|Rep. Smith Urges Senate to Pass Intellectual
3/15. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX),
the Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Courts the Internet and Intellectual Property
spoke in the House regarding there intellectual property bills that have been
passed by the House, but not by the Senate.
Rep. Smith (at right) He
stated that "three intellectual property bills have passed the House in
the last 2 weeks. They were based on two principles essential to a democracy:
the protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to exchange goods
and services in the marketplace."
"The Patent and Trademark Office Fee Act
protects the rights of American inventors, from the lone individual working in
their garage, to the small business person with a breakthrough idea, to the
large high-tech company that applies for hundreds of patents. The Copyright
Royalty and Distribution Reform Act benefits artists, songwriters, music
publishers and Web casters. The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement
Act allows researchers and inventors who work for different organizations to
share information without losing the ability to file for a patent."
He concluded that "These three bills await action in the Senate where I hope they
will become law. American jobs and profits are at stake." See, Congressional
Record, March 15, 2004, at Page H1081.
On March 3, 2004, the House passed
the "United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003", by a
vote of 379-28. See, Roll
Call No. 38. This bill contains increases in user fees that implement the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO)
Strategic Plan. It also provides for U.S. outsourcing of patent searches,
and an end to the diversion of user fees to subsidize other government programs.
titled "House Passes USPTO Fee Bill", also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
No. 849, March 4, 2004.
On October 20, 2003, Sen. Norm Coleman
(R-MN) introduced the Senate version of the bill,
S 1760, also
titled the "United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003 "
It was referred to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. No action has been taken on the bill.
On March 10, the House passed
the "Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act",
by a voice vote. This is a non-controversial bill to promote collaborative research. The
bill would amend Section 103(c) of the Patent Act, which is codified at
35 U.S.C. § 103, to
address the August 8, 1997
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., which ruled that
derived prior art may serve as evidence of obviousness. See,
titled "House Passes CREATE Act" also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
854, March 11, 2004.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT),
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT),
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), and
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced
the Senate version of this bill,
on March 10.
On March 3, the House passed
the "Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2003" by a
vote of 406-0. See, Roll
Call No. 37. This bill would replace copyright arbitration royalty panels (CARPs)
with a Copyright Royalty Judge. See, story titled "House Passes Copyright
Royalty and Distribution Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 849, March 4, 2004.
|California Court Finds Jurisdiction Over
Nevada Hotels Based on Interactive Websites
3/11. The California Court of
Appeal (2/3) issued its
[14 pages in PDF] in Snowney v. Harrah's, a case regarding the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over out of state hotels. The Court held that
an out of state hotel that operates an interactive website that enables
California residents to make hotel reservations online, operates a toll free
phone reservation system, and advertises in California, has sufficient contacts
with the state to subject it to the jurisdiction of the state's courts.
The plaintiff, Frank Snowney, is a resident of the state of
California. The defendants either own and operate hotels in the state of
Nevada, or are holding companies that own these hotels. Defendants do not have
hotels or offices in California.
Snowney filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Los Angeles
County (a state trial court) against Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. and others
alleging various causes of action under California law, including unfair
competition law, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and false advertising.
Snowney also sought class action status.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The Superior Court granted the
motion. This appeal followed.
The Court of Appeal held that "the defendants who own and
operate the Nevada hotels have sufficient contacts with California to justify
the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on their advertising in California,
interactive Internet site, tollfree telephone number for hotel reservations, and
other activities purposefully directed at California residents. We conclude
further that the defendants who do not own or operate the hotels have
insufficient contacts with California to justify the exercise of personal
The Court of Appeal analyzed each of the contacts of the
defendant hotels with persons in California. The Appeals Court's analysis of
internet contacts relied heavily on the California Supreme Court opinion in
Pavlovich v. Superior Court.
On November 25, 2002, the Supreme Court of California issued its
4-3 opinion in Pavlovich v. Superior Court, reversing the Court of
Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the California courts do not have personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident individual who had published the DeCSS program
his web site. This case is also reported at 29 Cal.4th 262.
See also, story titled "California Has No Personal Jurisdiction Over Non
Resident DeCSS Poster" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 556, November 27, 2002.
This reversed the August 7, 2001 opinion of the Court of Appeal
of California (6th Appellate District). See, story titled "California Has
Personal Jurisdiction over Non Resident DeCSS Poster" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 244, August 8, 2001.
In the present case the Court of Appeal wrote that "A central
Internet site provides information on the six hotels here at issue. The
California Supreme Court in Pavlovich ... adopted a sliding scale analysis to
determine whether Internet use can justify the exercise of personal
jurisdiction. The determination turns on the degree of interactivity of the
Internet site and the commercial nature and extent of the exchange of
information. ... An interactive Internet site through which a nonresident
defendant enters into contracts or conducts other business transactions with
forum residents can be a means of purposefully directing activities at forum
residents and, depending on the circumstances, may support the exercise of
personal jurisdiction." (Citations omitted.)
The Court continued that "The Pavlovich court stated that the defendant’s
Internet site was passive in that it only posted information and had no
interactive features. The site did not target California residents. Finally,
there was no evidence that a California resident had ever visited or downloaded
information from the site. The court therefore concluded that the defendant’s
use of the site did not justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction. ... Here,
in contrast, the Internet site is interactive. California customers can and do
make room reservations online. The site also provides driving directions to the
hotels from several California cities. These features constitute an effort to
solicit business from California residents." (Citations omitted.)
This, combined with a advertising directed at California residents, and a
"toll-free telephone reservation system", led the Court of Appeal to conclude
that "by soliciting and receiving the patronage of California residents through
these activities and to this extent, the Hotel Defendants have purposefully
directed their activities at California residents, have purposefully derived
benefit from their contacts with California, and have established a substantial
connection with this state."
This case is Frank Snowney, et al. v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al.,
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, App. Ct.
No. B164118, an appeal from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Sup. Ct. No.
|California Court Finds Jurisdiction Over Out
of State Telemarketers
3/17. The California Court of Appeal
(4/1) issued its
[PDF] in West v. Superior Court of San Diego, a case regarding the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant. The Court held
that a nationwide telemarketing company that has no offices or employees in
California may nevertheless be sued in the courts of the state.
West Corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiary, West Telemarketing
Corporation (WTC), are telemarketers based in the state of Nebraska and
incorporated in the state of Delaware. WTC is an inbound teleservices bureau
that answers telephone calls for 800 numbers and collects orders for various
products and services on behalf of its clients. It also uses the 800 calls to
upsell, or promote, other products. Neither West nor WTC have any
offices, call centers or employees in the state California.
Patricia Sanford is a resident of the California. She telephoned to order a
fitness tape for which she provided credit card information. The call center
that she reach was located in the state of Virginia. However, WTC ultimately
also placed unauthorized charges on her credit card account. WTC did not mail a
bill to Sanford in California.
Sanford filed a complaint in the San Diego Superior Court (a state trial court)
against West alleging various causes of action under California law, including
violation of a consumers legal remedies act; unlawful, fraudulent and unfair
business practices; untrue and/or misleading advertising; conversion; unjust
enrichment; fraud and deceit; and negligent misrepresentation. She sought class
action status. She is represented by the law firm of Milberg Weiss, a firm
that brings numerous class action lawsuits against corporations.
West moved to quash the service of summons, arguing that it did not have
sufficient contacts with California to support the exercise of personal
jurisdiction. The Superior Court disagreed. It denied the motion. West then
brought the present petition for writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to
grant its motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. WTC had contacts with California such that it
would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to
subject it to suit in California.
The Court of Appeal wrote that "Companies, such as West and WTC
that deliberately engage in nationwide or multi-state commercial activities,
whether by phone, via the Internet, by mail, or by sending agents into forum
states should reasonably expect to be subject to suit in the states where they
It also wrote that "It is not unreasonable to hold telemarketers who engage
in nationwide marketing subject to the potential of being sued in every state in
the union, regardless of whether the telemarketer initiates the telephone call
or engages in an upsell during a call initiated by a consumer."
This case is West Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego,
Fourth Appellate District, Division One, App. Ct. No. D042633, a petition for
writ of mandate to the San Diego County Superior Court, in Sup. Ct. No.
|Cato Paper Criticizes Hysteria and
Demagoguery on IT Outsourcing
3/17. The Cato Institute released a
paper [16 pages
in PDF] titled "Job Losses and Trade: A Reality Check", written by the
Cato's Brink Lindsey.
Lindsey seeks "to shun hysteria and demagoguery in
assessing what is going on with the labor market and why. The employment picture
today is that of a temporary, cyclical shortage of jobs caused by the recent
downturn; there is no permanent shortage of good jobs on the horizon."
He argues that "Calls for new trade restrictions to preserve current jobs are
misguided. There is no significant difference between jobs lost because of trade
and those lost because of new technologies or work processes. All of those job
losses are a painful but necessary part of the larger process of innovation and
productivity increases that is the source of new wealth and rising living
"Advances in information and communications technologies now make it
possible for many jobs ... to be performed anywhere, with the work then transmitted
electronically wherever it is needed." He adds that "In particular, the
offshoring of information technology (IT) jobs to India
and other low-wage countries has received a flurry of recent attention."
He concedes that "Employment in IT-related occupations has experienced
a significant decline recently", but adds that "Although some of those jobs
were lost because of offshoring, the
major culprits were the slowdown in demand for IT services after the Y2K
buildup, followed by the dot-com collapse and the broader recession."
He argues that "The wild claims that offshoring will gut employment in the
IT sector are totally at odds with reality", and that "Despite the trend toward
offshoring, IT-related employment is expected to see healthy increases in the years to
He argues that trade statistics offshoring of IT services from the U.S. to
other countries is more than offset by offshoring into the U.S. He writes that
"the fact is that the United States runs a trade surplus in the IT services most
directly affected by offshoring. In the categories of ``computer and data
processing services´´ and ``data base and other information services,´´ U.S.
exports rose from $2.4 billion in 1995 to $5.4 billion in 2002, while imports
increased from $0.3 billion to $1.2 billion over the same period. Thus, the U.S.
trade surplus in these services has expanded from $2.1 billion to $4.2 billion."
He also argues that offshoring can increase economic growth. "Although offshoring
does eliminate jobs, it also yields important benefits. To the extent that
companies can reduce costs by shifting certain operations overseas, they are
increasing productivity. The process of competition ultimately passes the
resulting cost savings on to consumers, which then spurs demand for other goods
and services. Thus do productivity increases -- whether caused by the
introduction of new technology or new ways to organize work -- translate into
economic growth and rising overall living standards."
|Judge Posner Writes Opinion on Attorneys
Fees in Copyright Case
3/17. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(7thCir) issued another
[PDF] in Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata, a copyright case. The
Court of Appeals issued an
opinion [13 pages in PDF] on November 25, 2003 in which it addressed the
substantive issues of copyright law. In its earlier opinion it reversed the District
for the plaintiff, and remanded. The present opinion determines the award of
attorneys fees. The Appeals Court awarded $91,765.28 to the defendant, as the
Posner wrote both opinions. He could have disposed of this question in a brief
and/or unpublished opinion. But, this is a copyright case; and Judge Posner has taken a
keen interest in copyright law in recent years. He also just co-authored a book
on the subject --
The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law.
In his previous opinion he held that extracting the data from an
electronic database incorporated within a copyrighted program does not
constitute copyright infringement. See,
story titled "7th Circuit Rules in Copyright and Database Protection Case",
also published in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 788, November 28, 2003.
Judge Posner also used his November 25 opinion to discuss, in dicta, the
doctrine of copyright misuse. See, story titled "Posner Addresses Copyright
Misuse" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 788, November 28, 2003. The present
opinion also incorporates a discussion of copyright misuse. Posner raises the
issue of misuse in the context of assessing "the strength of the prevailing
party's case", which is one determinant of whether to award attorneys fees in
17 U.S.C. § 505
provides that "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion
may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the
United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title,
the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as
part of the costs".
Judge Posner noted that in copyright litigation there is no presumption in
favor of plaintiffs or defendants when it comes to awarding attorneys fees. He
wrote that "The courts have not said, however,
that the symmetry of plaintiff and defendant in copyright cases requires a
presumption that the prevailing party, whichever it is, is entitled to an award
of attorneys' fees. They have instead left it to judicial discretion by setting
forth a laundry list of factors, all relevant but none determinative."
"They have instead left it to judicial discretion by setting
forth a laundry list of factors, all relevant but none determinative." Posner
added, "The two most important considerations in determining whether to award
attorneys' fees in a copyright case are the strength of the prevailing party’s
case and the amount of damages or other relief the party obtained."
Judge Posner wrote that "The plaintiff was
rather transparently seeking to annex a portion of the intellectual public
domain." He continues that "We suggested in our opinion that
``for a copyright owner to use an infringement suit to obtain property protection,
here in data, that copyright law clearly does not confer, hoping to force a
settlement or even achieve an outright victory over an opponent that may lack
the resources or the legal sophistication to resist effectively," could be a
form of copyright misuse.´´"
Then, he concludes, "We did not reach the question whether the plaintiff’s conduct
rose to the level of actual copyright misuse, but we made clear that it came
close, and an award of attorneys' fees to the defendant is an appropriate
So, perhaps, while Judge Posner has not yet defined copyright misuse, and he
did not hold that the plaintiff committed copyright misuse, he nevertheless
held, under the "came close" doctrine, that a non-finding of copyright misuse
by a plaintiff can serve as a basis for an award of attorneys fees to the
|PFF Paper Criticizes Open Source and Free
3/17. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF)
paper [61 pages in PDF] titled "The Enigma of Open Source Software", by
James DeLong of the PFF.
DeLong examines the open source model of software development as an
alternative to proprietary and shared source models. He concludes that "For
governments to embrace open source as the model would be
a serious error. The only rational policy for governments is to let the models
compete on a level playing field. If open source is superior it needs no
preference; if it is not; it deserves none."
He also states that "The Free Culture Movement, which is based primarily in
academia, regards the production of open source software as a pilot program for
non-property-based, non-market production of these other forms of intellectual
creativity", such as books, movies, music, games, and drugs.
But, he argues that "Current open source software is the product of so many
idiosyncratic forces that the system producing it is an improbable model for
anything, perhaps even including the future production of software."
On March 25 at 12:00 NOON the PFF will host a debate between Delong and
Stanford Law School Professor
Lawrence Lessig. Lessig will
release a book on March 25 titled
Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture
and Control Creativity [Amazon order page].
of the debate states that "Those interested in attending should register by
contacting Brooke Emmerick at 202-289-8928 or
firstname.lastname@example.org. Members of the media should contact David Fish at
202 289-8928 or email@example.com." It will be
held in the First Amendment Lounge, National Press
Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, in Washington DC.
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Thursday, March 18
The House will meet at 1:00 PM for legislative
Republican Whip Notice.
8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division will host a conference
titled "Developments in the Law and Economics of Exclusionary Pricing Practices:
From Classroom to Courtroom".
Judge Richard Posner
(U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit) will be the luncheon speaker.
Reservations are required. The deadline to register was March 8. The event is
free. See, notice.
Location: The Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
8:30 AM - 1:00 PM. Day three of a three day
meeting of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology's (NIST) Information
Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB). See,
notice in the Federal Register, March 8, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 45, at Pages
10677 - 10678. Location: Hyatt Regency Hotel Bethesda, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue,
9:00 AM. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner
announced that she will "hold a briefing for members of the media". For more
information, contact Meribeth McCarrick at 202 418-0654 or
FCC, Room 8B115, 445 12th Street, SW.
9:00 - 11:00 AM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will
host a panel discussion titled "Are Shareholder Lawsuits Useful or
notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
10:00 AM. The
House Appropriations Committee's
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
will hold a hearing on the proposed budget for the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Acting Director of the USPTO
Jon Dudas will
testify. Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.
10:00 AM. The
House Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims will hold an oversight hearing
titled "US VISIT: A Down Payment on Homeland Security". The hearing
will be webcast by the Committee. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202
225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The State Department
Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP)
will meet to decide on establishing subcommittees or working groups to focus on
specific geographic regions or technologies.
Ambassador David Gross will
notice in the Federal Register, March 11, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 48, at Pages
11696-11697. Location: Room 1105 of the State Department's Truman Building.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The
House Science Committee will hold
a hearing titled "2003 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Math and
Science Teaching: A Lesson Plan for Success". The Committee will webcast
the hearing. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.
12:15 - 1:45 PM. Richard Whitt of MCI
WorldCom will present at paper titled "A Horizontal Leap Forward:
Formulating A New Public Policy Framework Based On The Network Layers Model"
at brown bag lunch hosted by the New America
Foundation (NAF). RSVP to Jennifer Buntman at 202 986-4901 or to
notice. Location: NAF, 1630 Connecticut Ave, 7th Floor.
2:00 - 5:00 PM. The
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Internet Policy Working Group (IPWG) will hold
a "Solutions Summit" on 911/E911 issues that arise as communications
services move to internet based platforms. See, FCC
release [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW.
2:00 - 4:30 PM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will
host a pair of panel discussions titled "Trade Remedies". See,
notice. Location: AEI, 12th, 1150 17th St., NW.
Phil Bond, of the
Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, will speak at a conference
hosted by the International Economic
Development Council on March 17-19. Bond will release the 4th edition of
the State Indicator's Report: The Dynamics of Technology-Based Economic
Development. Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.
Reidenberg (Fordham University School of Law) will give a lecture titled "The
Regulation of Information Flows in a Networked Society". This is a part of
Georgetown University Law Center's
(GULC) Colloquium on Intellectual Property & Technology Law Series. For more
Julie Cohen at 202 662-9871. Location: GULC, Faculty Lounge, 5th Floor, 600 New
Jersey Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) in response to its
notice in the Federal Register requesting comments to assist it in developing
"recommendations for improving the United States' spectrum management policies
regarding the organization, processes, and procedures affecting Federal government,
State, local and private sector spectrum use". The NTIA is conducting this review
pursuant to a
from President Bush. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 2, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 21, at Pages 4923
- 4926. See also, story titled "NTIA Seeks Public Comments on Spectrum Management"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 832, February 9, 2004, and story titled "Bush Issues
Spectrum Policy Memorandum" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 675, June 6, 2003.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding modifying it frequency coordination
rules to promote sharing between non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) and
geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) operations
and various terrestrial services operating in several frequency bands. This
NPRM considers a joint proposal submitted by SkyBridge and the Fixed Wireless
Communications Coalition (Growth Zone Proposal). This is ET Docket No. 03-254.
|Friday, March 19
9:30 AM. Phil Bond, of the
Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, will speak on "the importance
of math and science education" at the FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of
Science and Technology) Robotics Competition. Location: Naval Academy, Annapolis,
the acting head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) will give a luncheon address on "the importance of
intellectual property to the business community" at the Eighth Annual
Alexandria Technology Achievement Week. The price is $40. For more information,
call 703 549-1000 ext. 207. Location: Radisson Hotel Old Town, 901 North Fairfax
Street, Alexandria, VA.
2:30 - 4:30 PM. 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The
DC Bar Association will host a continuing
legal education (CLE) program titled "How Electronic Filing is Changing
Litigation". Prices vary. For more information, call 202 737-4700. Location:
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,
TIME? The Oracle Corporation and
the George Washington University Law School
will host a symposium titled "Willful Patent Infringement". The event
is free, and open to the public, but registration is required. See,
event web site. For
more information, contact Laura Heymann at
firstname.lastname@example.org or 202
994-0420. Location: Jacob Burns Moot Court Room, GWU Law School, 2000 H
Deadline for state and local law enforcement
agencies to submit applications to the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to participate in the
Against Children Task Force Program. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 22, at
Pages 5187 - 5193.
|Wednesday, March 24
Deadline to submit comments to the
Copyright Office (CO) regarding its
proposed rules governing the service of complaints, summonses, subpoenas and
other legal process on the CO and its employees in their official capacities.
notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 35, at
Pages 8120 - 8126.
2:30 PM. The House Government Reform
Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census will hold a hearing
titled "Electronic Government: A Progress Report on the
Successes and Challenges of Government-wide Information
Technology Solutions". Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.
|Thursday, March 25
8:00 - 9:30 AM. The
Republican Technology Council and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host a panel
discussion titled "Global Competitiveness: Countering Economic Isolationism".
The speakers will include Sen. Bob
Bennett (R-UT), Rep. Darrell Issa
(R-CA), and Robert Goodman (Kentron Technologies). RSVP by March 23 to 202
467-4424 or email@example.com. See,
American Gas Association, 400 North Capital Street.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will
host a meeting title "Emergency Communications and Homeland Security --
Working with the Disability Community". See,
notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
10:00 AM. The
House Commerce Committee will
hold a hearing titled "The State of U.S. Industry". Secretary of Commerce
Donald Evans will
testify. The hearing will be webcast. Press contact: Larry Neal or Jon Tripp
at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
12:00 NOON. The Progress and Freedom
Foundation (PFF) will host a debate between Stanford Law School Professor
Lawrence Lessig and
PFF Fellow James DeLong. Lessig will also release his latest book, titled
Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture
and Control Creativity [Amazon order page]. The PFF
states that "Those interested in attending should register by contacting
Brooke Emmerick at 202-289-8928 or
firstname.lastname@example.org. Members of the media should contact David Fish at
202 289-8928 or email@example.com. Location:
First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529
14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
12:00 NOON. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Common Carrier Practice Committee
will host a brown bag luncheon titled "Distribution of Universal Service
Support to High Cost Areas: Reflections on the Joint Board 'Portability'
Proceeding". The speakers will be Matthew Brill (Senior Legal Advisor to
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy), Karen Brinkmann (Latham & Watkins), Joel
Lubin (AT&T), David Sieradzki (Hogan & Hartson). RSVP to Cecelia Burnett
at 202-637-8312 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Location: Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th St., NW, Lower Level.
2:00 PM. The House Appropriations
Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies will hold a hearing on the proposed budget for the
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). USTR
Zoellick is scheduled to testify. Location: Room H-309, Capitol
Joseph Scott Miller
(Lewis and Clark Law School) will present a paper titled "Roles and Rules
for Dictionaries in the Patent Office and the Courts". For more information,
contact Robert Brauneis
at 202 994-6138 or email@example.com. Location:
George Washington University Law School, Faculty
Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th Street, NW.
|People and Appointments
Dickinson (at right) was named VP and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of
General Electric. He was previously at partner
at the law firm of Howrey Simon Arnold & White.
Before that, he was director of the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO). See, GE
3/17. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Lauren Moriarty
to have the Rank of Ambassador during tenure of service as United States Senior
Official to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. See, White House
|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 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All