseball. The brief was prepared by Paul Gaffney and Manish Mital
of the law firm of Williams & Connolly.
titled "District Court Rules That A DMCA § 512(h) Subpoena for the Identity of
an P2P Infringer Does not Violate the Constitution", April 24, 2003;
titled "District Court Rules DMCA Subpoenas Available for P2P Infringers",
January 21, 2003; and
titled "Verizon and Privacy Groups Oppose RIAA Subpoena", August 30, 2002.
|District Court Enters Final Judgment in US
v. Village Voice and NT Media
U.S. District Court (NDOhio) entered
its Final Judgment
in U.S.A. v. Village Voice Media and NT Media, an antitrust action
involving an agreement between two publishers of weekly city newspapers and web
sites to allocate markets. The Final Judgment bars them from taking any action
in furtherance of their agreement.
On January 27, 2003, the Department of
Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division (ATR)
filed a complaint
in District Court against NT Media (which publishes the New Times weekly city
newspapers and web sites) and the Village Voice Media (which publishes the
Village Voice weekly city newspapers and web sites) alleging violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1. The
two count complaint alleges both per se and rule of reason violations of Section
The two companies entered into an agreement to allocate markets. NT agreed to
shut down a newspaper in Los Angeles, and in return, Village Voice agreed to
shut down a newspaper in Cleveland. The complaint alleges that "The agreements
contained essentially identical ``Non-Competition´´ clauses in which each
Defendant agreed not to publish an alternative newsweekly in the other
Defendant's market for at least ten years. Each Defendant also agreed not to
solicit or attempt to induce advertisers to advertise in a competing publication
over the next decade."
The parties also agreed to use the web sites of the closed publications to
redirect Internet traffic to the web sites of the former competitors. The
complaint alleges that "The written agreements further required each Defendant
to redirect traffic on its closed newsweekly's website to the other Defendant's
website for one year, and to state prominently on its website that its
alternative newsweekly was no longer in circulation."
At the time of the filing of the complaint the parties also agreed to a
proposed consent decree. See,
Stipulation and Order and
On February 12, 2003, the DOJ published a
notice in the Federal Register of its PFJ and Competitive Impact Statement.
See, Federal Register, February 12, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 29, at Pages 7132-7147.
See also, story titled "DOJ Files Antitrust Complaint Against Newspaper and
Web Site Publishers for Allocation of Markets" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 592, January 28, 2003.
6/24. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its
Communications v. Hall, a trademark case involving the mark
"iMarketing News". Courtenay filed
a complaint in U.S. District Court
(SDNY) against Patricia Hall and Hallmark Capital Corporation alleging
violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125( a),
and state law claims of libel per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.
The District Court concluded that the mark is generic and not entitled to
trademark protection. The District Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims, and dismissed the complaint. Courtenay
appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
|9th Circuit Construes Section 230 Immunity in
Suit Against Listserv Operator
6/24. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its
opinion [41 pages in PDF] in Batzel
a case involving the application of California's Anti-SLAPP statute to a suit
alleging defamation on an internet listserv. The District Court denied a
defendant's motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The Appeals Court,
relying upon the federal interactive computer service immunity provision of
47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1),
vacated and remanded.
Background. Defendant Robert Smith is a handyman who was hired by plaintiff Ellen Batzel.
Smith wrote an e-mail to the Museum Security
Network in which he stated that "A month ago, I did a remodeling job for a
woman, Ellen L. Batzel who bragged to me about being the grand daughter of 'one
of Adolph Hitler's right-hand men.' At the time, I was concentrating on
performing my tasks, but upon reflection, I believe she said she was the
descendant of Heinrich Himmler. Ellen Batzel has hundreds of older European
paintings on her walls, all with heavy carved wooden frames. She told me she
inherited them. I believe these paintings were looted during WWII and are the
rightful legacy of the Jewish people." (Paragraph breaks removed.) Batzel
disputes Smith's account.
Defendant Ton Cremers, was the Director of Security at the
Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and the sole
operator of the Museum Security Network, which maintains a web site and an
e-mailed newsletter about museum security and stolen art. He published Smith's
e-mail on the Network's listserv. He determined which e-mails to publish. He
also made some minor changes to Smith's e-mail. Smith also later stated that he
never imagined that his e-mail would be published on the listserv.
District Court. Batzel filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (CDCal) against Smith,
Cremers, and others alleging defamation. Federal jurisdiction is based upon diversity
of citizenship. Cremers filed a motion to strike under the California Anti-SLAPP
statute alleging that Batzel's suit was meritless and that the complaint was
filed in an attempt to interfere with his First Amendment rights. The District Court
denied his motion. In particular, the District Court held that the Network is
not an "interactive computer service" within the meaning of § 230.
Cremers filed this appeal.
Statutes. California's Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public
Participation) statute is codified at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. It provides
for the early dismissal of lawsuits that masquerade as ordinary lawsuits,
but are brought to deter common citizens from exercising their political or
legal rights or to punish them for doing so.
§ 230(c)(1) provides that "No provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider."
§ 230 defines "interactive computer
service" as "any information service, system, or access software provider
that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet
and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational
Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court reviewed the legislative history
of § 230, its purposes, and cases that have applied it. The Court was not
enthusiastic about the policy justifications for the immunity provision of
§ 230. Nevertheless, it applied it to vacate the District Court.
The Court wrote that "There is no reason inherent in the technological
features of cyberspace why
First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than
in the brick and mortar world. Congress, however, has chosen for policy reasons
to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech
``providers and users
of interactive computer services´´ when the defamatory or obscene material is
``provided´´ by someone else. This case presents the question whether and, if so,
under what circumstances a moderator of a listserv and operator of a website who
posts an allegedly defamatory e-mail authored by a third party can be held
liable for doing so."
The Appeals Court vacated and remanded to the District Court. However, the
Appeals Court did not address whether a listserv fits the definition of
"interactive computer service". Nor did the Appeals Court conclude that Cremers
has § 230 immunity. It concluded that the factual records needs to be
further developed. It vacated the District Court.
The Court reasoned that "There is, however, no need here to
decide whether a listserv or website itself fits the broad statutory definition
of ``interactive computer service,´´ because
the language of § 230(c)(1) confers immunity not just on ``providers´´ of such
services, but also on ``users´´ of such services. There is no dispute that the Network
uses interactive computer services to distribute its on-line mailing and to post
the listserv on its website. Indeed, to make its website available and to mail
out the listserv, the Network must access the Internet through some form
of ``interactive computer service.´´ Thus, both the Network website and the listserv are
potentially immune under § 230."
The Court continued, "Critically, however, § 230 limits immunity
to information ``provided by another information content provider.´´ § 230(c)(1).
An ``information content provider´´ is defined by the statute to mean
``any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any
other interactive computer service.´´ § 230(f)(3). The reference to ``another
information content provider´´ (emphasis added) distinguishes the
circumstance in which the interactive computer service itself meets the
definition of ``information content provider´´ with respect to the information
in question. The pertinent question therefore becomes whether Smith was the sole
content provider of his e-mail, or whether Cremers can also be considered to
have ``creat[ed]´´ or ``develop[ed]´´ Smith's email message forwarded to the
"Obviously, Cremers did not create Smith's e-mail. Smith
composed the e-mail entirely on his own. Nor do Cremers’s minor alterations of
Smith's e-mail prior to its posting or his choice to publish the e-mail (while
rejecting other e-mails for inclusion in the listserv) rise to the level of
``development.´´ As we have seen, a central purpose of the Act was to protect
from liability service providers and users who take some affirmative steps to
edit the material posted. Also, the exclusion of ``publisher´´ liability
necessarily precludes liability for exercising the usual prerogative of
publishers to choose among proffered material and to edit the material published
while retaining its basic form and message."
The Court concluded that "The ``development of information´´
therefore means something more substantial than merely editing portions of an
e-mail and selecting material for publication.
Because Cremers did no more than select and make minor alterations to
Smith’s e-mail, Cremers cannot be considered the content provider of Smith's
e-mail for purposes of § 230."
However, the Appeals Court did not then go on to conclude that
Cremers has § 230 immunity, and therefore reverse the District Court. It stated
that the analysis is further complicated by Smith's statement that he did not
expect his e-mail to be published on the listserv. The Appeals Court wrote that
"The question thus becomes whether Smith can be said to have ``provided´´ his
e-mail in the sense intended by § 230(c). If the defamatory information is not
``provided by another information content provider,´´ then § 230(c) does
not confer immunity on the publisher of the information."
The Court provided detailed guidance to the District Court on this question.
It vacated the District Court, and remanded to allow the District Court to
further develop the facts, and apply this opinion to those facts.
The Appeals Court also addressed at length issues not covered in this
article, including jurisdiction and whether the denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion
can be appealed prior to final judgment in the underlying case.
|Wednesday, June 25
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See,
Republican Whip notice.
8:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) will host a conference titled "IT
Leadership: Homeland, Cyber Security". The speakers will include Bill
Gates (Microsoft), who will give the luncheon keynote address, and
Liscouski (Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Infrastructure
notice and agenda.
Press contact: Mark Schoeff at 202 775-3242 or
CSIS, 1800 K Street, NW, B-1 conference level.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Commerce Committee will
hold a hearing on two nominations, including that of Pamela Harbour to be
Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC). The Committee will then hold a hearing on radio ownership. Location:
Room 253, Russell Building.
9:30 AM. The Senate
Government Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of
Joshua Bolton to be Director of the
Office of Management and Budget
notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Judiciary
Committee will meet to mark up several bills, including and
the "United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003".
The meeting will be webcast. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202
225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
10:15 AM. The
House International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on East Asia and
the Pacific will hold a hearing. The witness will be
Ralph Ives, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Asia-Pacific and
APEC Affairs. Location: Room 2172, Rayburn Building.
11:30 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science, and Research & Development
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science and Research & Development will hold a
hearing titled "Overview of the Cyber Problem: A Nation Dependent and
Dealing with Risk". Press contact: Vince Sollitto or Liz Tobias at 202
226-9600 Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.
12:00 NOON -
1:30 PM. The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee
and the US Asia Policy Network will host a panel discussion titled "The
Internet in Asia: Is the US Falling Behind?" RSVP to
firstname.lastname@example.org or 202 638-4370.
Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
The Federal Communications Bar Association
(FCBA) will host a luncheon. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman
Michael Powell will speak.
1:00 PM. Rep. Zoe Lofgren
(D-CA) and Rep. John Doolittle
(R-CA) will hold an event to announce the introduction of HR __, the "Public
Domain Enhancement Act". Other speakers will include
(Stanford Law School) and Gigi Sohn (Public
Knowledge). Rep. Lofgren stated in a release that the bill addresses "the
need to reform copyright issues that were identified in the recent Supreme
Court decision of Eldred v. Ashcroft". Location: Cannon Terrace, Cannon
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing on the
nominations of Allyson Duncan (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit), and Louise Flanagan (Eastern District of North
Carolina), Samuel Der-Yeghiayan (Northern District of Illinois), Lonny Suko
(Eastern District of Washington), Earl Leroy Yeakel (Western District of
Texas), Robert Brack (District of New Mexico), and Christopher Wray (Assistant
Attorney General). Press contact: Margarita Tapia
at 202 224-5225. See,
Room 215, Dirksen Building.
The EU-US summit will begin. President Bush will meet
with European Commission President Romano Prodi, Greek Prime Minister Costas
Simitis and High Representative Javier Solana on Wednesday morning. At 1:20
PM, President Bush, President Prodi and Prime Minister Simitis will hold a
joint press conference at the White House. At 2:30 PM, President Prodi, Prime
Minister Simitis, High Representative Solana and Greek Foreign Minister George
Papandreou will hold a joint EU press briefing at the Ritz Carlton Hotel,
Salon III, lower level, 1150 22nd Street, NW.
Commission (FCC) will begin Auction 53, regarding licenses in the
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). See,
notice in Federal Register, May 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 101, at pages 28825
|Thursday, June 26
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See,
Republican Whip notice.
Last scheduled conference of the
Supreme Court in the October 2002 term. See,
9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce
Committee will meet to mark up several bills. The agenda includes
S 1264, the
FCC reauthorization bill, which also contains a large number of significant changes
in substantive law. For example, it contains provisions pertaining to media
ownership rules, e-rate fraud, FCC enforcement, private causes of actions
against common carriers, lobbying by former FCC officials, and the effect of
bankruptcy on spectrum auctions. See, story titled "Sen. McCain Introduces Telecom Bill"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 681, June 16, 2003. The agenda also includes
the "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act", which the House has already
passed. See, story, titled "House Passes Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 679, June 12, 2003. Press contact: Rebecca Hanks
(McCain) 202 224-2670 or Andy Davis (Hollings) at 202 224-6654. Location: Room
253, Russell Building.
The Senate Judiciary Committee
will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of
the nominations of William Pryor to be a Judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) and Thomas
Hardiman to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court (WDPenn). Press contact: Margarita
Tapia at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The
agenda [2 pages in PDF] includes consideration of an Eighth Report
regarding the status Commercial Mobile Services (CMS) competition (WT Docket
No. 02-379), a Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking regarding issues raised by proposed revisions to satellite and
earth station license application forms (IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and 00-248), and
a Report and Order regarding it rules regulating unsolicited advertising by
telephone and facsimile machine (CG Docket No. 02-278). The meeting will be
webcast. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting
10:00 AM. The Senate Finance
Committee will hold a hearing to examine the
nominations of Josette Shiner to be a Deputy United States Trade
Representative, and James Jochum to be an Assistant Secretary of
Commerce. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
|Friday, June 27
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See,
Republican Whip notice.
9:00 AM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation
(PFF) will host a conference titled "Net Neutrality: Consumer Protection or
Commercial Ploy?". At 9:00 AM,
Nancy Victory, Director of the
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), will give the opening keynote address. At 9:30 AM,
there will be a panel titled "Industry Perspectives on the Need for Regulating
Broadband Networks". The participants will include Paul Misener (Amazon),
Robert Sachs (National Cable &
Telecommunications Association), Tom Tauke (Verizon), and Jeffrey Campbell (Cisco Systems). At 10:45 AM, there will be a
panel titled "Economic and Public Policy Perspectives on the Need for
Regulating Broadband Networks". The participants will include
(Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research),
Joseph Farrell (University
of California at Berkeley), and David Scheffman (Bureau of Economics, Federal
Trade Commission). See,
Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel.
Day long meeting of the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee.
Deadline to submit comments to the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its
notice of proposed changes to its rules of practice to implement the
inter partes reexamination provisions, and other patent related
(107th Congress), the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act, which President Bush signed on November 2, 2002. For more
information, contact Kenneth Schor at 703 308-6710. See, Federal Register,
April 28, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 81, at Pages 22343 - 22353.
|Monday, June 30
The House will be in recess from June 30 through July 4 for the
Independence Day District Work Period. The Senate will be in recess also.
The Securities and Exchange Commission's
(SEC) rule changes that require that reports by insiders disclosing their
securities holdings be filed electronically with the SEC become effective. The
SEC stated in an April 24
release that it "voted to mandate the electronic filing of beneficial
ownership reports filed by officers, directors and principal security holders
under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to require
issuers with corporate websites to post these reports. Electronic filing and
website posting of these reports will result in earlier public notification of
insiders' transactions and wider public availability of information about
those transactions. The new rules and amendments implement the requirements of
Section 16(a)(4), as amended by Section 403 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
Deadline to submit comments to the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its notice of proposed
rule making regarding regulation under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The
USPTO published a
notice in the Federal Register stating that it proposes to "amend the
rules of practice to conform them to certain amendments made to the
Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that will take effect on
January 1, 2004. These amendments will result in the addition of a written
opinion in PCT chapter I, as well as a simplification of PCT designations and
the PCT fee structure. In addition, the Office is proposing to adjust the
transmittal, search, and international preliminary examination fees for
international applications filed under the PCT ..." See, Federal Register, May
30, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 104, at pages 32441 - 32448.
|Tuesday, July 1
8:30 AM - 5:15 PM. The U.S. Department of Commerce will host a one day
conference on the U.S. India high tech cooperation titled "Financing
Innovation Forum". The speakers will include
Phil Bond (Under Secretary of
Commerce for Technology),
Kenneth Juster (Under Secretary of Commerce in charge of the
Bureau of Industry and Security), and
Sam Bodman (Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Commerce). See,
agenda. Location: Ronald Reagan Building International Trade Center.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding News Corp.' proposed
acquisition of an interest in DirecTV. See, FCC
notice [7 pages in PDF], and story titled "FCC Sets Deadlines for Comments
on News Corp.'s DirecTV Deal" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 664, May 19, 2003.
This is MB Docket No. 03-124. For more information, contact Marcia Glauberman at
email@example.com or 202 418-7046 or Linda
Senecal at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202 418-7044.
|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