|4th Circuit Rules Subcontractor to Contract
to Create Computer Records Systems Cannot Sue for Breach
1/13. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (4thCir) issued its
pages in PDF] in BIS Computer Solutions v. Richmond, a case
involving who can sue for breach of a contract to create, install and maintain a
computerized records management system. The Court of Appeals held that a
subcontractor can not sue for breach of contract because it was not an intended
third party beneficiary.
The City of Richmond contracted with Halifax Corporation, which
subcontracted with BIS Computer Solutions. BIS was not a party to the contract,
and the contract did not identify BIS. However, the contract did provide that
Halifax would subcontract, and that Halifax could not change subcontractor
without approval of Richmond.
BIS filed a complaint against Richmond alleging various claims,
including breach of contract. The
U.S. District Court (EDVa) held that BIS was a third party
beneficiary of the contract, and allowed the case to go to the jury, which
returned a verdict for BIS on the breach of contract claim. The District Court
remitted the jury award, added interest, and entered judgment for BIS in the
amount of $1,630,451.
Richmond appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held, as a
matter of state law and contract law generally, that BIS was merely an
incidental third party of the contract, and therefore could not sue under the
contract. Only intended third party beneficiaries may sue for breach of
This case is BIS Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Richmond of
Richmond, Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos.
04-1455 and 04-1466, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond, Judge Henry Hudson presiding, D.C. No.
CA-02-889-3. The Court of Appeals further wrote that its opinion is unpublished,
and that "Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c)."
|FBI Reports on Use of Carnivore and Similar
Products in FY 2002 and 2003
1/14. The Electronic Privacy Information
Center (EPIC) published in its web site two
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports to the Congress regarding the FBI's
e-mail monitoring program named "Carnivore", and later renamed "DCS
1000". The EPIC obtained these two reports in response to request made pursuant to
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The two reports state that the FBI did not use Carnivore during the relevant
time periods, Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003. However, it did use
"commercially available software" that constituted "network collection devices
on packet networks" to carry out surveillance authorized by 13 court orders.
The FY 2002
report [5 pages in PDF] is titled "Carnivore/DCS 1000 Report to Congress"
and dated February 23, 2003. It states that "The FBI conducted court-ordered
surveillance of authorized subject accounts using commercially available
software owned by the FBI and deployed on data networks on five occasions during
Fiscal Year 2002. Three deployments were made to implement court orders issued
under section 3123. The other two deployments were to effect court ordered
surveillance under section 2518. Of these occurrences, both involve pending
sensitive investigations and are therefore not reported herein. The FBI made no
use of DCS 1000, to effect court-ordered surveillance during that time period."
The FY 2003
report [pages in PDF] is titled "Carnivore/DCS 1000 Report to Congress" and
dated December 18, 2003. It contains similar information to the FY 2002 report.
It too states that the FBI made no use of Carnivore to effect court ordered
surveillance during the covered time period. It states that the FBI used
commercially available software eight times, six of which were pursuant to
Section 3123 orders.
The reports also contain information about the nature of the criminal
investigations for which the Section 3123 (regarding pen register and trap and trace
device) orders were obtained. Several involved investigations related to terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction. Several investigations involved non-terrorism related
matters, such as obscene and harassing phone calls, child pormography, and sexual
exploitation of children. In some matters in which Section 3123 orders were obtained,
such as those related to money laundering, the report does not indicate whether the
investigation was terrorism related.
The FY 2002 report was signed by Thomas Richard, Assistant Director of the
FBI Investigative Technology Division. The FY 2003 report wais signed by Marcus
Thomas, Acting Assistant Director of the FBI Investigative Technology Division.
Both reports were submitted to the House Judiciary Committee and Senate
Judiciary Committee, pursuant to statutory requirement.
18 U.S.C. § 3123, which is referenced in the reports, pertains to the
"Issuance of an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device".
18 U.S.C. § 2518 pertains to the "Procedure for interception of wire, oral,
or electronic communications".
Pen registers and trap and trace devices are old telephone industry terms.
The statutes for wiretaps and pen register and trap and trace orders were
drafted with analog Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) voice service in
mind. Originally, 18 U.S.C. § 3127 provided that a pen register records the
numbers that are dialed or punched into a telephone, while a trap and trace
device captures the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the
originating number of an instrument or device from which a wire or electronic
communication was transmitted.
The USA PATRIOT Act, at § 216, expanded the scope of surveillance under pen
register and trap and trace authority to include internet routing and addressing
information. That is, an e-mail address in the "To:" line of an e-mail message
is somewhat analogous to the number dialed in a PSTN voice call.
The full title of the USA PATRIOT Act is the "Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001". It was passed by the 107th Congress as
It became Public Law 107-56 on October 26, 2001.
Several key sections of the PATRIOT, including § 214, pertaining to "Pen
register and trap and trace authority under FISA", will sunset on December 31,
2005 unless the Congress extends them.
The pen register and trap and trace provisions in the PATRIOT Act were a
matter of some controversy when the PATRIOT was being debated. This language is
also the subject of various proposals to revise the PATRIOT Act.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) both introduced
bills in the 108th Congress that contain provisions relating to pen register and
trap and trace surveillance. Sen. Craig's bill was
the "Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003", or SAFE Act, introduced on
October 2, 2003. See, story titled "Senators Craig and Durbin Introduce Bill to
Modify PATRIOT Act" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 753, October 6, 2003.
Sen. Leahy's bill was
S 1695, the
"PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act", introduced on October 1, 2003. See, story
titled "Sen. Leahy Introduces Bill to Expand List of Surveillance Provisions of
PATRIOT Act to Be Sunsetted" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert 757, October 14, 2003.
See also, stories titled "Sen. Lisa Murkowski Introduces Bill to Roll Back
Surveillance Provisions of PATRIOT Act", "Section by Section Summary of
S 1552", and "The PATRIOT Act and the Murkowski Bill: An Analysis of
Rules for Issuance of Electronic Surveillance Orders" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 712, August 6, 2004. And see, "Panel Addresses PATRIOT Act and
Civil Liberties" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 644, April 15, 2003.
President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft oppose legislation that would
limit pen register and trap and trace authority.
|FRB Governor Discusses Asset Prices and
Ferguson, Vice-Chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board (FRB), gave a long
speech titled "Recessions and Recoveries Associated with Asset-Price
Movements: What Do We Know?" to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy
Research in Stanford, California.
Since the recession of 2001 immediately followed a sharp decline in stock
prices, Ferguson examined to what extent changes in stock prices affect overall
economic output, and how any relationship might inform economic policy. He
concluded that "sweeping generalizations regarding asset-price-bust recessions
and subsequent recoveries are not easily made. Idiosyncrasies dominate
comparisons in the historical data. As such, each recession-and-recovery episode
would seem to call for its own tailor-made policy response."
He also said that retrospectively identifying bubbles and busts, and
overvaluations and underevaluations, is difficult, and "arguably impossible in
real time. As a result, although asset-price booms and busts are often linked to
recessions, a clear-cut policy response to suspected waves of exuberance cannot
Ferguson (at right) reviewed
the entire U.S. economy, with comparisons to other major economies, over the last 30
years. However, Ferguson also focused several times on the U.S. technology sector, and
the rise and decline of tech stocks in the 1990s.
He stated that "The 1990s will be remembered not only for this
remarkably long period of prosperity but also for the excitement of the ``new
economy´´ and, less happily, for the sharp decline in equity prices that marked
its end. This market correction was most dramatic in sectors of the economy
associated with new technologies, the very sectors that had experienced the most
pronounced run-up in equity prices."
He also analyzed the effect of rising asset prices on
businesses. First, he said that it raises the net worth of companies that own
assets, which in turn, raises the business' creditworthiness, and lowers the
interest rates that they pay; and these, in turn, increase business investment.
He continued that if asset prices rise in one sector, such as
technology, more than others, this could have adverse allocative consequences
for the economy.
He continued, "In particular, if asset prices do not accurately
reflect the productive potential of the underlying asset, investment will be
channeled to the wrong sectors. However, an asset-price boom in a specific
sector might simply reflect investor expectations of higher productivity rather
than a bubble, a term I will define in a few moments. Investment would still
tend to be channeled to that sector, but for good reason in this instance. One
example of a sector-specific jump in asset prices and an associated investment
increase is the case of the U.S. technology sector in the late 1990s. Over the
five years from the end of 1994 to the end of 1999, prices of nontech stocks
tripled while those of tech stocks more than quintupled. Correspondingly, the
average level of real investment in computers and other high-tech capital goods
was more than 100 percent higher over the 1995-99 period than its level during
1994, while spending on other types of fixed capital was only about 15 percent
higher than in 1994."
|FRB Governor Discusses Information,
Governments and Transparency
1/9. Federal Reserve
Board (FRB) Governor
Donald Kohn gave a
speech titled "Central Bank Communication" to the Annual Meeting of the
American Economic Association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Also, on January 6,
2005, he gave a
speech titled "Crisis Management: The Known, the Unknown, and the
Unknowable" at another conference in Philadephia.
Neither of these speeches was about technology law or policy. He
only spoke about central banking and regulation of financial institutions and
markets. He focused on information, sharing of information, and
uncertainty. Among other topics, he analyzed the dissemination of information by
the government to market participants where the government plays a role in that
market. He also analyzed the benefits to policy making when governments can
obtain information. That is, his talks included discussions of several aspects
of government transparency.
Kohn has simply provided some economic analysis of information and central
banking. However, some readers might find this useful when thinking about
information and technology related regulation.
U.S. government officials frequently advocate greater government
transparency. Although, it is usually in the context of belittling some other
government's information related practices, not those of U.S. government
entities. Also, these criticisms
often involve regulation of the tech sector. For example, Commerce Secretary
Don Evans last week
lambasted the People's Republic of China in a
Beijing for its lack of transparency in its patent process. He cited the case of
China's denying Pfizer's patent application for the drug Viagra. He said that in China "the
process for obtaining patents is not transparent or predictable".
In addition, the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) recently complained about China's lack of
transparency in its decision making processes. It found in its December 13, 2004
report [90 pages in PDF] titled "2003 Report To Congress On China's WTO
Compliance" that China has "a poor record of providing an opportunity for public
comment before new or modified laws and regulations are implemented."
This USTR report continued that "Typically, the ministry or agency
drafting a new or revised law or
regulation consulted with and submitted drafts to other ministries and agencies,
Chinese experts and affected Chinese companies. At times, it also consulted with
select foreign companies, although it would not necessarily share drafts with
them. As a result, only a small proportion of new or revised laws and
regulations were issued after a period for public comment, and even in
those cases the amount of time provided for public comment was generally too
short." See also, story titled "USTR Releases 3rd Annual Report on WTO
Compliance by PR China" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,038, December 15, 2004.
See also, the USTR's December
18, 2003 report titled "2003 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance", and
stories titled "USTR Complains About Lack of Transparency in the PR China" and
"Commentary: Process and Transparency" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
804, December 22, 2003.
The USTR also raises transparency issues with many other
countries. Transparency is now typically the subject of free trade agreement
Some readers may find Kohn's speeches irrelevant to technology law and policy,
because he did not address regulation of the tech sector. Others may find them
significant, for several reasons. First, he directs his analysis at a U.S. governmental entity.
Second, his analysis is in depth, includes economic analysis, and considers the
costs and benefits to public welfare. In contrast, when the USTR and Commerce
Department discuss the lack of transparency, they typically focus on the
unfairness of discrimination against
U.S. companies, rather than the efficiency of markets. Third, some aspects of
Kohn's analysis may be transferable to
other government entities, including those that impact the technology sector, both
as to their collection of information, and their dissemination of information.
Kohn (at right) stated in his January 9
speech that "markets work better ... with more information". Markets allocate
resources, and information is needed to efficiently allocate these resources. And, he
notes, the FRB is involved in the financial markets. It possesses information that is of
interest to market participants. Hence, by conducting itself in a more transparent manner
in providing both policy and economic forecast information, investors will have more
information, and make more informed investment decisions. And then, markets will work better.
He also pointed out that government transparency in making
information available takes on new importance as more individuals becoming
investors. He added that "Technological change -- including the ubiquitous
Internet -- has made it easier to cater to and feed this interest by making more
information available more quickly and cheaply."
Kohn also conceded that "economists do not fully understand
how markets incorporate information".
One example that Kohn used was the FRB's promptly making
available the minutes of its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings.
In the case of the technology sector, some government agencies hold no
public meetings at which agency actions are substantively debated, adopt regulations
but only release short press releases, or adopt regulations knowing that they
bear a high probability of being overturned on judicial review. If one were to
apply Kohn's analysis, these sorts of practices decrease transparency in the
sense that they leave investors uncertain as to the regulatory environment in
which technology companies operate. Hence, it might be argued that such
practices impair the efficiency of investment in the tech sector, and the
efficiency of resource allocations by tech companies.
In his long January 6 speech, Kohn covered many topics related to information
and uncertainty at the FRB. He pointed out that, among other things, central banks work better,
particularly in crises, the more information that they have. And, he said, central
bankers are dependent upon a number of sources for their information, including sources
in the private sector.
It might be argued that agencies that regulate various
activities of the tech sector make decisions that allocate resources, limit the
use of resources, and limit transactions. Yet, these agencies lack the
collective information of the marketplace. To make efficient decisions, these
agencies need to obtain information from tech companies, innovators, users,
investors, and others. And, transparent decision and rule making processes tend
to increase the information that is made available to such agencies. Without
such transparency, agencies make less efficient decisions.
But, Kohn did not apply his analysis to anyone other than
central bankers. And, it is beyond the scope of this article to review the many
aspects of the decision making processes at tech related agencies in the U.S.
and elsewhere that lack
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Tuesday, January 18
The House will not meet. It will next meet on January 20, 2005. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will not meet. It will next meet on January 20, 2005.
9:00 AM. The
Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination
of Condi Rice to be Secretary of State. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
3:00 - 4:00 PM. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the
National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) will host a panel discussion
titled "The Marriage of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A New Model for
High-Growth Economic Development". The participants will include
Phillip Bond (Under Secretary
of Commerce for Technology) and Sandy Baruah (Chief of Staff of the Commerce
Department's Economic Development Administration). The event will be telecast.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2FNPRM)
regarding reducing barriers to secondary markets for spectrum rights. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 27, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 247, at
Pages 77560 - 77568. This 2FNPRM is a part of a larger item that the FCC
adopted on July 8, 2004, and released on September 2, 2004. See, story titled
"FCC Adopts Second Secondary Markets Report and Order" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
No. 934, July 9, 2004; and story titled "FCC Releases Second Secondary Markets
Report and Order" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 969, September 3, 2004. See also, story titled "FCC Sets Comment
Deadlines on 2FNPRM Regarding Secondary Markets for Spectrum" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,045, December 28, 2004.
|Wednesday, January 19
8:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) will host a meeting to discuss the policy,
privacy, and security issues associated with Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12,
titled "Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors". See,
[PDF]. The event is free and open to the public. However,
January 11 is the deadline to register. Contact Sara Caswell at
Sara.firstname.lastname@example.org or 301 975-4634.
Location: auditorium, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW (near the Smithsonian
and L’Enfant Plaza metro stations).
9:00 AM. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Condi Rice to be Secretary of
State. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) will
notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
9:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The North American
Numbering Council (NANC) will meet. See, FCC
notice [PDF] and
notice in the Federal Register, December 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 232, at
Page 70259. Location: FCC, Room TWC305, 445 12th, SW.
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The
Information Systems Security Educators' Association (FISSEA) will host a
workshop on NIST Special Publication 800-16, titled "Information Technology
Security Training Requirements: A Role- and Performance-Based Model". See,
[845 KB in PDF],
Part 2 [96 KB in PDF], and
Part 3 [374 KB in PDF]. Preregistration is required. See,
notice. Location: National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), North Building.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar
Association's (FCBA) Common Carrier Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch.
The topic will be the FCC's Remand Order on unbundled network elements. The
speakers will include Tom Hughes (SBC) and Praveen Goyal (Covad
Communications). RSVP to
email@example.com by Friday, January 7.
Location: Hogan & Hartson, Moot Courtroom,
555 13th St., NW. The FCBA has not yet rescheduled this event.
2:00 PM. The Senate Finance Committee
will hold a hearing on the nomination of Michael Leavitt to be Secretary of
Health and Human Services. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the
International Telecommunications Union's (ITU)
Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) meeting. See, the ITU's
notice in the Federal Register, December 20, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 243, at Page
76027. For more information, including the location, contact Julian Minard at
2:00 PM. The Software
and Information Industry Association (SIIA) will host an event titled
"Improving the Ed Tech RFP: What Works and What Doesn't". See,
notice. The price to
participate is $40 for non-members of the SIIA. This event will be webcast and telecast
2:30 PM. The Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Samuel Bodman
to be Secretary of Energy. Location: Room 366, Dirksen Building.
4:00 - 5:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications
Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via conference call. The NSTAC addresses
issues and problems related to implementing national security and emergency
preparedness communications policy. This meeting is be closed to the public. See,
notice in the Federal Register, January 4, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 2, at Page 370.
6:30 PM. Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an
event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Jason Friedrich at
firstname.lastname@example.org or 202 354-1340,
or Ryan Wallach at email@example.com or
202 303-1159. Location: Porter's, 1207 19th St., NW.
|Thursday, January 20
The House will meet at 10:00 AM. No votes are expected. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 3:00 PM. It will begin with a period for
morning business, and then proceed to consideration of cabinet nominees. See,
Senate calendar. See also,
Congressional Inaugural Committee web site.
Inauguration Day. This is not a federal holiday listed in the
Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)
list of federal holidays. The
OPM states that "An employee who works in the District of Columbia, Montgomery
or Prince George's Counties in Maryland, Arlington or Fairfax Counties in
Virginia, or the cities of Alexandria or Falls Church in Virginia, and who is
regularly scheduled to perform non-overtime work on Inauguration Day, is
entitled to a holiday. There is no in-lieu-of holiday for employees who are
not regularly scheduled to work on Inauguration Day."
The Copyright Office will be closed.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
will be closed. See, FCC
calendar [PDF]. The Department of Justice
(DOJ) issued a
memorandum stating that its Washington DC area employees may take the day
off; however, it is silent on closure of DOJ offices.
|Friday, January 21
9:30 AM. The
U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in US v.
Microsoft (D.C. No. 1998-cv-01232) and New York v. Microsoft (D.C.
No. 1998-cv-01233) Judge Colleen Kotelly will preside. Location: Courtroom 11, Prettyman
Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to petitions to deny the
applications of NextWave Telecom and Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless for FCC
approval of their proposed transfer of control of broadband Personal Communications
Services (PCS) licenses from NextWave to Cellco. See, FCC
[4 pages in PDF]. This notice is DA 04-3873 in WT Docket No. 04-434.
EXTENDED TO JANUARY 28.
to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response to the FCC's public notice regarding
BellSouth's petition for forbearance from certain
Title II and Computer Inquiry requirements. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 04-405.
of extension [PDF].
Deadline for licensees to submit responses to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to its second audit letter and notice of cancellation
to certain licensees in the paging and radiotelephone service and certain licensees
operating on 929-930 MHz exclusive private carrier paging channels. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 21, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 244, at
Pages 76469 - 76470.
|Monday, January 24
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding service rules for advanced
wireless services (AWS) in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2175-2180 MHz and 1.7
GHz and 2.1 GHz bands. The FCC adopted this NPRM at its September 9, 2004 meeting,
and released the text on September 24, 2004. It is FCC 04-218 in WT Docket No. 04-356 and
WT Docket No. 02-353. See, original
notice in the Federal Register, November 2, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 211, at
Pages 63489-63498, and extension
notice in the Federal Register, November 30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 229, at
Pages 69572 - 69573. See also, story titled "FCC Makes Additional 20 MHz of
Spectrum Available for Advanced Wireless Services" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 975, September 13, 2004.
|Tuesday, January 25
7:30 AM. The
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a breakfast
seminar titled "Expediting the Security Clearance Process: New Law, New
Opportunities for Federal Contractors". See, ITAA
more information, contact Shannon Zelsnack at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Prices range from
$50 to $95. Location: Sheraton Premiere Tysons Corner Hotel.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the
Organization of American States' (OAS)
Commission's (CITEL) Permanent Consultative Committee II meeting in Guatemala to be
held in April 2005. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December
30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 250, at Pages 78515-78516. For more information, including the
location, contact Cecily Holiday at
email@example.com or Anne Jillson at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: undisclosed.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown
bag lunch. The topic will be "The Basics of IP-Television: Technology and
Regulation". The speakers will be engineers from the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Media Bureau (MB), and representatives of
SBC Communications and the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA). For more information, contact Jason Friedrich at
email@example.com or 202 354-1340 or
Ryan Wallach at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202
303-1159. Location: Willkie Farr & Gallagher,
1875 K Street, NW, Second Floor.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host
a panel discussion title "Class Action Reform: How Far and How Fast?". The
speakers will be Robert Gasaway (Kirkland & Ellis), George Priest (Yale Law
School), David McIntosh (Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw), and Michael Greve (AEI). See,
Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
TIME? The Judicial Conference of the
United States (JC) will hold a public hearing on its proposed amendment to
Appellate Rule 25 regarding electronic filings. The JC has proposed amendments to
Civil Rule 5,
Appellate Rule 25, and
Bankruptcy Rule 5005. Each of these proposed amendments would permit the applicable
court, by local rules, to "permit or require papers to be filed, signed, or verified
by electronic means" (or similar language). Current rules provide that the
applicable court may "permit" filing by electronic means. See, JC
notice [PDF] and
notice in the Federal Register, Federal Register, December 2, 2004, Vol. 69,
No. 231, at Page 70156. Location: undisclosed.
|People and Appointments
1/11. Geoff Tate was named Chairman of the Board of
Rambus, Inc. He
will replace Bill Davidow, who will remain as a member of the Board.
Harold Hughes was named to replace Tate as Chief Executive Officer. See,
|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
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All