10/15. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that its Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction, Auction No. 58, that had been scheduled for January 12, 2005, will begin on January 26, 2005. See, notice [3 pages in PDF].

Also on October 15, the FCC adopted and released a Memorandum Opinion and Order [17 page in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Eligibility Restrictions on C Block Licenses in the Broadband Personal Communication Services". The FCC dismissed or denied three petitions or requests to alter or waive the FCC's entrepreneur eligibility rules in connection with it upcoming broadband PCS auction, Auction No. 58. This is RM-11019.

Verizon Wireless had filed a petition seeking reconsideration of a public notice of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WCB). Second, Dobson Communications Corporation had filed a request for a waiver seeking an extension of the expired entrepreneur eligibility provisions of Section 24.709(a)(5)(i) to allow it and other entities to participate in closed bidding in Auction No. 58.

And third, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) had filed a request for a waiver seeking elimination of the entrepreneur eligibility requirements completely or in the context of Auction No. 58. It argued in its petition that "open bidding is the best means of quickly placing spectrum in the hands of those who are willing and able to put the spectrum to its highest valued use. It also will strengthen competition by allowing robust competitors to acquire needed spectrum to enter the market or fill out their footprints."

After the FCC released its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the CTIA responded in a release that "The wireless industry is disappointed that the FCC has decided to maintain its approach of ‘setting aside’ a significant number of licenses in its upcoming Auction of PCS spectrum for designated entities. The alternative approach of utilizing bidding credits -- which is used in all other spectrum auction contexts -- has a proven track record of success in ensuring that small and minority-owned entities can win and operate spectrum licenses. The track record of set asides, by contrast, has consistently slowed the availability of service to consumers."

10/14. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted, but did not release, a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding foreign mobile termination rates.

The FCC issued a release [PDF] that states that this NOI "solicits comment on foreign mobile termination payment arrangements and on payment flows between carriers that terminate mobile calls in certain foreign countries. It also requests data and information on foreign mobile termination rates, on the actions taken by foreign regulators with respect to these rates, and on competitive concerns raised in the FCC’s ISP Reform proceeding. Finally, the Notice seeks comment and information on the appropriate framework for evaluating whether foreign mobile termination rates are unreasonably high."

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps (at right) wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that "Increasingly U.S. consumers are facing very high and often unexpected charges when they place international calls to people using mobile phones. In some cases these rates appear to be well above cost. So the FCC has the responsibility to investigate these charges and to determine if we should take action."

Carol Ann Bischoff, of CompTel/ASCENT, stated in a release that "the issue of foreign mobile termination rates must be investigated further to ensure that American consumers are not subsidizing mobile operators in other countries. There is no doubt that the FCC will find significant evidence that the problem of excessive foreign mobile termination rates is growing more pronounced, as more countries now allow for the assessment of mobile termination surcharges or have unjustifiably increased their existing rates.

She sited "Australia, Peru, Switzerland and Germany, where fixed-to-mobile termination rates are 258 percent above cost-based estimates."

The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) commented in a release that this NOI "is properly focusing on gathering data in order to examine whether there is a problem with foreign mobile termination rates that could have an adverse effect on U.S. consumers, or on competition in the U.S. telecommunications market. CTIA appreciates the Commissioners' recognition that this is an issue that requires close coordination with foreign regulators, who have been closely examining this issue in the context of their calling party pays regimes."

This NOI is FCC 04-248 in IB Docket No. 04-398.

10/14. U.S. and French trade officials commented on Congressional legislation that repeals the FSC/ETI tax regime.

On October 11, 2004, the Senate approved the conference report on HR 4520, the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004", by a vote of 69-17 on October 11, 2004. See, Roll Call No. 211. The House approved this conference report on October 7 by a vote of 280-141. See, Roll Call No. 509. See, full text of conference report [650 pages in PDF], and story titled "House and Senate Approve Tax Bill That Repeals FSC/ETI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 995, October 13, 2004.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the foreign sales corporation (FSC) tax regime, and its replacement, the extraterritorial income (ETI) tax regime, constitute illegal export subsidies, and authorized the EU to impose up to $4 Billion in retaliatory tariffs. This bill repeals the FSC/ETI tax regime.

On October 12, EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy stated in a release that "I am pleased that Congress has finally taken this step towards US compliance with the WTO ruling. It vindicates the EU’s patient but firm approach. Our objective throughout has been to obtain the withdrawal of these illegal subsidies by introducing progressively rising countermeasures."

Lamy (at right) added that "We will now carefully study the details in the final compromise between both chambers, in particular regarding transition periods, grandfathering clauses, as well as all other relevant fiscal provisions."

On October 14, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Zoellick stated in a release that "We recognize the difficulty and complexity of making tax code changes, and by bringing the United States into compliance with our international obligations, we believe the concerns that prompted the EU to bring this action in 1997 have been addressed satisfactorily. We urge Europe to quickly move to end their tariffs on U.S. exports, so that trade can resume to the mutual benefit of both sides of the Atlantic."

10/5. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice in the Federal Register that describes and sets the comment deadline for its rulemaking proceeding regarding implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) ban on importation of devices that violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

The CBP also proposes to amend its rules to provide for the recordation, and seizure and forfeiture, of certain movies, sound recordings, and similar works, before completion of the registration process at the U.S. Copyright Office. The CBP also proposes to allow for the recordation of non-U.S. works without requiring registration with the Copyright Office.

The proposed rule provides for the seizure by the CBP, and forfeiture, of certain devices that it reasonably believes constitute violations of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. These provisions are codified at 17 U.S.C. § 1201.

§ 1201(a)(1)(A), which was added to the Copyright Act in 1998 by the DMCA, provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

Then, § 1201(a)(2)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"

Furthermore, § 1201(b)(1)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;"

The proposed regulations would implement the DMCA's ban on importation of devices that violate the anti-circumvention provisions.

The proposed rule provides that "Imported articles appearing to constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) may
be detained for a period not to exceed 30 days if CBP reasonably believes that such articles are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner; have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent such protection; or are marketed by the importer or trafficker, or another acting in concert with the importer or trafficker, for use in circumventing such protection. Upon determination by the IPR Branch, CBP Office of Regulations & Rulings, that such detained articles constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) CBP will seize them and institute forfeiture proceedings in accordance with part 162 of this chapter. Articles that are not determined by the IPR Branch to constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) will be released."

The proposed rule further provides that "Imported articles determined by the IPR Branch, CBP Office of Regulations & Rulings to constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) are subject to seizure regardless of the recordation of any right with CBP. After seizure, such goods are subject to forfeiture proceedings in accordance with part 162 of this chapter. CBP will notify the importer of the seizure in accordance with part 162 of this chapter."

Finally, it provides that "When merchandise is seized under this section, CBP will disclose to the owner of the protected copyrighted work (in the case of copyright piracy) or the producer, or duly authorized agent thereof, of circumvented copyright protection systems (in seizures effected for DMCA violations), the following information, if available, within 30 days, excluding weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice of seizure:
    (1) The date of importation;
    (2) The port of entry;
    (3) A description of the merchandise;
    (4) The quantity involved;
    (5) The name and address of the manufacturer;
    (6) The country of origin of the merchandise, if known;
    (7) The name and address of the exporter;
    (8) The name and address of the importer; and
    (9) Information from available shipping documents (such as manifests, air waybills, and bills of lading), including mode or method of shipping (such as airline carrier and flight number) and the intended final destination of the merchandise."

The proposed rule does not address how the CBP will reach its determination that it "reasonably believes that such articles are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner". The proposed rules establish no process whereby copyright owners, their trade groups, or the makers of copyright protection systems,  identify devices that they assert constitute violations of the DMCA.

Comments are due by November 4, 2004. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 5, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 192, at Pages 59562 - 59569.

10/15. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [14 pages in PDF] in Creative Computing v. Getloaded.com, a Section 1030 case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court judgment against a corporate hacker. In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction against visiting the plaintiff's web site.

Creative Computing, the plaintiff below and appellee before the Court of Appeals, developed a website titled "The Internet Truckstop". It matched trucks with loads. It enabled truckers to avoid delivering a load, and then returning with no revenue producing load.

Getloaded, in the Court's words "decided to compete, but not honestly". For example, the Court wrote that "Getloaded’s officers also hacked into the code Creative used to operate its website. Microsoft had distributed a patch to prevent a hack it had discovered, but Creative Computing had not yet installed the patch on truckstop.com. Getloaded’s president and vice-president hacked into Creative Computing’s website through the back door that this patch would have locked. Once in, they examined the source code for the tremendously valuable radius-search feature."

In addition, Getloaded "hired away a Creative Computing employee who ... while still working for Creative, accessed confidential information regarding several thousand of Creative’s customers. He downloaded, and sent to his home email account, the confidential address to truckstop.com’s server so that he could access the server from home and retrieve customer lists."

Getloaded also accessed information on Creative Computing's web site by using customer passwords and user IDs. That is, some customers used the same IDs and passwords for both websites.

Creative Computing filed a complaint, which it subsequently amended, in U.S. District Court (DId) against Getloaded alleging copyright infringement, Lanham Act violations, misappropriation of trade secrets under the Idaho Trade Secrets Act, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Creative Computing sought damages and injunctive relief.

The District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), which Getloaded violated.

The District Court also found that Getloaded's "senior management -- and others under its supervision and with its knowledge -- lied under oath" and "destroyed evidence that showed it had copied source code in violation of the injunction".

The trial jury returned its verdict for Getloaded on the copyright and Lanham Act claims, but for Creative Computing on the trade secrets and Section 1030 claims. It awarded damages of $60,000 for each of three violations of the state trade secrets law, and $150,000 for each of three violations of Section 1030, for a total of $510,000. The District Court then awarded an additional $120,000 in exemplary damages because of Getloaded's willful and malicious conduct, pursuant to state statute, and $300,000 in fees and $42,787.35 in costs "as sanctions to compensate Creative Computing for the expense of figuring out and proving Getloaded's violations of the preliminary injunction and false statements in depositions." The District Court also issued an injunction.

Getloaded, having violated the District Court's TRO, and lied to the District Court under oath, had the audacity to appeal. Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court of Appeals, affirming the District Court judgment in full.

Getloaded argued on appeal that the injury to Creative Computing was not "caused" by its computer intrusions because Creative Computing had not installed a software patch made available by Microsoft that would have prevented the hacking technique used by Getloaded. The Appeals Court rejected this argument. It wrote that "A causal chain from the thief to the victim is not broken by a vulnerability that the victim negligently leaves open to the thief."

Getloaded argued on appeal that Section 1030 establishes a $5,000 floor for damages from each unauthorized access, and Creative Computing did not present evidence of this. The Appeals Court held, as a matter of statutory construction, that there is no $5,000 floor for each unauthorized access.

The Court of Appeals added a policy rationale. It wrote that "A court construing a statute attributes a rational purpose to Congress. Getloaded's construction would attribute obvious futility to Congress rather than rationality, because a hacker could evade the statute by setting up thousands of $4,999 (or millions of $4.99) intrusions." (Footnote omitted. Parentheses in original.)

The Court concluded that "The damage floor in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act contains no ``single act´´ requirement."

Getloaded argued on appeal that damages were excessive, that sanctions should not have been imposed, and that it should not have to pay costs. The Court rejected all of these appeal arguments.

This left one appeal issue -- the injunction. It enjoined Getloaded from copying or storing Creative Computing's source code, using information related to or based on its source code, and using its trade secrets such as by selling its customer lists or contacting its customers. The Court of Appeals upheld this, in part because of Getloaded's false testimony, and violation of the District Court's TRO.

The Court also affirmed the portion of the injunction that enjoined Getloaded's personnel from accessing Creative Computing's web site. This is notable to the extent that the Appeals Court upheld an injunction in a civil case that bars one class of people from accessing certain content on the internet. This runs against the open nature of the internet, and the First Amendment. This sets a precedent that overzealous prosecutors and aggressive litigators, who lack an appreciation of the importance of the free flow of information, may invoke in future cases that do not involve the sort of egregious conduct demonstrated by Getloaded.

This portion of the opinion may turn out to be unfortunate. But then, the Court was faced with dishonest individuals, who lied under oath. These people deserved commitment to a suitable federal penitentiary. Yet, this was a civil case, so the most the Court could do was affirm the District Court judgment.

The Appeals Court did attempt to limit the scope of its holding. It tied its holding to Getloaded's past conduct, and wrote that "Getloaded is in a position analogous to one who has repeatedly shoplifted from a particular store, so the judge prohibits him from entering it again, saving the store's security guards from the burden of having to follow him around whenever he is there."

This case is Creative Computing, dba Internet Truckstop.com v. Getloaded.com, Inc., App. Ct. No. 02-35856, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, D.C. No. CV-00-00476-BLW, Judge Lynn Winmill presiding. Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote the opinion for the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Dorothy Nelson and Raymond Fisher joined.

The House is in recess until November 16, 2004. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate is in recess until November 16, 2004.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding "Internet Protocol (IP) Relay and Video Relay Service (VRS), including the appropriate cost recovery methodology for VRS, possible mechanisms to determine which IP Relay and VRS calls are intrastate and which are interstate for purposes of reimbursement, whether IP Rely and VRS should become mandatory TRS services, whether IP Relay and VRS should be required to be offered 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and whether, when, and how we should apply the speed of answer rule to the provision of VRS." See, notice in the Federal Register, September 1, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 169, at Pages 53382 - 53385. The FCC adopted this NPRM on June 10, 2004, and released it on June 30, 2004. It is FCC 04-134 in CG Docket No. 03-123. Comments are due by October 18, 2004.

10:00 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in U.S. v. Microsoft, the government antitrust case against Microsoft.. On October 8, 2004, Microsoft, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and various state plaintiffs filed a Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments. This case is D.C. No. 98-1232 (CKK), Judge Colleen Kotelly presiding. Location: Courtroom 11, Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Executive Committee will meet. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW.

4:00 - 5:00 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Intellectual Property Roundtable featuring Attorney General John Ashcroft". AG John Ashcroft will discuss the Department of Justice's (DOJ) report [96 pages in PDF] titled "Report of the Department of Justice's Task Force on Intellectual Property". See, story titled "DOJ IP Task Force Issues Recommendations" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 995, October 13, 2004. See, notice. Prices vary. The event will be webcast by the U.S. Chamber. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.

4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Legislative Committee will host an event titled "Afternoon Chat with Howard Waltzman". Waltzman is the Chief Counsel to the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. RSVP to hmarshall@wrf.com. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding,1776 K St., NW.

8:00 AM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a breakfast. The speaker will be Dan Glickman, the new head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Location: Capitol Hilton, 16th & K Streets, NW.

9:30 - 11:00 AM. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) will host a panel discussion titled "Privacy vs. Security: A False Choice?". The speakers will be Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage Foundation), David Sobel (Electronic Privacy Information Center), and Robert Atkinson (Director of the PPI's Technology and New Economy Project). See, notice. Location: PPI, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 400.

10:00 AM. Jeffrey Carlisle, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Communications Bureau (WCB), will hold an event titled "briefing for members of the media". RSVP to Mark Wigfield at 202 418-0253. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW, Room TW A-402/A-442.

11:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "The Next Big Thing in Copyright? The Induce Act and Contributory Liability". Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:15 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Leo Hindery (Chairman of HL Capital and Former CEO of TCI and AT&T Broadband). RSVP to Jennifer Buntman at 202 986-4901 or buntman@newamerica.net. Location: NAF, 1630 Connecticut Ave., NW, 7th Floor.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association's Computer and Telecommunications Law Section will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "Ethics and the Internet". The speaker will be J.T. Westermeier (Piper Rudnick). See, notice. Prices vary from $80 to $115. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in In Re AT&T, No. 03-1397. Judges Ginsburg, Sentelle and Randolph will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Heritage Foundation will host a panel discussion titled "Secure Flight: Screening for Terrorists on Passenger Planes". The speakers will be Justin Oberman (Transportation Security Administration), Lisa Dean (TSA), and Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage). See, notice. Location: 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. Jeffrey Carlisle, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau will speak on "VOIP and Cable". RSVP to Frank Lloyd 202 434-7309 or flloyd@mintz.com. Location: 9th Floor, Mintz Levin, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

4:00 PM. Michael Carrier (Rutgers University Law School) will present a paper titled "Cabining Intellectual Property Through a Property Paradigm" at an event hosted by the Dean Dinwoodey Center for Intellectual Property Studies at the George Washington University Law School (GWULS). For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or rbraun@law.gwu.edu. The event is free and open to the public. See, notice. Location: GWULS, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th Street, NW.

5:30 - 7:30 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host an event titled "Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Reception". See, notice. Prices vary from $25 - $50. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: The Club at Franklin Square, 1300 Eye Street, NW, Lobby Level.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host the first part of a two part continuing legal education (CLE) seminar on Homeland Security. Prices vary. See, notice. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. Harry Martin (President of the FCBA) and Michele Farquhar (President-Elect of the FCBA) will speak on involvement in the FCBA and building a career in communications law. For more information, contact Jason Friedrich at jason.friedrich@dbr.com or Pam Slipakoff at Pam.Slipakoff@fcc.gov. Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, 1500 K Street NW, Suite 1100.

10/14. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a paper [13 pages in PDF] titled "State Barriers to VoIP Deployment". It argues that "state impediments to VoIP deployment are harmful and unwelcome", and reviews the VOIP related actions by states.

It states that "any regulatory barrier to the proliferation of this new technology would be unfortunate, as there are clear consumer benefits to be had from VoIP’s proliferation. Furthermore, since this is a new technology, we see little rationale for regulating it under the traditional common carriage regime that has historically been used for telecommunications".

This paper, which was written by Raymond Gifford and Kent Lassman, argues that "the competitive pressures of new technologies and services have eroded the basis for the current regulatory classifications and most economic interventions. Likewise, we believe the ``Internet´´ in VoIP services is inherently an interstate, and therefore federal, concern. However, until fundamental changes to the nation’s telecommunications laws are adopted, VoIP regulation will remain chaotic and the states will have their prerogatives. For now, the best we can do is counsel state forbearance from VoIP regulation, where possible."

"At the state level, some two-dozen states have taken formal action related to VoIP." The paper finds that "Approximately half of the states have not taken any action with regard to VoIP. The actions of other states can be grouped into four categories. In order of regulatory interest: First, certain state commissions have sought information on VoIP through workshops or formal investigations; second, some states have asserted authority over VoIP providers and, in turn, sought applications for certificates of convenience and necessity; third, in a category by itself, California has an active rulemaking docket that would subject VoIP services to the full-blown supervision of the California Commission; fourth and finally, Iowa has used its numbering allocation authority to impede VoIP deployment in the state."

The report then provides a state by state review of investigations and regulatory proceedings.

10/15. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) issued a Public Notice [2 pages in PDF] regarding Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc.'s (GSSI) October 13 request for a waiver [7 pages in PDF] of Part 15 of the FCC's rules to permit the higher power operation of ultra-wideband (UWB) non-contact ground penetrating radars (GPRs). The Public Notice describes the request, states that it will be treated, for ex parte purposes, as a permit but disclose proceeding, and sets comment deadlines. Comments are due by November 5, 2004, and reply comments are due by November 22, 2004. This is ET Docket No. 04-374, which is also the docket number for the proceeding on the similar request [20 pages in PDF] filed Wavebounce on July 6, 2004. See also, Geophysical's June 17, 2004 petition [pages in PDF] for partial reconsideration.

10/14. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a document [72 pages in PDF] titled "Eligible Services List: Schools and Libraries Support Mechanism For Fund Year 2005". The FCC adopted this item on October 5, 2004. This item is FCC 04-244 in CC Docket No. 02-6.

10/14. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deleted from the agenda of its October 14, 2004 meeting two items that it had previous announced would be considered at the meeting. It deleted consideration of an Order on Reconsideration regarding its payphone compensation rules. This proceeding is CC Docket No. 96-128. It also deleted consideration of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) concerning § 251(h)(2). This pertains to Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc.'s petition that it be declared the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) in a town in the state of Montana. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 02-78.

10/15. Julie Erhardt was named Deputy Chief Accountant at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). She will report to Donald Nicolaisen, the SEC's Chief Accountant. See, SEC release.

10/15. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will host a two day workshop on December 15 and 16, 2004 titled "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and Competition Issues". The topics to be covered include the uses of P2P file sharing technology, the role of P2P file sharing technology in the economy, identification and disclosure of P2P file sharing software risks, technological solutions to protect consumers from risks associated with P2P file sharing software, P2P file sharing and music distribution, and P2P file sharing and its impact on copyright holders. November 15 is the deadline to submit comments or requests to participate. The FTC vote on this item was 4-0-1. Commissioner Jon Leibowitz did not participate. Until recently, he worked for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). See, FTC release and notice [13 pages in PDF] to be published in the Federal Register.

10/15. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) prepared an annual audit [8 pages in PDF] for the Chairmen and ranking Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee, and the Senate Banking Committee, titled "Local Television Act: Status of Spending for Fiscal Year 2003". This audit is required by the Launching Our Communities’ Access to Local Television Act of 2000, Public Law No. 106-553.

10/14. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a new Democrat think tank, released a report [7 pages in PDF] titled "Unsatisfactory Progress: The Bush Administration's Performance on E-Government Initiatives". It concludes that "As other nations have raced ahead in e-government, the Bush administration has made, at best, halting progress", because "the administration itself has failed to make a serious commitment to transforming the federal government through information technology". This report was written by Robert Atkinson, Director of the PPI's Technology and New Economy Project. See, also PPI summary.

10/7. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) introduced HR 5253, the "Plant Breeders Equity Act of 2004", a bill to amend 35 U.S.C. § 162. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Issa and others introduced an earlier version of this bill, HR 242, on January 8, 2003. See, story titled "Rep. Issa Introduces Amendment to Plant Patent Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 581, January 13, 2003.

10/7. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced and commented upon lawsuits brought by record industry entities in European nations against online music infringers. See, RIAA release.

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.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.