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 HR 1561, 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) 21st Century 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. See, story 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 HR 2391, 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 opinion of 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, story 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, S 2192, on March 10.

On March 3, the House passed HR 1417, 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.

3/11. The California Court of Appeal (2/3) issued its opinion [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 jurisdiction."

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. BC267575.

3/17. The California Court of Appeal (4/1) issued its opinion [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 solicit business."

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. GIC805541.

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 standards."

"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 come."

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."

3/17. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued another opinion [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 Court's judgment 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 prevailing party.

Judge Richard 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 copyright cases.

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 sanction."

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 defendant.

3/17. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a 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].

The PFF notice of the debate states that "Those interested in attending should register by contacting Brooke Emmerick at 202-289-8928 or bemmerick@pff.org. Members of the media should contact David Fish at 202 289-8928 or dfish@pff.org." It will be held in the First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, in Washington DC.

The House will meet at 1:00 PM for legislative business. See, 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, Bethesda, MD.

9:00 AM. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy announced that she will "hold a briefing for members of the media". For more information, contact Meribeth McCarrick at 202 418-0654 or Meribeth.Mccarrick@fcc.gov. Location: 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 Frivolous?". See, 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 participate. See, 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 buntman@newamerica.net. See, 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.

3:15 PM. 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.

3:30 PM. Joel 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 information, contact 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 memorandum 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 Notice of 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.

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, MD.

12:00 NOON. Jon Dudas, 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., NW.

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 lheymann@law.gwu.edu or 202 994-0420. Location: Jacob Burns Moot Court Room, GWU Law School, 2000 H Street, NW.

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 Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 22, at Pages 5187 - 5193.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Science and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft publication [58 pages in PDF] numbered "DRAFT Special Publication 800-30, Rev A" and titled "Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems". This publication updates Special Publication 800-30 to reflect the results of the FISMA Implementation Project, to improve internal consistency within the document, and generally improve the document readability. Comments should be addressed to gary.stoneburner@nist.gov.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Science and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft publication [33 pages in PDF] numbered "DRAFT Special Publication 800-27 Rev A" and titled "Engineering Principles for Information Technology Security (A Baseline for Achieving Security)". It was written by Gary Stoneburner, Clark Hayden, and Alexis Feringa. Comments should be addressed to gary.stoneburner@nist.gov.

The Supreme Court will return from the recess that it began on March 8.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will host a tutorial on recent field studies of digital TV (DTV) translators. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TWC305 (Commission Meeting Room).

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. See, 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.

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 info@rtc-online.org. See, notice. Location: 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 notice states that "Those interested in attending should register by contacting Brooke Emmerick at 202-289-8928 or bemmerick@pff.org. Members of the media should contact David Fish at 202 289-8928 or dfish@pff.org. 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 cmburnett@hhlaw.com. 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 Robert Zoellick is scheduled to testify. Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.

4:00 PM. 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 rbraun@law.gwu.edu. Location: George Washington University Law School, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th Street, NW.

3/17. Todd 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 release.

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 release.