Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
January 26, 2004, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 823.
Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
Sen. Hatch Announces Amended Version of PACT Act

1/21. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) spoke in the Senate regarding S 1177, the "Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act of 2003. The bill would amend the Jenkins Act of 1949, 15 U.S.C. §§ 375-378, to, among other things, expand the reporting requirements of the Act to cover internet sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

While the Senate passed an earlier version of the bill late last year, Sen. Hatch stated that he now has a "managers amendment" that "makes the PACT Act even stronger". See, Congressional Record, January 21, 2004, at pages S104-5.

Sen. Hatch and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) introduced the S 1177 on June 3, 2003. See, story titled "Senators Introduce Bill to Regulate Internet Cigarette Sales" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 675, June 6, 2003.

It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which amended and approved the bill on July 31, 2003. See, story titled "Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Bill to Regulate Internet Cigarette Sales" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 711, August 5, 2003. The full Senate amended and passed the bill on December 9, 2003.

The Jenkins Act and Internet Sales. The Jenkins Act requires that any person who sells and ships cigarettes across a state line to a buyer, other than a licensed distributor, report the sale to the buyer's state tobacco tax administrator. The rule is significant, because some states impose vastly higher taxes on the sales of cigarettes than others. The Jenkins Act helps states enforce their cigarette tax laws.

Currently, many Internet based cigarette sellers are not reporting sales to state tax administrators. On August 13, 2002, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report [60 pages in PDF] titled "Internet Cigarette Sales: Giving ATF Investigative Authority May Improve Reporting and Enforcement". This GAO report identified 147 web site addresses for internet cigarette vendors based in the U.S. It also concluded that most do not comply with the Jenkins Act reporting requirements. See also, story titled "GAO Reports on Internet Cigarette Sales" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 491, August 14, 2002.

Sen. Orrin HatchSen. Hatch's Statement. Sen. Hatch (at right) stated on January 21 that "The PACT Act as modified by the manager's amendment also clarifies that the bill will not affect existing tribal compacts relating to tobacco tax collection on tribal lands and allows Native American Tribes to maintain enforcement authority over their own excise tax laws."

He also discussed the basic provisions of the bill. He said that "Internet sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are an impediment States face in their collection of tobacco excise taxes. A recent General Accounting Office report indicates Internet tobacco sellers rarely comply with requirements under the Jenkins Act".

He continued that "By ensuring the collection of state excise taxes from all tobacco retailers, the PACT Act will neither inconvenience nor hinder smokers and smokeless tobacco users in their ability as consumers to purchase the tobacco products of their choice over the Internet. This legislation merely removes any uncertainty regarding the scope of the Jenkins Act by explicitly mandating Internet tobacco retailers also comply with existing requirements under the Jenkins Act. This strong vehicle with which to collect taxes from Internet tobacco retailers will allow States to finally claim their rightful revenue and level the playing field for all tobacco retailers."

HR 2824. There is another bill working its way through the House. On July 23, 2003, Rep. Mark Green (WI), Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and others introduced HR 2824, the "Internet Tobacco Sales Enforcement Act", a bill to amend the Jenkins Act to aide states in collecting taxes on internet tobacco sales. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. See, story titled "Internet Cigarette Sales Bill Introduced in House" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 711, August 5, 2003.

The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property amended and approved the bill by unanimous voice votes on October 2, 2003. See, story titled "House Subcommittee Approves Internet Tobacco Sales Enforcement Act", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 752, October 3, 2003.

The House Judiciary Committee held a meeting to mark up numerous bills on Wednesday, January 21, 2004. HR 2824 was on the agenda. However, the Committee did not complete its agenda. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Chairman of the Committee, stated at the conclusion of the January 21 meeting that the Committee would meet again at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, January 28 to complete the agenda.

Senators Introduce Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act

1/21. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) introduced S 2013, the "Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004". This is a very short bill. It merely extends for five years the statutory license for satellite carriers to make secondary transmissions of distant network and superstation television programs.

The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Hatch is the Chairman. Sen. Leahy is the ranking Democrat. Sen. DeWine is the Chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee. Sen. Kohl is the ranking Democrat of the Antitrust Subcommittee.

This bill would amend 17 U.S.C. § 119, which codifies the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999.

Sen. Hatch stated that "The current section 119 license permits satellite carriers to provide subscribers that reside in unserved households with network programming from distant television markets. This section is set to expire at the end of 2004. The extension of this statutory license for an additional five years would continue to serve the many interests that the section 119 license seeks to advance. Most importantly, it assures that television viewers incapable of receiving local network stations off the air retain access to network programming via satellite. This is particularly important for viewers who live in rural areas and may be unserved by either local stations or cable carriers." See, Congressional Record, January 21, 2004, at page S118.

Sen. Hatch continued that "The limited extension also recognizes, however, that satellite carriers are still in the process of making local signals available to their subscribers, an important development for viewers and local broadcasters, as well as for the satellite carriers themselves. The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, which I was proud to help draft, authorized for the first time the retransmission of local signals to satellite subscribers residing in those local markets. The roll-out of ``local-into-local'' service by satellite carriers continues at a substantial rate, giving subscribers more choices than ever and further strengthening the competition between cable and satellite carriers. In light of these continuing changes, an additional extension of the Section 119 license is warranted pending further developments in this area."

Sen. Patrick LeahySen. Leahy (at right) stated that "Of special importance is the fact that the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act permits the satellite transmission of ``local-into-local´´ programming, so that satellite companies can retransmit local broadcast signals to subscribers who actually live in the local market, but cannot receive the broadcast signal. Providing the news and local interest programming that is so vital to the creation and maintenance of a healthy and involved community has been the most gratifying result of the passage of that act." See, Congressional Record, January 21, 2004, at page S118.

He added that "this license enhances competition by placing providers of satellite television programming on an equal footing with cable operators, which enjoy the benefits of their own statutory licenses."

S 2013 provides that "Section 119 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(f) This section shall cease to be effective after December 31, 2009.'."

Four Representatives Write FCC Regarding Triennial Review Order

1/22. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) wrote a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell, and the other FCC Commissioners, urging the FCC "to take immediate action to resolve certain ambiguities and inconsistencies in the broadband portion of its August 2003 Triennial Review Order".

For example, the four state that while the FCC's triennial review order [576 pages in PDF] (TRO), released on August 21, 2003, provides that fiber to the home (FTTH) and packet-switched network elements are not subject to the unbundling requirements of Section 251, the TRO's interpretation of Section 271 may impose an independent unbundling requirement.

The also state that the TRO should be clarified to provide that "no unbundling obligations apply to new broadband network elements serving customers in multi-unit buildings which are properly classified as mass market rather than enterprise customers". Finally, they state that the TRO "does not differentiate with particularity mass-market customers from enterprise customers".

Rep. John DingellRep. Tauzin and Rep. Dingell (at right) are the Chairman and ranking Democrat on the Committee. Rep. Upton is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Rep. Boucher is a senior member of the Committee.

The FCC released its TRO on August 21, 2003. See, stories titled "FCC Releases Triennial Review Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 724, August 22, 2003, and "Summary of FCC Triennial Review Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 725, August 25, 2003. See also, story titled "FCC Announces UNE Report and Order" and related stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 609, February 21, 2003.

The TRO is titled "Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". The proceeding is titled "In the Matter of Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability". The proceeding is numbered CC Docket No. 01-338, CC Docket No. 96-98, and CC Docket No. 98-147.

The TRO addresses the Section 251 unbundling obligations of incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). Unbundled network elements (UNEs) are those portions of telephone networks that the ILECs, such as Verizon, BellSouth, SBC and Qwest, must make available to competing carriers, such as AT&T and WorldCom, seeking to provide telecommunications services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that ILECs must provide access to certain of their network elements at regulated rates.

47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3) provides that ILECs have "The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section and section 252 of this title. An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service."

47 U.S.C. § 271 deals with the regional Bell Operating Companies' (RBOC) entry into in region interLATA services (also known as long distance services).

On January 22, 2004, the four Representatives wrote that "We applaud the Commission for recognizing that broadband facilities should not be hobbled by regulations governing traditional telephone components of networks. In particular, the Commission's liberation of fiber and packet-switched network elements from the unbundling requirements of Section 251 of the Communications Act (the "Act") has provided a much-needed impetus to broadband investment, and incumbent carriers have begun to increase broadband deployment in reliance upon the Commission’s ruling."

They continued that "Unfortunately, however, a close reading of the Order reveals a number of ambiguities that threaten to undermine much of the progress that the Commission sought to achieve through its decision. In our view, prompt clarification of these ambiguities is essential for wireline carriers to move forward with the work of building out new broadband networks."

They raised three issues. "First, while the Order clearly provides that unbundling under Section 251 is not required for new fiber-optic and packet-switched facilities, a different section of the Order appears to construe Section 271 of the Act to impose independent unbundling obligations even when elements do not meet the unbundling standard under Section 251."

Section 271 is addressed at Paragraphs 649-667 of the TRO. It states that Section 251 is the source of the unbundling requirements for ILECs, but that Section 271 incorporates Section 251 obligations for RBOCs. That is, Section 251(c)(3), quoted above, is on the competitive checklist.

The four Representatives continued that "While this latter portion of the Order does not mention broadband network elements specifically, it nonetheless introduces significant uncertainty as to the scope of any separate obligation under Section 271. If the Order is to achieve its intended purpose, it cannot relieve carriers of Section 251 unbundling obligations for new broadband facilities only to reimpose them under Section 271. The Commission, therefore, should clarify, through a grant of forbearance if necessary, that any access obligation remaining under Section 271 does not require the unbundling of individual fiber and packet-switched network elements."

Second, the letter addresses multi unit dwellings. It states that TRO "raises a troubling policy concern regarding its treatment of customers in multi-unit premises such as large apartment buildings. The Order suggests that certain unbundling obligations that will continue to apply to broadband network elements used to serve the enterprise or large-business market also will apply to customers in multi-unit buildings. This result would have the seemingly unintended, yet perverse, effect of inhibiting broadband deployment to urban areas containing high concentrations of less affluent citizens and the small businesses that serve them."

The four argue that the FCC "must make it clear that no unbundling obligations apply to new broadband network elements serving customers in multi-unit buildings which are properly classified as mass market rather than enterprise customers. In addition, the Commission must make clear that fiber loops that extend to the basement of multi-unit buildings are included in the definition of fiber-to-the-premises loops and therefore qualify for the relief provided by the Commission for such loops."

Third, the four write that the TRO "does not differentiate with particularity mass-market customers from enterprise customers, even though different regulations apply to each category. As a result, the Order is not clear regarding the regulations that apply to many customers that may fall into one category or the other. This obviously presents a significant problem in planning new broadband network deployments. The Commission should adopt an objective, bright line standard for determining which customers are in the mass market category in order to provide regulatory certainty to promote accelerated deployment of new broadband networks."

The four conclude that the FCC should "expeditiously clarify or modify the Order as the Commission decides various petitions for reconsideration and requests for forbearance".

EU Publishes Comments Received Regarding Technology Transfer Agreements

1/23. The European Commission's Competition directorate published in its web site copies of the comments that it has received regarding the draft Commission regulation and guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to technology transfer agreements.

See for example, comment [16 pages in PDF] submitted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) on November 24, 2003, comment [19 pages PDF] submitted by Intel on November 26, 2003, and comment [9 pages PDF] submitted on December 1, 2003 by the Business Software Alliance (BSA).

Intel wrote that it is concerned "that certain aspects of the draft TTBER and Guidelines make strong presumptions of competitive harm that are not grounded in sound economic analysis and are likely to create a significant adverse impact on worldwide licensing activity in the semiconductor industry. In particular, the classification of certain cross-license agreements and various field of use license grants as hardcore restrictions of competition appears to be predicated on broad presumptions that such provisions are virtually certain to cause competitive harm."

Intel added that "these presumptions lack empirical support and are in fact contrary to the experience of the semiconductor industry, which has widely used cross-licenses that include field of use grants to provide design freedom to industry participants. Some blacklisted cross-licensing practices have been at the core of the framework of intellectual property licensing in the semiconductor and IT industries that has enhanced incentives to license patents and has been a pillar that has sustained the innovation for which these industries are renowned."

SEC Files Complaint Against Former Computer Associates Executive

1/22. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court (EDNY) against Lloyd Silverstein, a former SVP of finance at Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA), alleging violation of federal securities laws in connection with a practice that resulted in the improper recognition of revenue by CA. Silverstein simultaneously consented to the entry of an injunction, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint. See also, SEC release.

The complaint alleges that "CA prematurely recognized revenue from software contracts that had not yet been consummated, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles".

The complaint elaborates that "Through the conduct of certain members of CA management, including Silverstein, CA engaged in a practice in which CA held its books open after the end of each quarter and improperly recorded, in that elapsed quarter, revenue from contracts that had not been finalized and executed before the expiration of the quarter. CA personnel sometimes concealed this practice by using licensing contracts that falsely bore preprinted signature dates for the last day of the quarter that had just expired, rather than the subsequent dates on which the contracts actually were executed."

And as a result, the complaint alleges, "CA made material misrepresentations and omissions about its revenue and earnings in Commission filings and other public statements".

The complaint alleges violations of §§ 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder. It also alleges that Silverstein is liable for aiding and abetting CA's violations of §§ 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.

CA stated in a release that "CA's Audit Committee preliminarily determined, in its continuing independent investigation, that CA had prematurely recognized revenue in its fiscal year 2000. As a result, the Company demanded Lloyd Silverstein's and two other executives' resignations on October 8, 2003. Furthermore, at the direction of the Audit Committee, counsel for the Audit Committee, Sullivan & Cromwell, and counsel for the Company, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, promptly turned over documentary evidence to government investigators that reflected such improper revenue recognition and directly linked Mr. Silverstein to this practice. Wachtell Lipton also reported to government investigators that Mr. Silverstein had lied to the firm by denying the existence of this practice when he was interviewed in August 2002."

CA added the "The Audit Committee and the Company are continuing their efforts to cooperate with the government's ongoing investigation and are committed to resolving these problems and putting these matters to rest."

This case is SEC v. Lloyd Silverstein, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, D.C. No. 04 Civ. 255 (I.L.G ).

SCO's McBride Writes Letter to Congress Regarding Open Source Software

1/20. Daryl McBride, the President and CEO of SCO Group (formerly Caldera), sent a wide ranging letter [9 pages in PDF] to Members of Congress in which he asserts various claims regarding open source software, Linux, and code copied from UNIX into Linux. The letter is four pages. It attaches an open letter from SCO dated December 4, 2003 on related subjects.

SCO asserts ownership of intellectual property rights in UNIX. It also filed a complaint on March 6, 2003 in state court in Utah against IBM. SCO also filed a complaint [11 pages in PDF] on January 20, 2004 against Novell. See, story titled "SCO Sues Novell for Slander of Title" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 820, January 21, 2004.

McBride argues, first, that the General Public License (GPL) under which Linux and other open source software is developed and distributed, may be unconstitutional and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

He continues that "Those who designed the GPL readily admit that they created this license to have the effect of ``freeing´´ software -- taking it out of the realm of copyright protection by placing it in the public domain."

He also states that "The GPL seeks to commoditize software by reducing its monetary value to zero and making it freely available to anyone. The GPL is carefully designed to have a viral effect -- it ``frees´´ the software that is proprietary, licensable, and a source of income from the companies that developed it. Until now it has been generally agreed that the GPL has never faced a legal test."

McBride does not articulate an explanation for why in this letter for why the GPL is unconstitutional. However, the attached December 4, 2003 addresses this subject at length, although not with clarity.

The second argument that McBride makes in his latest letter is that open source software "is not all original". He repeats his claim that "Linux software contains significant UNIX software code that has been inappropriately, and without authorization, placed in Linux."

He then asserts, "But as use of Linux has grown, license revenue from UNIX has shrunk. Why wouldn't it? Why would someone license UNIX code from SCO and other legitimate providers when they can get much of that same code, for free, in Linux?"

McBride concludes that "The damage this has inflicted on SCO's UNIX business is an example of what could happen to the entire software industry if the current Open Source model continues."

McBride goes on to argue that this problem with open source software could threaten the information technology industry, threaten American economic competitiveness, and threaten national security. For example, he warns that "a computer expert in North Korea who has a number of personal computers and an Internet connection can download the latest version of Linux, complete with multi-processing capabilities misappropriated from UNIX, and, in short order, build a virtual supercomputer."

The Open Source & Industry Alliance (OSAIA) responded to the SCO letter in a release. It wrote that "SCO is expanding its campaign to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about open source software to Congress. The excessive hyperbole and ``the sky is falling rhetoric´´ underlines the failure SCO has had in advancing its apparently frivolous claims against other companies which still create technology products and innovate."

The OSAIA added that "SCO, which long ago abandoned a business model of creating innovative and exciting software, has placed all its corporate eggs in the licensing and litigation basket. Without providing any demonstrable evidence, SCO is claiming that vast amounts of its UNIX based code has made its way into Linux."

Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford University Law School, wrote in his personal web site titled "lessig blog" that "Like his last letter, this one too has no relation to the truth."

Lessig added this: "That the president of failing company would be driven to utter such silliness is of course nothing new. (See, e.g., the annual reports of Enron). But if there are members of this government that take this malarky seriously, then indeed we are in serious trouble." (Parentheses in original.)

Lessig is the author of Author of The Future of Ideas (e-book or paperback) and Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Lessig wrote favorably of open source software in The Future of Ideas. See especially, Chapter 4, at pages 49-72.

Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
Monday, January 26

The House will not meet. See, Republican Whip notice.

The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM to resume consideration of HR 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act.

The Supreme Court will begin a recess. (It will return on February 23, 2004.)

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The New America Foundation will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "Policy Watch: Making the Right Choices about the Future of Communications". The speaker will be David Dorman, Chairman and CEO of AT&T. RSVP to Jennifer Buntman at 202-986-4901 or See, notice. Location: 1630 Connecticut Ave, NW, 7th Floor.

2:00 - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age will hold its second meeting. See, FCC notice [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, January 5, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 2, at Page 345. Location: Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th St. SW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to promoting spectrum based services in rural areas. See, notice in the Federal Register summarizing this NPRM, and story titled "FCC Announces NPRM Regarding Regulations Affecting the Use of Spectrum in Rural Areas" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 739, September 15, 2003. This NPRM is FCC 03-222 in WT Docket Nos. 02-381, 01-14, and 03-202. The FCC adopted this NPRM on September 10, 2003, and released it on October 6, 2003. See, Federal Register, November 12, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 218, at Pages 64050-64072.

EXTENDED TO FEBRUARY 7. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [35 pages in PDF] regarding unlicensed devices. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 10, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 237, at Pages 68823 - 68831. The FCC adopted this NPRM on September 10, 2003. See, FCC release [PDF]. The FCC released the NPRM [35 pages in PDF] on September 17, 2003. This NPRM is FCC 03-223 in ET Docket No. 03-201. See also, stories titled "FCC Announces NPRM Regarding Unlicensed Devices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 739, September 15, 2003, and "FCC Announces Deadlines for Comments on Unlicensed Devices NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 800, December 16, 2003.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes changes to the rules governing practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to consolidate and simplify such rules and to reflect developments in case law, legislation, and administrative practice. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 26, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 228, at Pages 66647 - 66691.

Tuesday, January 27

New Hampshire Presidential Primary.

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

10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Satellite Rural Forum". The agenda includes, among other topics, broadband access, information and mass media entertainment, telemedicine and distance learning. See, notice and agenda [5 pages in PDF]. Location: FCC, 455 12th Street, SW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic is "Meet the FCC Internet Policy Working Group Co-Directors". The speakers will be Jeff Carlisle and Bob Pepper. RSVP to

Wednesday, January 28

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider S 1920 (a bankruptcy related bill) and S 610 (a NASA related bill).See, Republican Whip notice.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in USTA v. FCC, No. 00-1020. Judges Edwards, Randolph and Williams will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Can you say that on TV?': An Examination of the FCC's Enforcement with Respect to Broadcast Indecency". The hearing will be webcast. See, notice. Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee will meet to mark up seven bills, including HR 2824, the "Internet Tobacco Sales Enforcement Act", HR 1768, the "Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2003 ", and HR 1073, an untitled bill to repeal Section 801 of the Revenue Act of 1916, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 72. The event will be webcast. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Franklin Van Antwerpen to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. See, notice. Press contact: Margarita Tapia (Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Online Communications Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Legislative and Regulatory Update on Internet and E-Commerce Privacy Issues". The speakers will be Chris Hoofnagel (EPIC) and Heidi Salow (Nextel). For more information, contact Vincent Paladini, Karlyn Stanley (CRB, 202 828-9835), or Amy Wolverton. Location: Cole Raywid & Braverman, 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 200.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) Wireless Practice Committee will host a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program titled "Implementing the FCC's Secondary Markets Order". The prices to attend range from $50 to $125. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1750 K Street, NW, 10th Floor.

Deadline to submit requests to participate in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) public round table meeting on the effectiveness of inter partes reexamination proceedings, tentatively scheduled for February 17, 2004. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 30, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 249, at Pages 75217 - 75218.

Thursday, January 29

CANCELLED. 10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a program titled "The Dynamics of Two-Sided Markets". The AEI notice states nothing further about the program or its speakers. However, economists use the term "two sided markets" to describe markets for products that must be promoted to two groups to succeed, such as operating systems (developers and users) and payment systems (merchants and consumers). Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

11:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Antitrust in the High-Tech Marketplace: The Real Irrational Exuberance?". The speakers will be Lawrence Lindsey (Lindsey Group), Fred Smith (Competitive Enterprise Institute), Jonathan Zuck (Association for Competitive Technology), and Ed Black (Computer and Communications Industry Association). See, notice. The event will be webcast. Lunch will follow the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The State Department's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee --Radiocommunication Sector (ITAC-R) will hold a meeting to discuss "matters related to the preparations for ITU-R study group meetings taking place in 2004". See, notice in the Federal Register, January 15, 2004 Vol. 69, No. 10, at Page 2380. Location: The Boeing Company, Harry C. Stonecipher Conference Center, 1200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

TIME? Rosemary Coombe (York University) will give a lecture titled "The Globalization of Intellectual Property: Informational Capital and Its Cultures". This is a part of Georgetown University Law Center's (GULC) Colloquium on Intellectual Property & Technology Law Series. For more information, contact Julie Cohen at 202 662-9871. Location: GULC, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) Wireless Practice Committee will host a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program titled "Political Broadcasting Regulations". Bobby Baker (Assistant Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau's Policy Division), Jack Goodman (General Counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters), and Dawn Sciarrino. The prices to attend range from $50 to $125. Location: 8th Floor Conference Room, Dow Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

Friday, January 30

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee for the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference will hold its first meeting. See, FCC notice and agenda [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, December 22, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 245, at Page 71106. See also, TLJ story titled "Powell Appoints Nancy Victory to WRC-07 Post". Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), 445 12th Street, SW.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding BellSouth's request for a declaratory ruling that the state commissions may not regulate broadband internet access services by requiring BellSouth to provide wholesale or retail broadband services to voice service customers of competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) using unbundled network elements (UNEs). BellSouth submitted its 334 page filing on December 9, 2003. See, "Emergency Request for Declaratory Ruling" (without attachments) [35 pages in PDF]. This is WC Docket No. 03-251. See, FCC notice [PDF].

FCC Notices

1/23. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing and describing its Report and Order adopting service rules for spectrum to be used by millimeter wave technologies in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands. See, Federal Register, January 23, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 15, at Pages 3257 - 3268. This FCC announced this Report and Order on October 16, 2003. See also, story titled "FCC Announces Rules for Licensing 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 761, October 20, 2003. This Report and Order is FCC 03-248, in WT Docket No. 02-146. For more information, contact Jennifer Burton at 202-418-0680 or

1/21. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register describing and setting comment deadlines for its Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOI & NPRM) [31 pages in PDF] regarding the interference temperature method of quantifying and managing interference among different services. See, Federal Register, January 21, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 13, at Pages 2863 - 2870. This NOI/NPRM is FCC 03-289 in ET Docket No. 03-237. See also, story titled "FCC Announces NOI/NPRM on Interference Temperature Model" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 779, November 14, 2003, and "FCC Releases NOI/NPRM on Interference Temperature Approach" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 789, December 1, 2003. Comments are due by April 5, 2004. Reply comments are due by May 5, 2004.

1/21. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register describing and setting comment deadlines for its request that parties refresh the record regarding reconsideration of rules adopted in the 1999 access reform docket. This is CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, and CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, adopted August 5, 1999, and released August 27, 1999. See, Federal Register, January 21, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 13, at Pages 2862 - 2863. Comments are due by February 20, 2004. Reply comments are due by March 8, 2004.

People and Appointments

1/22. Robert van Oordt will not run for re-election to the Board of Directors of Nokia. Nokia stated in a release that he "has reached the Nokia Board's retirement age of 68 years". Nokia added that "The Corporate Governance and Nomination Committee proposes to the Nokia Annual General Meeting on March 25, 2004 that the number of board members remains at nine and that the following persons be re-elected for a term of one year: Paul J. Collins, Georg Ehrnrooth, Bengt Holmström, Per Karlsson, Jorma Ollila, Marjorie Scardino, Vesa Vainio and Arne Wessberg. Moreover, the Committee proposes that Professor John L. Thornton be elected as a new member of the Nokia Board for the next one-year term." John Thornton is a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, PR China. He previously was President and  Co-Chief Operating Officer at Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

More News

1/24. President Bush delivered his weekly radio address on Saturday, January 24, 2004. The topic of this address was "five clear steps that Congress can take this year" to address rising health care costs. His fifth step is using more information technology in the health care sector. He stated that "we can control health care costs and improve care by moving American medicine into the information age. My budget for the coming year proposes doubling to $100 million the money we spend on projects that use promising health information technology. This would encourage the replacement of handwritten charts and scattered medical files with a unified system of computerized records. By taking this action, we would improve care, and help prevent dangerous medical errors, saving both lives and money."

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 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.