9/5. William Rehnquist died on September 3. On September 5, President George Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, whom he had previously nominated to be an Associate Justice, to be the Chief Justice. See, President Bush's statement on Rehnquist's death, and statement regarding nominations.

President Bush stated that "The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes. It is in the interest of the Court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term. The Senate is well along in the process of considering Judge Roberts' qualifications. They know his record and his fidelity to the law. I'm confident that the Senate can complete hearings and confirm him as chief justice within a month."

Bush added that "As a result of my decision to nominate Judge Roberts to be chief justice, I also have the responsibility to submit a new nominee to follow Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I will do so in a timely manner."

Former President Nixon appointed William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court in 1972. Former President Reagan elevated him to Chief Justice in 1986.

9/6. The Supreme Court's record in leading technology related cases is different from its record on many other issues, such as abortion, race, and religion, that now animate the debate over judicial nominees. The Court has decided many of its technology related cases with unanimous, or nearly unanimous, opinions. Moreover, when the Court has been divided, the division has not followed ideological or partisan lines.

Rehnquist, as Chief Justice since 1986, has had the opportunity to assign the task of writing the opinion of the Court in those cases in which he is in the majority. He has rarely assigned technology related opinions to himself. And when he has dissented, he has rarely written an opinion. Hence, his record in technology related cases has largely been that of joining in the opinions written by others.

There are, however, a few leading cases in which he wrote notable opinions. In Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) he wrote a dissent in which he advocated privacy in electronic communications. In US v. American Library Association (2003) he wrote the opinion of the Court upholding the Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires libraries receiving federal funds to use filtering technology. In Seminole Tribe v. Florida and Florida Prepaid he wrote that the Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity, including in suits for infringement of intellectual property rights.

Privacy of Electronic Communications. On May 21, 2001, the Court issued its opinion in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, holding that a radio host cannot be sued under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 for playing an audio recording of a cellular telephone conversation, despite a federal statute that made illegal both the interception of the conversation, and its disclosure.

The majority reasoned that the case pitted statutes banning disclosure of illegally obtained electronic communications against the First Amendment freedom of speech claims of persons with illegally obtained recordings to disclose them if their content pertains to a public issue. Rehnquist wrote a dissent.

He wrote that "Technology now permits millions of important and confidential conversations to occur through a vast system of electronic networks. These advances, however, raise significant privacy concerns. We are placed in the uncomfortable position of not knowing who might have access to our personal and business e-mails, our medical and financial records, or our cordless and cellular telephone conversations. In an attempt to prevent some of the most egregious violations of privacy, the United States, the District of Columbia, and 40 States have enacted laws prohibiting the intentional interception and knowing disclosure of electronic communications. The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment insofar as the illegally intercepted conversation touches upon a matter of ``public concern,´´ an amorphous concept that the Court does not even attempt to define. But the Court's decision diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment: chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day."

See also, story titled "Supreme Court Diminishes Electronic Privacy" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 192, May 22, 2001.

Internet Filtering. Rehnquist wrote the 2003 opinion of the Court in US v. American Library Association, upholding the constitutionality of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) [20 pages in PDF], which provides that for libraries to receive federal subsidies or grants, they must use internet filtering technologies. See, opinion [56 pages in PDF] of June 23, 2003.

The CIPA statute, which was enacted by the 106th Congress, requires schools and libraries receiving e-rate subsidies, pursuant to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program loosely based on 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B), and libraries receiving grants under the Library Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. § 9101 et seq.), as a condition for receiving subsidies or grants, to use filtering technologies on computers with internet access that are used by children, and to filter images that constitute obscenity or child pornography.

A three judge panel of the U.S. District Court (EDPa) held the statute unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. It held that filtering software is a content based restriction on access to a public forum, and is therefore subject to the strict scrutiny test -- that is, it must be necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to further that interest. The District Court held that the federal government has a compelling interest in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pormography, or, in the case of minors, material harmful to minors. However, it found that mandating the use of filters is not narrowly tailored to further those interests.

The Supreme Court reversed. Justices wrote several opinions. No one opinion was joined by a majority of the Court. However, six Justices joined in opinions stating that the CIPA is constitutional. Rehnquist wrote an opinion that was joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas. In addition, Justice Kennedy wrote an opinion, that was joined by Justice Breyer, that concurred as to the judgment of constitutionality, but offered a different analysis.

Rehnquist first reviewed the nature of internet access and filtering software. He wrote "there is also an enormous amount of pornography on the Internet, much of which is easily obtained. ... The accessibility of this material has created serious problems for libraries, which have found that patrons of all ages, including minors, regularly search for online pormography. ... Some patrons also expose others to pornographic images by leaving them displayed on Internet terminals or printed at library printers. ... Upon discovering these problems, Congress became concerned that the E-rate and LSTA programs were facilitating access to illegal and harmful pornography."

"But Congress also learned that filtering software that blocks access to pornographic Web sites could provide a reasonably effective way to prevent such uses of library resources", wrote Rehnquist.

He also acknowledged that "But a filter set to block pormography may sometimes block other sites that present neither obscene nor pormographic material, but that nevertheless trigger the filter."

Rehnquist then analyzed the function fulfilled by public libraries, and concluded that, in the context of internet access, public libraries are not "public forums" within the meaning of constitutional analysis.

He wrote that "The public forum principles on which the District Court relied ... are out of place in the context of this case. Internet access in public libraries is neither a ``traditional´´ nor a ``designated´´ public forum."

He reasoned that "A public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak. It provides Internet access, not to ``encourage a diversity of views from private speakers,´´ ... but for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality."

See also, story titled "Supreme Court Upholds Children's Internet Protection Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 686, June 24, 2003.

State Immunity in IPR Cases. Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). This case involves the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Indian Commerce clause of the constitution. He wrote that the Congress lacks authority under Article I of the Constitution to abrogate the states' 11th Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts. However, its holding regarding the abrogation of state sovereign immunity serves as the precedent for similar cases involving intellectual property. This was a 5-4 opinion.

Then, Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), invalidating the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act. This too was a 5-4 opinion.

At the same time, the Court issued its opinion in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), invalidating the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act. Scalia wrote this 5-4 opinion. Rehnquist joined.

As a result of these cases, states can hold intellectual property, and enforce their intellectual property rights in federal court. At the same same, states are in effect free to steal the intellectual property of others, without fear of a money judgments against them. Some states infringe intellectual property rights, hide behind 11th Amendment immunity, and lobby their Senators to block legislation that would remedy this situation.

For more on legislative efforts to address this situation, see stories titled "Legislators Introduce Bills to Address Infringement by States" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 302, November 6, 2001; "Sen. Leahy Reintroduces Bill to Close 11th Amendment Loophole to IPR" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 394, March 22, 2002; "Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Federalism and Intellectual Property" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 522, October 3, 2002; and "Legislators Re-Introduce Bills to Address State IPR Sovereign Immunity" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 680, June 13, 2003.

Rehnquist wrote two of the three opinions that created this situation. He joined in the third. In addition, O'Connor, who has just retired, was a member of the five justice majority in all three cases. Hence, there now remain on the Court only three members of the original majority of five.

The Justice's commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis may be put to the test.

Computer Generated Images. On April 16, 2002, the Court issued its opinion [44 pages in PDF] in Ashcroft v. FSC, 535 US 234, a case involving a constitutional challenge to part of the Child Pormography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). The Court ruled that provisions of the statute banning computer generated images depicting minors engaging in sezually explicit conduct is overbroad, and violates the First Amendment.

Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion, and joined in a partial dissent written by O'Connor. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Upholds Speech Rights of Child Pormographers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 412, April 17, 2002. The Congress has since rewritten the statute at issue.

He wrote that "The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our Nation’s child pormography laws is a compelling one. The CPPA is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pormography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sezually explicit conduct. The statute need not be read to do any more than precisely this, which is not offensive to the First Amendment."

The following is a selection of technology related cases in which Rehnquist joined in the opinions of others, but wrote no opinion himself.

Communications Act Cases

Section 251 Regulation. On January 27, 1999, the Court issued its opinion in AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 US 366. Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court. Rehnquist joined in most of this opinion. Thomas wrote an opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Rehnquist also joined in the Thomas opinion.

FCC Price Regulation. On May 13, 2002, the Court issued its 5-3 opinion in Verizon v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, upholding the FCC's rules regarding how incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) charge interexchange carriers (IXCs) and competitors local exchange carriers (CLECs) for access to their facilities; it reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir). Souter wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Upholds FCC Pricing Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 431, May 14, 2002.

Antitrust and Telecom. On January 13, 2004, the Court issued its opinion [PDF] in Verizon v. Trinko, 124 S. Ct. 8782, holding that a claim alleging a breach of an ILEC's duty under the 1996 Telecom Act to share its network with competitors does not state a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Holds That There is No Sherman Act Claim in Verizon v. Trinko" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 815, January 14, 2004.

State Statutes that Bar Local Governments from Providing Telecom Services. On March 24, 2004, the Court issued its opinion [PDF] in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, a case regarding 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) and state statutes that prohibit political subdivisions from offering telecommunications services. Souter wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. Missouri passed a state statute that bans local governments in Missouri from offering telecommunications services. The local governments, represented by the Missouri Municipal League, want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to preempt this statute, under Section 253, which provides that states cannot ban "any entity" from providing telecommunications services. It has always been clear that Section 253 means that states cannot bar any company from providing telecommunications services. The question is, does Section 253 also include local governments. The FCC said no. The 8th Circuit said yes. The Supreme Court said no. Of course, this does not mean that states must bar local governments from providing telecommunications services. This opinion only stands for the proposition that states may bar local governments from providing telecommunications services. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Reverses in Nixon v. Missouri" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 864, March 26, 2004.

Cell Towers. On March 22, 2005, the Court issued its opinion [22 pages in PDF] in Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams holding that an individual who brings an action to enforce the limitations on state and local authority to regulate the location, construction, and modification of wireless communications facilities under 47 U.S.C. § 332, cannot also recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Scalia wrote the opinion of the majority, in which Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Holds That Individuals Who Sue Under §332 Cannot Also Recover Damages Under §1983" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,101, March 23, 2005.

Broadband Internet Services. On June 27, 2005, the Court issued its opinion [59 pages in PDF] in NCTA v. Brand X, upholding the FCC's determination that cable broadband internet access service is an information service. Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Rules in Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,163, June 28, 2005.

Copyright Cases

Sony. In 1984 the Court issued its 5-4 opinion in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417. Stevens wrote the opinion for the majority. Former Justice Blackmun wrote the dissent, in which Rehnquist joined. In Sony, which is also know as the Betamax case, the Court held that Sony was not vicariously liable for infringement by Betamax users because the Betamax was capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses, because consumers used it for time shifting, which is a fair use.

Fair Use and Copying of Unpublished Works. On May 20, 1985, the Court issued its 6-3 opinion in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985). O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. The Court held that the unpublished state of a work of authorship may defeat the affirmative defense of fair use.

Database Protection. On March 27, 1991, the Court issued its opinion in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340. O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. The Court held that collections of data, such as electronic databases, are generally not subject to copyright protection.

Fair Use and Parody. On March 17, 1994, the Court issued its unanimous opinion in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1984). This was the dispute involving the hideous and commercial parody of Roy Obison's classic titled "Oh, Pretty Woman". The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held that the defense of fair use was barred by the song's commercial character and excessive borrowing. Souter wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined.

Copyright Term Extension Act. On January 15, 2003 the Court issued its 7-2 opinion [89 pages in PDF] in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 123 S.Ct. 769, upholding the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act, which retroactively extended the maximum duration of copyrights. Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Upholds CTEA in Eldred v. Ashcroft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 584, January 16, 2003.

Distribution of P2P Systems. On June 27, 2005, the Court issued its unanimous opinion [55 pages in PDF] in MGM v. Grokster, reversing the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) regarding vicarious copyright infringement by the distributors of peer to peer (P2P) systems. The Supreme Court held that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." Souter wrote the opinion, in which Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Rules in MGM v. Grokster" and story titled "Reaction to the Supreme Court's Opinion in MGM v. Grokster", both in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,163, June 28, 2005.

Trademark Cases

Reverse Passing Off. On June 2, 2003, the Court issued its 8-0 opinion [18 pages in PDF] in Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox, Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist joined. The defendant copied a work whose copyright had expired, and failed to attribute its origin. The plaintiff alleged that its work of authorship was copied (which can be actionable under the Copyright Act), but instead proceeded on the legal theory of violation of the Lanham Act's false designation of origin provision. Passing off occurs when a producer misrepresents his own goods or services as someone else's. Reverse passing off occurs when a producer misrepresents someone else's goods or services as his own. Both can be actionable under the Lanham Act, which makes actionable not only the misleading use of marks, but also the false designation of origin of goods. The lower courts ruled for the producer. The Supreme Court reversed. It held that this is not the purpose of the Lanham Act. Moreover, allowing this sort of use of the Lanham Act would have the impermissible effect of creating perpetual quasi patents and copyrights. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Reverses in Dastar v. Fox" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 672, June 3, 2003.

Patent Cases

Doctrine of Equivalents. On May 28, 2002, the Court issued its unanimous opinion in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722. The Court again affirmed the doctrine of equivalents, articulated its purpose, held that the narrowing of a patent claim may give rise to prosecution history estoppel (but that it does not absolutely bar application of the doctrine of equivalents), and listed circumstances under which it might or might not operate as a bar. Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Reverses in Festo Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.439, May 29, 2002.

Privacy Cases

Privacy and Thermal Imaging. On June 11, 2001, the Court issued its 5-4 opinion in Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27, holding that the thermal imaging of a home to detect lamps used for growing marijuana constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court further held that such searches are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless supported by probable cause and authorized by a warrant. Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court. Stevens wrote a dissent, in which Rehnquist joined.

E-Commerce Cases

Internet Wine Sales. On May 16, 2005, the Court issued its 5-4 opinion [73 pages in PDF] in Granholm v. Heald, and consolidated cases, holding that Michigan's and New York's regulatory schemes that permit in-state wineries directly to ship alcohol to consumers, but restrict the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so, violate the dormant commerce clause. Rehnquist joined in the dissent written by Thomas. Although, this dissent was based upon application of the 21st Amendment, which gives the states broad authority to regulate alcohol sales. Thus, this dissent does not bear on commerce clause challenges to state protectionist statutes that discriminate against internet based commerce that do not involve alcohol. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Rules in Internet Wine Sales Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,137, May 17, 2005.

Internet Smut Cases

Communications Decency Act. On June 26, 1997, the Court issued its opinion in Reno v. ACLU, 521 US 845, holding that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, in which all but Rehnquist and O'Connor joined. O'Connor wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist joined.

COPA. On June 29, 2004, the Court issued its 5-4 opinion [41 pages in PDF] in Ashcroft v. ACLU, a constitutional challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction of the COPA. The U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction, and remanded. Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court. Breyer wrote a dissent in which Rehnquist joined. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Affirms Preliminary Injunction of COPA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 928, June 29, 2004.

The House will return from its August recess. See, House calendar. It will meet at 2:00 PM for legislative business. It will consider two non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will return from its August recess. See, Senate calendar. It will meet at 12:00 NOON. It will begin consideration of S 147, the "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005".

The Supreme Court is between terms. The opening conference of its October 2005 Term will be held on September 26, 2005.

9:00 AM. Day one of a two day conference hosted by the New America Foundation titled "Terrorism, Security and America's Purpose: Towards a More Comprehensive Strategy". The speakers will include Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. See, notice and agenda. Location: Capital Hilton Hotel, 1001 16th Street, NW.

? 1:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee may begin its hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. See, notice. Location: Room 325, Russell Building.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding off-axis equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) method for reviewing earth station applications in the fixed satellite service (FSS). See, notice in the Federal Register, June 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 109, at Pages 33426 - 33429. This NPRM is FCC 05-62 in IB Docket No. 00-248.

Deadline to submit written comments to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress regarding the People's Republic of China's compliance with its World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 3, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 148, at Pages 44714 - 44715.

Deadline to submit comments to the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding its proposal to establish a common infrastructure for electronically authenticating the identity of users of federal e-government services governmentwide. The GSA has named this the "E-Authentication Federation" and the "Service Component". See, notice in the Federal Register, August 5, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 150, at Pages 45391 - 45394.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:00 AM. Day two of a two day conference hosted by the New America Foundation titled "Terrorism, Security and America's Purpose: Towards a More Comprehensive Strategy". The speakers will include Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and Juan Zarate (Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism). See, notice and agenda. Location: Capital Hilton Hotel, 1001 16th Street, NW.

? 9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee may continue its hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. See, notice. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee will meet to mark up two bills, one of which is HR __, a bill to impose additional fees with respect to immigration services for intracompany transferees. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in NCube v. Seachange International, No. 03-1341. Location: U.S. Court of Appeals, LaFayette Square, 717 Madison Place, Courtroom 201.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Understanding the Impact of Merck v. Integra". The speaker will be Joseph Contrera (Jacobson Holman). See, the Supreme Court's June 16, 2005 opinion [17 pages in PDF], and story titled "Supreme Court Rules on Research Exemption to Patent Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,153, June 14, 2005. The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) and over other music industry organizations will host Recording Arts Day on Capitol Hill. For more information, contact 202 662-1285 or aprilc at grammy dot com.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding preregistration of unpublished works provision under the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act (ART Act). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 22, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 140, at Pages 42286 - 42292. See also, story titled "Copyright Office Commences Rulemaking on Preregistration of Unpublished Works" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,181, July 25, 2005.

EXTENDED FROM AUGUST 8. Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to it notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding low power FM rules. The FCC adopted its order and NPRM on March 16, 2005, and released it on March 17, 2005. It is FCC 05-75 in MM Docket No. 99-25. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 7, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 129, at Pages 39217 - 39227. See also, FCC notice [PDF] extending the deadlines.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. Day one of a two day public workshop hosted by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Privacy Office titled "Privacy and Technology: Government Use of Commercial Data for Homeland Security". See, notice in the Federal Register, August 5, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 150, at Pages 45408 - 45409. Location: auditorium at the DHS offices at the GSA Regional Headquarters Building, 7th and D Streets, SW.

? 9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee may continue its hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. See, notice. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims will hold a partially closed hearing titled "Sources and Methods of Foreign Nationals Engaged in Economic and Military Espionage". Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 15, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 156, Page 47875. Location: boardroom, National Academy of Sciences, 2100 C St., NW.

11:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials will hold a hearing titled "Electronic Waste: An Examination of Current Activity, Implications for Environmental Stewardship, and the Proper Federal Role". The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. See, notice. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

1:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing titled "Review of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office operations, including analysis of Government Accountability Office, Inspector General, and National Academy of Public Administration Reports". Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 1 (Terrestrial and Space Science Services) will meet. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, 6th Floor South Conference Room (6-B516).

Deadline for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to submit a report to the Congress on competition in the multichannel video programming distribution market. This is MB Docket No. 05-28.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of States' (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for ITU-T Advisory Group. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 13, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 133, at Page 40414. Location: undisclosed. The DOS states that "Access to these meetings may be arranged by contacting Julian Minard at minardje at state dot gov.

Deadline to submit comments to the Interim Chief Copyright Royalty Judge, on behalf of the Copyright Royalty Board, regarding the existence of controversies to to the distribution of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 satellite royalty funds. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 9, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 152, at Page 46193 - 46194.

8:30 AM - 12:30 PM. Day two of a two day public workshop hosted by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Privacy Office titled "Privacy and Technology: Government Use of Commercial Data for Homeland Security". See, notice in the Federal Register, August 5, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 150, at Pages 45408 - 45409. Location: auditorium at the DHS offices at the GSA Regional Headquarters Building, 7th and D Streets, SW.

? 9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee may continue its hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. See, notice. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

1:30 - 3:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 2: Satellite Services and HAPS will meet. See, notice [PDF] Location: Leventhal Senter & Lerman, 2000 K Street, NW, 7th Floor Conference Room.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of second further proposed rulemaking regarding horizontal and vertical cable ownership limits. The FCC adopted this Second Further NPRM on May 13, 2005, and released it on May 17, 2005. This item is FCC 05-96 in MM Docket No. 92-264. See, original notice in the Federal Register, June 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 109, at Pages 33679 - 33687. See also, notice of extension of deadlines, in the Federal Register, July 6, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 128, at Pages 38848 - 38849.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the Future of Music Coalition (FMC) titled "Future of Music Policy Summit". See, conference web site. Location: Lisner Auditorium, George Washington University, 730 21st St., NW.

9:00 - 10:15 AM. The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Software Alliance (BSA) will host an event titled "Intellectual Property Business Forum". The speakers will include Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce. See, notice. The price to attend range from free to $95. Location: undisclosed.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Cable and Broadband Rules for an Evolving Landscape: IPTV, Municipal Competition, and Local Video Regulation". No RSVP requested. For more information, contact Chris Fedeli at cfedeli at crblaw dot com or 202-828-9874 or Jason Friedrich at jason dot friedrich at dbr dot com or 202-354-1340. Location: Cole Raywid & Braverman, 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, second floor.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the Future of Music Coalition (FMC) titled "Future of Music Policy Summit". See, conference web site. Location: Lisner Auditorium, George Washington University, 730 21st St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) portion of its order and NPRM regarding the extension of 911/E911 regulation to interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service providers. The FCC adopted, but did not release, this order and NPRM on May 19, 2005. The FCC released the text [90 pages in PDF] of this order and NPRM on June 3, 2005. See, story titled "FCC Releases VOIP E911 Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,148, June 6, 2005, and story titled "FCC Sets Deadlines for Comments on VOIP NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,167, July 5, 2005. See, FCC notice (DA 05-1905) [3 pages in PDF].

EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 22. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office regarding its first report to the Congress required by the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004. See, original notice in the Federal Register, July 7, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 129, at Pages 39343 - 39345. See also, notice extending deadlines in the Federal Register, August 15, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 156, at Page 47857.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its draft [52 pages in PDF] Special Publication 800-18, Revision 1, titled "Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems".

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one 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, August 23, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 162, at Page 49257. Location: Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology will meet. Some of the meeting will be closed to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 23, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 162, at Pages 49256-49257. Location: Employees Lounge, Administration Building, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in ICO Global Communications v. FCC, No. 04-1248. Judges Randolph, Rogers and Williams will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "How to Litigate a Copyright Infringement Case". The speaker will be Kenneth Kaufman (Skadden Arps). The price to attend ranges from $80-$125. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the Future of Music Coalition (FMC) titled "Future of Music Policy Summit". At 10:15 AM, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is scheduled to speak. See, conference web site. Location: Lisner Auditorium, George Washington University, 730 21st St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), adopted on December 20, 2004, regarding whether to defer or eliminate the requirement in the rules that certain applications for equipment authorization received on or after January 1, 2005, specify 6.24 kHz capability. This item is FCC 04-292 in WT Docket No. 99-87 and RM-9332; See, notice in the Federal Register, June 15, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 114, at Pages 34726 - 34729.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice [PDF] requesting comments on Continental Airlines' Petition for a Declaratory Ruling regarding the state Massachusetts' attempt to regulate Wi-Fi hotspots. Continental has installed a Wi-Fi hotspot for internet access and telecommunications at its frequent flyer lounge at Boston Logan Airport (Logan). An issue is whether the demands of the Massachusetts Port Authority for removal of the antenna are prohibited under the FCC's Over the Air Reception Devices (OTARD) rules. This public notice is DA 05-2213 in ET Docket No. 05-247.

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 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.