|Senate Approves Trademark Dilution Revision
3/8. The Senate amended and approved
the "Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006'", by unanimous consent, with
The House approved its version of HR 683 on April 19, 2005, by a vote of
411-8. See, Roll Call No.
This bill is a reaction to the
Supreme Court's March 4, 2003
[21 pages in PDF] in Moseley v. V Secret. See, story titled "Supreme
Court Rules in Trademark Dilution Case" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 618, March 6, 2003.
The Congress amended the Trademark Act in 1995 with the enactment of the
Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA). The FTDA bars uses of another's mark that
blur or otherwise interfere with the ability of that mark to identify the source
of goods. The FTDA is codified at
15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). It is also known as Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act.
The issue in the Moseley case, and the most important issue with this
bill, is whether the plaintiff in a lawsuit for violation of the FTDA must show
actual economic loss. The Sixth Circuit held that economic harm may be inferred.
The Supreme Court reversed. The present bill rewrites the statute to undo the
opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court wrote that "The relevant text of the FTDA ... provides that
``the owner of a famous mark´´ is entitled to injunctive relief against another
person's commercial use of a mark or trade name if that use ``causes dilution
of the distinctive quality´´ of the famous mark. 15 U. S. C. §1125(c)(1)
(emphasis added). This text unambiguously requires a showing of actual dilution,
rather than a likelihood of dilution."
Both the House and Senate versions of HR 683 replace the current language of
15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
Subsection (c)(1) currently provides that "The owner of a famous mark shall
be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the
court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person’s commercial use
in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has
become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to
obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection." It then enumerates
several factors that the court may consider in determining whether a mark is
distinctive and famous.
Under both the House and Senate versions of HR 683, subsection (c)(1) would
provide that "Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark
that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be
entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the
owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in
commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment
of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely
confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury."
The bills also provides that "a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by
the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of
the goods or services of the mark's owner. In determining whether a mark
possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all
relevant factors, including the following:
(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of
the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services
offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark."
The bills also define, and enumerate factors to be considered by the court
regarding, dilution by blurring. The bills also defines dilution by tarnishment.
The bills differ in the list of exemptions. These modify the exemptions in
the current statute.
The House version of the bill provides that "The following shall not be
actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial
advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the
owner of the famous mark.
(B) Fair use of a famous mark by another person, other than as a designation
of source for the person's goods or services, including for purposes of
identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner
or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary."
The Senate version of the bill contains a broader list of exemptions. It
provides that "The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or
dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation
of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source
for the person's own goods or services, including use in connection with -- (i) advertising
or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or (ii) identifying and
parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services
of the famous mark owner.
(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, stated that "In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the case of
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. The Court held that trademark holders had to
show actual harm, not the likelihood of harm, from dilution before they could
seek injunctions. As an original author and sponsor of the act, I know firsthand
that this is contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the dilution
statue. What we did intend was to stop diluting before actual harm could be
realized and the value of any reputable trademark debased." See,
Congressional Record, March 8, 2006, at Page S1923.
He continued that "H. R. 683 makes clear Congress's intent and corrects the law
to provide that owners of famous trademarks can seek injunctions against anyone who attempts
to use a mark that is likely to cause dilution. It also affords the court the
ability to consider ``all relevant factors'' when determining whether a mark is
``famous.´´ However, this legislation not intended to provide for injunctive or
other relief against legitimate, third party trade in products manufactured
under authority of the U.S. trademark owner of the distinctive, famous mark."
Sen. Leahy concluded that "Senator Hatch and I were successful in including
language that definitively shelters important constitutionally protected first amendment
freedoms from being caught up in the liability net."
The Senate's changes actually go further than First Amendment speech. The
Senate bill exempts "Any noncommercial use of a mark".
Beth Frigola, a staff assistant to
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the sponsor of the bill, and the Chairman of
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, told TLJ on
March 10 that "we are reviewing it".
See also, story titled "House Approves Trademark Dilution Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,119, April 20, 2005. See, story titled "CIIP Subcommittee Holds
Hearing On Trademark Dilution Revision Act" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,081, February 23, 2005.
The CIIP Subcommittee amended and approved this bill on March 3, 2005. See,
story titled "House CIIP Subcommittee Amends and Approves Trademark Dilution
Revision Act" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,088, March 4, 2005. The House Judiciary
Committee approved HR 683 on March 9, 2005. See, story titled "House Judiciary
Committee Approves Trademark Dilution Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,093, March 11, 2005.
|New York Sues Entercom for Selling
3/7. The State of New York filed a
[PDF] in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (a trial court)
against Entercom Communications and others alleging violation of New York state
law in connection with its providing broadcast radio airplay of songs in
exchange for items of value.
The complaint alleges that the "competition for radio airplay has created
what is effectively a black market for illegal sale of
``spins´´ in which radio stations accept payments
or non-cash consideration from record labels, or their independent promoter
representatives, in exchange for airplay without their listeners' knowledge".
The complaint adds that "Entercom Communications
Corp., the nation's fifth largest radio conglomerate, has been an active
participant in this deception of its listeners. Entercom stations have traded
airplay for revenue, with the knowledge and encouragement of Entercom's
corporate leadership ..."
The complaint requests monetary penalties, disgorgement of profits, and
See also, story titled "New York Announces Settlement of Payola Investigation
of Warner Music" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,263, December 1, 2005.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
initiated its own general investigation of payments on August 8, 2005. See, stories titled "FCC
Chairman Directs Enforcement Bureau to Conduct Payola Investigation" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,191, August 9, 2005; "Adelstein Angles for More FCC Regulation
of Speech" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,143, May 26, 2005; and "Powell Announces FCC
Investigation Regarding Armstrong Williams" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,057, January 17, 2005.
FCC Commission Jonathan Adelstein
stated in a
on March 9 that "The New York Attorney
General investigation is piling evidence on top of evidence of the widespread abuse of the
public trust. Given the voluminous documents pointing to major, systematic violations of
FCC rules, the penalties should be commensurate with the crime. We can't let any violators
get away with a slap on the wrist."
Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, stated in a
that "Almost a year after payola was exposed in significant detail, the FCC has
yet to respond in any meaningful way. The agency's inaction is especially
disappointing given the pervasive nature of this problem and its corrosive
impact on the entertainment industry."
|FBI Investigates FEC for Fraud and
3/9. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's
(FBI) Fraud and Public Corruption section is investigating several current
and former employees of the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
in connection with their activities at the FEC.
The scope of the investigation includes a former Staff Director, James A. Pehrkon,
who left the FEC late last year.
The Political Money Line web site published an
Application and Affidavit for
Search Warrant [14 pages in PDF] that was filed at the
U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on November 28, 2005.
This application states that the FBI is investigating possible violations of
U.S.C. § 208 and
U.S.C. § 1001.
Section 208 of the Criminal Code provides, in part, as follows:
"whoever, being an officer
or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, or of any independent
agency of the United States, ... participates personally and substantially as a Government
officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering
of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application,
request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation,
arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child,
general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general
partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any
arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest -- Shall be subject
to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title."
Section 1001 criminalizes certain false statements by public officials. It provides,
in part, as follows:
"whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United
States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
This proceeding is titled "In the Matter of the Search of The offices and
computers of James Pehrkon, John O'Brien, Lola Hatcher-Capers U.S. Federal
Elections Commission", and numbered 1-05-mj-00634
The application states that the FBI seeks to search the FEC offices and FEC
of James A. Pehrkon, John C. O'Brien, and Lola Hatcher-Capers.
The application elaborates that "Since October, 2005, the FBI has been
conducting an investigation of Pehrkon because of his efforts to secretly
obligate and spend FEC funds to settle an employment discrimination claim
alleging, among other things, that he had created a hostile work environment for
a female subordinate."
It continues that "Pehrkon officially represented the FEC's financial
interests in the settlement stage of the Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO")
resolution process, negotiated cash settlements payable by the FEC to the victim
and her attorney, failed to notify the FEC's Commissioners of either the
allegations or the settlement offers, and caused others to submit disguised
procurement requests to obligate FEC funds for the settlement."
The application states that Pehrkon was the FEC's Staff Director. Before
that, he was Deputy Staff Director and Chief Financial Officer. The application
identifies John O'Brien as the FEC's Budget Officer.
The FEC is currently writing rules that will prohibit, regulate, and/or
penalize certain forms of online political speech by bloggers and other individuals.
|CDT Releases Proposed Bill to Limit the
FEC's Authority to Regulate Online Speech
3/2. The Center for Democracy and Technology
(CDT) released proposed
language [2 pages in PDF] for a bill to partially protect internet speech from
regulation by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It
is titled the "Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2005". See also, the CDT's
bill summary [PDF] and
The House has already considered and rejected one bill,
the "Online Freedom of Speech Act", that would protect certain online political
speech from FEC regulation. The House rejected HR 1606 on November 2, 2005, by a vote
of 225-182. See, Roll Call No. 559.
HR 1606 was considered under suspension of the rules, which meant that a two thirds majority
was required for approval. It failed because fewer that two thirds of the members voted for
it. See also, stories titled "House Rejects Online Freedom of Speech Act" and
"Commentary: Analysis of the Vote on HR 1606" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,246, November 3, 2005.
In addition, the House Administration Committee
held a hearing on September 22, 2005. See,
titled "House Committee Holds Hearing on Regulation of Internet Speech" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,222, September 27, 2005.
HR 1606 is a very short bill. The CDT's proposed language is only two pages. However,
their context requires some elaboration. They are a response to the FEC's implementation
of the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), as amended by the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which is also known as "McCain Feingold".
McCain Feingold requires, among other things, that the FCC to write rules restricting
political speech on the internet. The FECA, and regulations thereunder, nominally regulate
political money, such as campaign contributions and expenditures. McCain Feingold requires
the FEC to construe individuals' acts of political expression, such as operating blogs,
as though expression were a financial transaction. The FEC, in its first attempt
to write rules, created an exemption for communications over the internet. Sen. McCain and
Sen. Feingold, and two members of the House, challenged this in the U.S. District Court, and won.
The Court held that the FEC could not exempt communications over the internet. The FEC is
now in the process of writing new rules.
HR 1606 would statutorily instruct the FEC to do what it did in its
first attempt to write rules.
The subject of HR 1606 is the definition of "public communication".
2 U.S.C. § 431(22) provides that "The term ``public communication´´ means a
communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper,
magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general
public, or any other form of general public political advertising."
The FEC wrote in its rules that "The term public communication shall not
include communications over the Internet." This was codified at 11 C.F.R. § 100.26.
The CDT's John Morris stated in the CDT release that "Although we fully support the
spirit of the House measure, we're concerned that the bill is both overbroad and under-inclusive.
H.R 1606 deals with only one of the burdens facing individual speakers online.
We want to make sure that a blogger won't have to hire a lawyer before
commenting on an upcoming election".
Morris and the CDT have long been involved in advocating freedom to engage in online political
speech. See, for example, lengthy
submitted in response to the FEC's 1999
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding internet speech. This NOI was published in
the Federal Register, November 5, 1999, Vol. 64, No. 214, at Pages 60360 -
60368. The CDT also wrote a
1999 titled "Square Pegs and Round Holes: Applying the Campaign Finance Law to
the Internet -- Risks to Free Expression and Democratic Values".
The CDT's just released proposal also addresses the definition of "public
communication". It provides that "Such term shall not include any communication
made over the Internet, other than: (i) one or more communications placed by a person on
another person's or persons' websites for amounts exceeding an annual aggregate amount of
$5,000, (ii) a communication made by a State, district, or local committee of a political
party described in section 323(b), (iii) a communication made by any political committee,
or (iv) a communication made by any person described in section 316 (other than a corporation
described in such section whose principal purpose is operating an online discussion forum
or disseminating social or political ideas or commentary through operation of a website,
web log, podcast, or other similar forms of Internet communication and which is not
established, financed, maintained or controlled by a labor organization or by
another corporation without such a principal purpose.)"
The CDT's proposal would also exempt certain internet communications by
individuals from the reporting and disclosure requirements of the FECA. This exemption would
only apply to speech quantified at less than $5,000.
The CDT's proposal would also add the phrase "or over the Internet" to the
FECA's definition of news media. (The FECA contains exemptions for news stories.)
Disclosure. TLJ publishes information via e-mail and the
web regarding, among other things, past and future candidates for federal
office. This issue references nine: Leahy, Hatch, Sununu, Smith, McCain, Feingold,
Stevens, Inouye, Ensign, and Barton. The FEC's rules, and Congressional
legislation, may affect TLJ. Readers may wish to take this into consideration
when assessing the reliability and objectivity of any TLJ stories on this topic.
3/9. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) released a report
[65 pages in PDF] titled "Election Reform: Nine States' Experiences Implementing
Federal Requirements for Computerized Statewide Voter Registration Lists".
3/9. The Senate approved
HR 1053, a bill
to extend normal trade relations treatment to the products of Ukraine. The
House approved the bill on March 8.
|Bush Signs PATRIOT Act Extension
3/9. President Bush signed
the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005", at a White House
Bush also signed
S 2271, the
"USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006", the bill
sponsored by Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), that adds
several civil liberties related provisions. See, White House
This brings to a close the several year debate over extending the sunsetted
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
President Bush stated at the event that "As we wage the war on terror overseas,
we're also going after the terrorists here at home, and one of the most important tools
we have used to protect the American people is the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act closed
dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, gaps the
terrorists exploited when they attacked us on September the 11th."
USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of
2001". It was passed quickly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
by the 107th Congress as
It became Public Law 107-56 on October 26, 2001.
The PATRIOT Act is a huge bill that addresses a wide range of issues. Title II of
the Act covers electronic surveillance and information technology. The original Act
provided that sixteen sections of Title II would sunset on December 31, 2005.
(The Congress enacted two short extensions, so there was no lapse between
December 31 and March 9.)
HR 3199 is a huge bill that also contains provisions unrelated to extending
the sunsetted provisions. It extends all of the sunsetted provisions, most
permanently. It also contains numerous amendments related to protecting civil
President Bush also spoke about the PATRIOT Act, terrorism and the
National Security Agency's extrajudicial
electronic surveillance program in a
speech later in the day in College Park, Georgia.
He said that "After the attacks on the country, I did what you would expect
me to do, and ask people who are on the front lines of defending you whether or
not there was -- there's more we could be doing. ... And a General named Mike
Hayden said, I believe there is, Mr. President; I believe we can design a system
that will enable us to listen to a call from outside the country in from a known
al Qaeda affiliate or a suspected al Qaeda affiliate."
Bush continued that "If the people inside the country that planned the
attacks on the United States were making phone calls out, we'd want to know that
prior to any attack. And so I said, Mike, show me how the system would work. I
then called in lawyers ... And they came back and said, Mr. President, you have
the authority to do this program -- in other words, it's legal."
He also described the surveillance. He said that it "is limited in nature --
phone calls coming from inside the country out, and outside in, with one of the
numbers being known al Qaeda, suspected al Qaeda, and affiliates".
He concluded that "It is right, it is necessary to listen to al Qaeda. If al
Qaeda is making a phone call into the United States of America or vice versa, we
want to know why, in order to protect this country."
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Friday, March 10
The House will not meet. The next meeting will be on Monday, March 13, at
The Senate will not meet. The next meeting will be on Monday, March 13, at
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Patent Office Professionals
Association v. FSLA, App. Ct. No. 05-1173. Judges Henderson, Garland and Edwards
will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
10:00 AM. The National
Legal Policy Center (NLPC) will host a panel discussion regarding the lawsuits filed
by the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and Authors Guild against Google. The
speakers will be Robert
Shapiro (Sonecon), Bruce Fein, James Glassman
(American Enterprise Institute), Elaine Kamarck (Harvard), and Ken Boehm (NLPC).
Breakfast will be served. RSVP to nlpcevent at gmail.com. Location: Room HC-8, Capitol
10:00 - 11:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Media Security
and Reliability Council (MSRC) will meet. See, FCC
notice and agenda [PDF]. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th
5:00 PM EST. Deadline to submit requests to testify
at the Copyright Office's hearings on possible
exemptions to the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that
control access to copyrighted works. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 36, at Pages 9302-9303.
See also, stories titled "Copyright Office Announces Proceeding on DMCA
Anti-Circumvention Exemptions" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,229, October 7, 2005, and "Copyright Office Announces Hearings
on Exemptions to Anti-Circumvention Provisions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
1,318, February 27, 2006.
|Monday, March 13
The House will meet at 2:00 PM.
The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM.
2:00 - 3:00 PM. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce's Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP) will hold
a monthly meeting. See,
For more information, contact Scott Eisner ncfevents at uschamber dot com or
202 463-5500. Location: U.S. Chamber, 1615 H Street, NW.
|Tuesday, March 14
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce
Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Wireless Issues / Spectrum
Reform". The witnesses will be Catherine Seidel (acting
Chief of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau), John Kneuer (acting head of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration), JayEtta Hecker (Government
Accountability Office), Thomas Walsh (Rural Cellular Association), Kevin Kahn (Intel),
David Donovan (Association of Maximum Service Television), Thomas Sugrue (T-Mobile USA),
Jeannine Kenney (Consumers Union), Lawrence White (NYU's Stern School of Business). See,
contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens)
at 202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast
by the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC
Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "The Patent Office
Speaks". The speakers will include John Doll (Commissioner of Patents, U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office), Peggy Focarino (Deputy Commissioner for Patent
Operations), and Jay Lucas (acting Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy). Darrell Mottley (Banner & Witcoff) will moderate. The price to
attend ranges from $20 - $40. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See,
Location: The Westin Embassy Row Hotel, 2100 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce
Committee will hold a hearing titled "Wall Street's Perspective on
Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at
202 224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by
the SCC. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
TIME? The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering
Council (NANC) will hold a meeting. Location: ___.
TIME? The Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) will hold a hearing on the proposed free trade
agreement with the Republic of Korea. The USTR seeks comments on, among
other topics, "electronic commerce issues" and "trade-related intellectual
property rights issues that should be addressed in the negotiations". See,
notice in the Federal Register: February 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 27, at
Pages 6820-6821. Location: Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F Street, NW.
Day one of a four day convention hosted by the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
titled titled "CEA Spring Break". See,
EXTENDED TO MARCH 28.
to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [26 pages in PDF] regarding Section 621(a)(1)'s
directive that local franchising authorities (LFAs) not unreasonably refuse to award
competitive franchises. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 3, 2005, and released
it on November 18, 2005. It is FCC 05-189 in MB Docket No. 05-311. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 14, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 239, at Pages 73973
- 73980. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Local Franchising of Video
Services" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,247, November 4, 2005. See, FCC
notice [MS Word] of extension dated March 7, 2006.
|Wednesday, March 15
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC
Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "The Portable Curator --
The Legal and Business Considerations of Providing High-Tech Handheld Devices to Museum
Visitors". The speakers will include Jennifer Berry (Acoustiguide), Allison
Cohen (attorney), and Bruce Falk (Smithsonian Institution). The price to attend ranges
from $10-$15. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See,
Location: Johns Hopkins University, Lower Level 7, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
9:00 AM - 12:15 PM. The
Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA)
Wireless Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled
"Economic Analysis and FCC Decision Making". The price to attend ranges
from $50 to $150. Registrations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on March 10. See,
form [PDF]. Location: Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th St., NW, 13th floor.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The
House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Research
will hold a hearing titled "Undergraduate Science, Math and Engineering Education:
What's Working?". The witnesses will be Daniel Goroff (Harvey Mudd College),
Carl Wieman (University of Colorado at Boulder), John Burris (Beloit College), Elaine
Seymour (University of Colorado at Boulder), Margaret Collins (Moraine Valley Community
College. Press contact: Joe Pouliot at 202 225-4275. For more information,
call Kara Haas at 225-7858, or Jim Wilson at 225-6375 Location: Room 2318,
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Professional Responsibility Committee will
host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be planning a spring continuing legal education (CLE)
seminar. For more information, contact Peter Connolly at 202 862-5989 or Peter dot connolly
at hklaw dot com. Location: Holland & Knight, 2099 Pennsylvania Ave.
2:30 PM. The
Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Innovation
and Competitiveness Legislation". The witnesses
will be Craig Barrett (Chairman of Intel), Norman Augustine (Chairman of
Lockheed Martin), John Kelly (IBM), Deborah Wince-Smith (Council
on Competitiveness). See,
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will preside. Press
contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202
224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.
5:00 PM. Deadline to submit applications to the
National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) for Pacific Education and Communications Experiments
by Satellite (PEACESAT) program grants. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 13, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 29, at
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will
begin Auction No. 64 (Full Power Television Construction Permits). See, notice in
the Federal Register, December 28, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 248, at Pages 76836 - 76849.
Day two of a four day convention hosted by the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
titled titled "CEA Spring Break". This will also be the first day of
a two day "Entertainment Technology Summit". And, at 6:30 PM there will be
an event titled "Digital Patriots Dinner". Bill Gates will receive an award.
|Thursday, March 16
9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Library of Congress's (LOC) Section
108 Study Group will hold the second of two round table meetings.
17 U.S.C. § 108, titled "Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by
libraries and archives", provides exemptions from liability for infringement for
libraries and archives. The LOC published a
notice in the Federal Register that states that this meeting relates
"primarily to eligibility for the section 108 exceptions and copies made for
purposes of preservation and replacement". This notice also states that requests
to participate in must be received by 5:00 PM EST on February 24. See, Federal
Register, February 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 31, at Pages 7999-8002. Location:
Room 2237, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Finance Committee's
Subcommittee on International Trade will hold a hearing titled "Cuno and
Competitiveness: Where to Draw the Line". See,
opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir)
in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, 386 F.3d 738. Location: Room 215, Dirksen
10:00 AM. The
House Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing titled "Legislative Proposals to
Promote Electronic Health Records and a Smarter Health Information System". See,
notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal
(Barton) at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
12:30 NOON - 2:00 PM. The
DC Bar Association will host the first of a series
of events titled "Managing and Protecting Digital Data". Part I is
titled "Overview: Using Technology to Protect Digital Content and Critical
Corporate Data". The speakers will include Hari Reddy (ContentGuard). The price
to attend ranges from $10-$30. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See,
Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC
Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled
"How to Conduct Trademark Searches". The speaker will be
Barkey (Oblon Spivak). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more
information, call 202 626-3488. See,
Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
Day three of a four day convention hosted by the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
titled titled "CEA Spring Break". This will also be the second day
of a two day "Entertainment Technology Summit". See,
|Friday, March 17
St. Patrick's Day.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC.
Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T v. FCC, App. Ct.
No. 05-1171. See, brief
[51 pages in PDF] of the FCC. Judges Sentelle, Rogers and Griffith will preside.
Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
Day four of a four day convention hosted by the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) titled titled "CEA Spring Break".
|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