10/19. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments, within 4 days, regarding the proceeding before the World Trade Organization (WTO) initiated by Antigua and Barbuda. This Caribbean nation complained that various U.S. laws affecting internet gambling violate trade treaty obligations of the U.S.

See, story titled "WTO Appellate Body Upholds U.S. Laws Affecting Internet Gambling" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,111, April 8, 2005, and story titled "Allgeier Addresses Trade Agreements and Internet Gambling, in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,118, April 19, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 19, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 202, at Pages 61808-61809.

On April 7, 2005, the WTO's Appellate Body issued its report [146 pages in PDF] titled "United States -- Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services".

The WTO ruled on April 20, 2005, rejecting all of Antigua and Barbuda's claims except the WTO ruled that for the United States to show that the Federal gambling laws meet the requirements of the chapeau to Article XIV of the GATS, the United States needed to clarify an issue concerning Internet gambling on horse racing. On May 19, 2005, the United States stated its intention to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings. On April 10, 2006, the United States informed the DSB that the United States had complied with the DSB recommendations and rulings. However, Antigua disputes that the U.S. has in fact complied with the WTO's ruling.

The OUSTR states in its notice that Antigua has raises the following issues:
  "(1) Antigua and Barbuda argues that the United States has not taken any measure to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings.
  (2) Second, Antigua and Barbuda characterizes U.S. compliance as relying on a ``restatement of a legal position taken by a party to a dispute,'' and argues that such action is legally insufficient under
the DSU to amount to compliance.
  (3) Third, Antigua and Barbuda disputes that the U.S. compliance brings the measures at issue within the scope of the GATS Article XIV public morals/public order exception."

The OUSTR now seeks comments on these issues.

The OUSTR notice does not reference, or seek comments upon, the just enacted "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006". See, text. This was attached to HR 4954, the port security bill that President Bush signed into law on October 13, 2006.

The notice sets an almost immediate deadline. However, the notice adds that "Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before October 23 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR."

10/19. The U.S. District Court (DC) issued an opinion [18 pages in PDF] and order [1 page PDF] in Butera & Andrews v. IBM, a civil case alleging violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), and the Wiretap Act (WA). The District Court dismissed, without prejudice, all of the claims in the complaint against IBM for failure to state a claim, and denied the plaintiff's request for discovery. Claims against a John Doe defendant remain.

Introduction. This is an opinion with limited scope. It merely pertains to the threshold pleading requirements for bringing private actions under the CFAA, SCA and WA.

The Court's opinion might be interpreted to create an exception to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), and ordinary principles of agency law, for the purpose of computer fraud and hacking cases where the defendant is a corporate entity. It may be interpreted to create a heightened pleading requirement, higher than that imposed under the FRCP, for private actions brought under the CFAA, SCA and WA against corporate entities, based upon its interpretation of intent elements in these statutes. It holds that the plaintiff must allege, upon a "concrete and particularized basis", that the company "did intentionally authorize" the hacker's attack.

This opinion may hinder the ability of persons targeted by corporate spying, hacking, and pretexting to obtain legal redress through private litigation.

Companies may be liable for various acts, including hacking, pretexting, and wiretapping. However, the companies themselves do not hack, pretext, wiretap or spy. Individuals do. Corporations may be liable for the acts of their employees or agents.

In the present case, the plaintiff, Butera & Andrews (B&A), filed a complaint in the District Court alleging that IBM violated the CFAA, SCA, and WA by accessing, and attempting to access, its e-mail server. B&A alleged in its complaint that the unlawful acts were committed by a "John Doe" defendant. B&A alleged that this defendant "in his capacity as IBM employee or agent, initiated, directed and managed" IBM's attacks.

The private right of actions provision of the CFAA, SCA, and WA each include intent to access or intercept as an element. For example, the CFAA states, "Whoever ... intentionally accesses a protected computer ..." The District Court's opinion may be construed to hold that for the purposes of the CFAA, SCA, and WA, the intent requirement refers, not to the act of accessing or intercepting, but to the corporate entity's supervision and direction of its employees and agents.

Attorneys drafting complaints that assert private causes of action against corporate entities under the CFAA, SCA, and WA should take note, as should prosecutors bringing criminal and civil actions.

Companies that avail themselves of the information to be afforded by hacking, pretexting, and spying, and the attorneys called upon to defend against private actions brought under the CFAA, SCA, and WA, may take advantage of this opinion.

Facts. There are no factual allegations, other than those contained in the complaint.

There has been no discovery. There are no affidavits in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. There have been no evidentiary hearings or trials. The District Court has made no findings of fact.

IBM's prompt filing of a Rule 12(b)(6), FRCP, motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the Court's prompt granting of the motion, has prevented the plaintiff from obtaining any discovery from IBM.

Hypothetically, it is possible that a hacker unconnected to IBM spoofed IBM's IP numbers. Nevertheless, IBM's strategy to date has not included any attempt to demonstrate its innocence.

It is also possible that a hacker took control of one or more of IBM's computers, and then used them to attack the plaintiff's computers. If this is the case, IBM may be trying to avoid disclosure of its own information security weaknesses.

It is also possible that attacks came from computers owned, operated, or maintained by IBM, but leased to, or operated on behalf of, a customer. If this is the case, IBM could be innocent, but possess facts that would incriminate one of its customers, and now pursues evasive litigation tactics to protect its customer.

It is also possible that an employee or agent of IBM did use IBM facilities to access the plaintiff's computers, and that IBM now seeks to avoid discovery of this information, and any possible liability that may flow therefrom.

Whatever the case may be, IBM holds relevant evidence for making findings of fact. It is attempting to prevent this evidence from being submitted to the Court, and made public. IBM did not return phone calls from TLJ.

The complaint reveals that the plaintiff is Butera & Andrews, a Washington DC based lobbying and law firm.

The complaint alleges that there was unauthorized access to B&A's e-mail server. It further alleges that the intruder left a series of instructions that permitted the intruder to enter the system surreptitiously and download documents from the server.

It further alleges that B&A's security firm investigated, and discovered subsequent attacks, and that all of the attacks originated from IP addresses registered to IBM. The complaint further alleges that the attacks originated from the IBM facility on Cornwallis Road in Durham, North Carolina. And, it alleges that these acts were committed "with IBM owned or operated equipment and were directed by IBM employees or agents".

B&A asks for statutory damages, a return of information obtained from B&A, and an injunction against further intrusion.

Statutes. There is no interpretation of the relevant statutes beyond the intent elements. Nevertheless, the key provisions of the statutes alleged to have been violated are set out below.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) provides that "Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware."

Thus, one must refer back to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B)(i)-(v), which are as follows:

   "(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
   (ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
   (iii) physical injury to any person;
   (iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
   (v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;"

The Stored Communications Act (SCA) is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2701-2712. The private right of action is found at 18 U.S.C. § 2707.

The basic prohibition is at Section 2701. It provides, in part, as follows:

"whoever --
  (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
  (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;
   and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished ..."

Section 2707 provides that "any provider of electronic communication service, subscriber, or other person aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind may, in a civil action, recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate".

The federal Wiretap Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522. It provides a private right of action against anyone who "intentionally intercepts ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication".

District Court Opinion.  The statutes involved reference intentionally accessing or intercepting computers or communications. A plain reading of the statutes might lead one to conclude that the intent requirement refers to the act of accessing or intercepting. For example, did a person sitting at a computer intentionally access a protected computer? A second and separate issue would then be whether a corporate entity is also liable for the intentional act of that person pursuant to principles of agency law.

However, this is not the reasoning of the District Court. The Court's opinion construes the statutory references to intent to create an element of the agency relationship between the hacker and the corporate defendant. That is, it held that the plaintiff must allege, upon a "concrete and particularized basis", that the company "did intentionally authorize" the hacker's attack.

The opinion states "there is no basis to hold IBM liable under theories of respondeat superior or vicarious liability for the actions of the John Doe defendant, even if the attacks were actually carried out by an IBM employee or agent." The opinion adds that "there are no grounds whatsoever for bringing an action against IBM under any of the statutes relied upon by the plaintiff, as each requires ``intentional´´ conduct on the part of the defendant."

The opinion adds, in a footnote, that "the Court recognizes the possibility, however slim, that the plaintiff will uncover facts, whether through third-party subpoena or otherwise, which demonstrate that IBM did intentionally authorize or direct the attacks alleged in the complaint. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against IBM without prejudice. The plaintiff may refile its claims against IBM only if it has a concrete and particularized basis on which to do so and only if the asserted conduct meets the requisite statutory standards of intentional conduct."

The opinion also includes a denial of B&A's request for discovery. The opinion offers this explanation. "Post-complaint discovery, however, is not the appropriate tool by which to gather facts about the extent, if any, of IBM’s intentional participation in the alleged attacks."

Except in rare circumstances, discovery is post-complaint discovery. Post-complaint discovery is the tool by which litigants discover facts in all types of cases. The opinion states that B&A must possess, pre-complaint, a "concrete and particularized basis" for factual allegations in its complaint. In contrast, the Rule 8, FRCP, requirement is merely that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief". Ordinarily, litigants obtain the "concrete and particularized basis" for key elements of their cases through post-complaint discovery.

Nor does the opinion reconcile its "concrete and particularized basis" requirement with Rule 9, FRCP, which provides that "Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally."

Thus, the opinion creates a pleading requirement, higher than that imposed under the FRCP, for private actions brought under the CFAA, SCA and WA against corporate entities, based upon its interpretation of intent elements in the statutes.

Commentary. It would be impertinent to suggest that a person who holds an Article III judgeship lacks a basic understanding of the difference between (1) a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state and claim, in which the Court must treat as true the complaint's factual allegations, (2) a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, in which the Court must determine, following discovery and presentation of summary judgment evidence, whether there "is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law", and (3) a finding of facts by the trier of facts after trial on the merits.

The District Court opinion states that this is a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, and holds that pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) procedure, dismissal is appropriate.

Nevertheless, the opinion cites the lack of evidence before the Court, as though this were a Rule 56 judgment based upon the plaintiff's failure to submit sworn testimony in support of an issue upon which it bears the burden of proof. For example, the opinion states that the "plaintiff fails to provide a shred of support for its claim ...", and that "The plaintiff has thus made no showing ...". But, the opinion states that this is not a Rule 56 judgment. Also, the Court has not allowed B&A the discovery that would precede a Rule 56 motion, and demonstrate whether or not B&A can make the requisite showing.

Moreover, the opinion is laden with conclusions of a factual nature that would be characteristic of a findings of fact. For example, the opinion states that "the Court is not persuaded by the plaintiff's contention that ``IBM assets initiated the attacks´´", and that "it is difficult for the court to conclude that IBM assets initiated the attack ...". The opinion adds that the "possibility" is "slim" that the B&A could discover evidence in support of its allegations.

There are few opinions interpreting the CFAA and SCA. It would likewise be impertinent to suggest that the District Court, and many sitting federal judges, are uninformed about the uses and abuses of new information technologies, and have few opinions or treatises to which to turn, and hence, render uniformed opinions regarding these statutes.

The District Court opinion does offer a policy rationale for its conclusion. It asserts that without a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal "totally innocent parties could be forced to defend themselves in judicial proceedings, at great expense and with the potential for public humiliation, against baseless claims predicated on nothing more than pure speculation or, even worse, mean-spirited vindictiveness. Therefore, insofar as the plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery is directed at shoring up, in some post hoc manner, its reason for including IBM as a defendant in this lawsuit in light of a facially deficient complaint, the request must be denied."

The flip side to this argument might be that without the opportunity for discovery and decision on the merits, especially in cases where the defendants possess key facts, such as in hacking and spying cases, totally guilty parties could be able to avoid all judicial proceedings, and hence, conduct electronic spying with impunity.

There is also the matter that it is unclear what spying objective, if any, underlies this action. IBM has maintained silence, and has fought to evade discovery. Also, IBM did not return phone calls from TLJ.

TLJ spoke with B&A's Jim Butera on October 20. He stated that B&A is reviewing the opinion. He added that B&A will continue to pursue that case against the John Doe defendant. He also noted that the dismissal is without prejudice, so that it might conduct further discovery and amend the complaint to again name IBM as a defendant.

However, Butera would not comment on what information IBM and/or the John Doe defendant may have sought from B&A's e-mail server, or which client of B&A may have been the target.

B&A is primarily a lobbying firm that specializes in representing businesses and groups in the financial services sector. However, its web site states that it has also represented Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics, Orion Communications, and Sharman Networks.

Finally, it should be noted that the claim against the John Doe defendant has not been dismissed. The opinion states that "the Court will consider the plaintiff’s requests for information from IBM concerning John Doe’s identity when and if such requests are brought in the form of third-party discovery now that IBM has been dismissed as a party in this action."

The discovery options applicable to non-parties are more limited than for parties. Moreover, IBM will likely assert further arguments for evading discovery, if and when B&A serves it with a subpoena. For example, it is likely to argue that B&A lacks standing to sue on the grounds that the alleged hacking affected e-mail servers owned or controlled by third parties.

This case is Butera & Andrews v. International Business Machines Corporation, et al., D.C. No. 1:06-CV-647 (RBW), Judge Reggie Walton presiding.

10/17. The State of New York and CBS Radio, Inc. signed an agreement [22 pages in PDF] titled "Assurance of Discontinuance Pursuant to Executive Law 63(15)". The agreement prohibits business plans structured upon the sale of air time, or the broadcast of sound recordings, to record companies.

The agreement recites New York's allegations that "certain CBS Radio stations have placed their time up for sale, and have concealed from listeners and reporting services the detrimental impact of their deceptive practices.

The agreement describes this a "pay for play", and "payola", and adds that this has been an industry practice for as long as there has been an industry.

It also states that "Rather than developing playlist and airing music based on artistic merit or editorial decision-making, some CBS Radio stations have provided airplay in exchange for valuable consideration."

The agreement also recites that CBS Radio enters into this agreement "without admitting the OAG's allegations herein in their totality". It adds that "By entering into this Assurance, CBS Radio make no admission of liability or violation of law, but acknowledges that certain of its employees engaged in wrong and improper conduct".

The agreement provides that CBS Radio shall cooperate with the Office of the Attorney General in related proceedings and actions. The agreement also requires CBS Radio to "contribute" $2 Million to the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, which will distribute the money for programs aimed at music education and appreciation.

The agreement further provides that CBS Radio agrees to implement business practices listed in the exhibits [41 pages in PDF] attached to the agreement. These include the following: "CBS Radio shall not solicit, receive or accept anything of value from a Record Label or Record Label employee, including anything of value to be distributed to a Broadcast Station contest winner ..."

Eliot Spitzer (at right), the Attorney General of New York, stated in a release that "The sale of a station's valuable air time to the highest bidder violates state and federal laws and robs consumers of their right to know why the songs they hear on the radio are being broadcast ... Our settlement with CBS Radio represents a significant milestone in our effort to reform the music industry for the benefit of the listening public."

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Michael Copps wrote in a statement [PDF] that "I commend Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for once again achieving a breakthrough with this settlement. CBS Radio is leading the radio broadcasting industry by finally admitting wrongdoing and agreeing to change its practices. This should provide new fuel to drive the FCC payola investigation to completion. Since payola saps the vitality out of radio, this is a win not only for listeners everywhere, but also for the radio industry itself."

The House will not meet. It may return from it elections recess on Monday, November 13, 2006. The adjournment resolution, HConRes 483, provides for returning on Thursday, November 9, at 2:00 PM.

The Senate will not meet. See, HConRes 483.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Copyright 'Modernization': What is the Agenda on Capitol Hill?" The speakers will included Patrick Ross (PFF), Joe Keeley (Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property), David Jones (Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and Amy Levine (legislative counsel to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA)). See, notice and registration page. Lunch will be served. Location: Room B-354, Rayburn Building.

1:30 PM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in Cisco Systems v. Teles AG Informationstechnologien, D.C. No. 1:2005-cv-02048-RBW, a patent case. Judge Reggie Walton will preside. Location: Courtroom 5.

Day two of a two day event hosted by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) titled "ITAA Identity Management Conference 2006". See, notice. The speakers will include Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), Robert Cresanti (Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology), and Frank Moss (Deputy Assistant Secretary Passport Services, Department of State). For more information, contact Jennifer Kerber at jkerber at itaa dot org. Location: Sheraton Premiere Tysons Corner, VA.

Day two of a three day convention of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "2006 Annual Meeting". Location: Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Park Road, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [77 pages in PDF] regarding the service rules that primarily govern wireless licenses in the 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz bands (700 MHz Band) currently occupied by television broadcasters and being made available for new services as a result of the DTV transition. This NPRM is FCC 06-114 in WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, and WT Docket No. 01-309. The FCC adopted this NPRM on August 3, 2006, released it on August 10, 2006. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 21, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 161, at Pages 48506-48527, and notice in the Federal Register, September 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 189, at Pages 57455-57456. See also, FCC release [PDF] that describes this NPRM.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-94 [123 pages in PDF], titled "Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention (IDP) Systems".

Day three of a three day convention of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "2006 Annual Meeting". Location: Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Park Road, NW.

9:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day one of a five day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to conduct a final review of its 2006 annual report to the Congress. The agenda includes discussion of "China's Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Its Production of Counterfeit Goods", "China's Media Control Activities", "The Effect of U.S. and Multilateral Export Controls on China's Military Modernization", and "China's WTO Compliance". See, notice in the Federal Register: October 18, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 201, at Pages 61541-61542. Location: Conference Room 333, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, NW.

5:30 - 8:00 PM. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the National Council of Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer (NCET2) will host an event titled "University Start-Ups Capitol Hill Reception". See, notice. For more information, or to RSVP, contact rsvp at netcaucus dot org or 202-638-4370. Location: Room 902, Hart Building, Capitol Hill.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "How to Handle Opposition and Cancellation Actions Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board". The speakers will include Judges Karen Kuhlke and Jeffrey Quinn (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) and Gary Krugman (Sughrue Mion). The price to attend ranges from $90-$115. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding its media ownership rules. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on July 21, 2006, and released the text [36 pages in PDF] on July 24, 2006. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts FNPRM on Rules Regulating Ownership of Media" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,397, June 22, 2006. This FNPRM is FCC 06-93 in MB Docket No. 02-277, MM Docket No. 01-235, MM Docket No. 01-317, MM Docket No. 00-244, and MB Docket Nos. 06-121. See also, original notice in the Federal Register, August 9, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 153, at Pages 45511-45515, and order [PDF] extending deadlines.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding the internet gambling proceeding before the World Trade Organization (WTO) initiated by Antigua and Barbuda. See, story titled "WTO Appellate Body Upholds U.S. Laws Affecting Internet Gambling" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,111, April 8, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 19, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 202, at Pages 61808-61809.

9:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day two of a five day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to conduct a final review of its 2006 annual report to the Congress. The agenda includes discussion of "China's Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Its Production of Counterfeit Goods", "China's Media Control Activities", "The Effect of U.S. and Multilateral Export Controls on China's Military Modernization", and "China's WTO Compliance". See, notice in the Federal Register: October 18, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 201, at Pages 61541-61542. Location: Conference Room 333, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, NW.12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Alliance for Public Technology (APT) and the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged (NCBA) will host a brown bag lunch titled "Older Adults, Broadband and the Future of the Internet". The speaker will be Kristin Fabos (SeniorNet). Location: NCBA, Suite 800, 1220 L Street, NW.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Fall Reception with the FCC Bureau Chiefs". See, registration form [PDF]. The price to attend ranges from $15 to $100. Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section, and other Sections, will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Estate Planning for Artists, Authors and Collectors". The speakers will include Janet Fries (Drinker Biddle & Reath) and Ann Garfinkle (Whiteford Taylor & Preston). The price to attend ranges from $90 to $135. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

TIME? Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee's (COMSTAC) Working Groups on Technology and Innovation, Reusable Launch Vehicle, Risk Management, and Launch Operations and Support will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 179, at Page 54550. Location: __.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice [9 pages in PDF] of October 13, 2006, and public notice [7 pages in PDF] of September 16, regarding the merger of AT&T and BellSouth. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 06-74.

9:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day three of a five day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to conduct a final review of its 2006 annual report to the Congress. The agenda includes discussion of "China's Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Its Production of Counterfeit Goods", "China's Media Control Activities", "The Effect of U.S. and Multilateral Export Controls on China's Military Modernization", and "China's WTO Compliance". See, notice in the Federal Register: October 18, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 201, at Pages 61541-61542. Location: Conference Room 385, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, NW.

8:00 AM. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 179, at Page 54550. Location: FAA, Headquarters Building, Bessie Coleman Conference Center, 2nd floor, 800 Independence Ave., SW.

10:00 AM. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), Public Knowledge (PK), Media Access Project (MAP) will host a news conference to launch a "Digital Freedom campaign". The speakers will include Gary Shapiro (CEA), Gigi Sohn (PK), and Harold Feld (MAP). For more information, contact Jennifer Stoltz at 202-448-3145 or jstoltz at qorvis dot com. Location: National Press Club, Main Ballroom, 13th Floor, 529 14th Street, NW.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting. The agenda includes presentations regarding, and discussions of, fiber to the home initiatives, CATV broadband initiatives, broadband over powerline, WiMAX and WiBRO, GSM and WiFi crossover, spectrum observatory, and propagation characteristics -- HF through microwave. See, FCC public notice [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, October 19, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 202, at Page 61774. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305 at 445 12th St., SW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Recent Developments and Current Issues". The speakers will include Thomas Scott (Weadon & Associates) and Carol Kalinoski (Kalinoski & Associates). The price to attend ranges from $90-$135. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice and notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the intercarrier compensation reform plan known at the Missoula Plan. This proceeding is titled "Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime" and numbered CC Docket No. 01-92. See, notice in the Federal Register: September 13, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 177, at Pages 54008-54009.

9:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day four of a five day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to conduct a final review of its 2006 annual report to the Congress. The agenda includes discussion of "China's Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Its Production of Counterfeit Goods", "China's Media Control Activities", "The Effect of U.S. and Multilateral Export Controls on China's Military Modernization", and "China's WTO Compliance". See, notice in the Federal Register: October 18, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 201, at Pages 61541-61542. Location: Conference Room 385, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Practice Committee will host a lunch titled "Meet the FCC Wireless Advisors". The speakers will be Fred Campbell (office of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin), Barry Ohlson (office of Jonathan Adelstein), Bruce Gottlieb (office of Michael Copps), Aaron Goldberger (office of Deborah Tate), and Angela Giancarlo (office of Robert McDowell). See, registration form [PDF]. The price to attend is $15. Registrations are due by 12:00 NOON on October 24. Location: Latham & Watkins, 555 11th St., NW, 10th floor.

9:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day five of a five day meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to conduct a final review of its 2006 annual report to the Congress. The agenda includes discussion of "China's Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Its Production of Counterfeit Goods", "China's Media Control Activities", "The Effect of U.S. and Multilateral Export Controls on China's Military Modernization", and "China's WTO Compliance". See, notice in the Federal Register: October 18, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 201, at Pages 61541-61542. Location: Conference Room 385, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, NW.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-98 [126 pages in PDF], titled "Guidance for Securing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Systems".

Extended deadline to submit applications to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA) to participate in the summit portion of its Business Development Mission to India on November 29-30, 2006. See, notice in the Federal Register: October 2, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 190, at Pages 57923.

Deadline to submit comments to the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to its proposal to grant a request for a waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for personal computer manufacturing. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 197, at Pages 60220-60221.

10/19. George Curtis was named Regional Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Central Regional Office (CRO), which covers the states of Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. He replaces Randall Fons who left the SEC to work in the Denver, Colorado office of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster. See, SEC release.

10/12. Joseph Billy was named Assistant Director in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Counterterrorism Division. He is a 28 year employee of the FBI. See, FBI release.

10/19. The U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its opinion [6 pages in PDF] in Mid-State Aftermarket Body Parts, Inc., v. MQVP, Inc., a trademark infringement case in which the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's summary judgment for the alleged infringer. This case is App. Ct. No. 05-3057, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

10/19. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) extended the deadline to submit comments regarding its proposed changes to its Export Administration Regulations (EAR) pertaining to exports and reexports of dual-use items to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Dual use items include certain encryption products, information security products, fiber optic products, computers, and software. See, original notice in the Federal Register, July 6, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 129, at Pages 38313-38321, and notice of extension in the Federal Register, October 19, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 202, at Page 61692. The deadline was November 3, 2006. The new deadline is December 4, 2006.

10/18. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing a proposed rule that would have revised the definition of "knowledge" in the BIS's Export Administration Regulations (EAR). See, original notice in the Federal Register, October 13, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 197, at Pages 60829-60836, and notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register, October 18, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 201, at Pages 61435-61436.

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 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.