Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
July 29, 2008, Alert No. 1,802.
Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
DC Circuit Reverses in FTC v. Whole Foods

7/29. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its divided opinion [redacted, 58 pages in PDF] in FTC v. Whole Foods, reversing the District Court's order denying the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) request for a preliminary injunction of the acquisition by Whole Foods of Wild Oats.

The facts of this case are not technology related. It is about retail stores that sell groceries. However, the antitrust principles discussed in this case could impact technology companies. This case involves defining the relevant market for the purpose of analyzing the impact of a merger upon competition.

The U.S. District Court (DC) held in this case, as another District Court held in DOJ v. Oracle, that government antitrust regulators postulated too narrow a market, and therefore erroneously predicted anticompetitive results of a merger. See, story titled "DOJ Loses Oracle Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 974, September 10, 2006.

Also, this case, and the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) disposition of its antitrust review of the merger of XM Sirius, reveal the power of federal regulators to block mergers, extend uncertainty, and extend legal proceedings for extraordinarily long periods of time. Both XM and Sirius and Whole Foods and Wild Oats announced their mergers in early 2007. The FCC, after 16 months of delay, finally approved the XM Sirius merger last week. And now, Whole Foods is informed by the Court of Appeals, nearly a year after completing its merger, that the FTC may still seek to enjoin it. These cases demonstrate that the legitimate interests of investors, merging entities and other market participants in prompt resolution of antitrust issues, and finality and certainty, are not always being recognized by regulators and courts.

All three judges, Brown, Tatel, and Kavanaugh wrote long opinions. Brown wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Tatel concurred. Tatel also wrote a separate opinion offering additional analysis. Judge Kavanaugh wrote a strenuous dissent.

In the present case, the FTC asserts that the relevant market is operators of premium, natural, and organic supermarkets (PNOS). Moreover, it asserts that based upon this market definition, the merger would give Whole Foods a PNOS monopoly in 18 cities.

The District Court held that there is no distinct PNOS market. Rather, Whole Foods and Wild Oats are just two of many competitors in the grocery store market.

In August of 2007 the District Court issued an order [2 pages in PDF] and a redacted copy of its Memorandum Opinion [95 page PDF scan; 3.5 MB] denying the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction.

The FTC sought an injunction pending appeal, which the Court of Appeals denied. Whole Foods and Wild Oats then consummated their merger in late August.

The FTC nevertheless proceeded with this appeal. See, FTC's January 14, 2008, brief [78 pages in PDF] and February 27, 2008, reply brief [35 pages in PDF].

First, Judge Brown wrote that the appeal is not moot, even though the relief sought, an injunction of merger, cannot be granted, because the merger has been completed.

Then, she opined, out of the blue, that the District Court must be reversed, based upon an analysis of "marginal consumers" and "core consumers".

She offered this summary: "the district court believed the antitrust laws are addressed only to marginal consumers. This was an error of law, because in some situations core consumers, demanding exclusively a particular product or package of products, distinguish a submarket. The FTC described the core PNOS customers, explained how PNOS cater to these customers, and showed these customers provided the bulk of PNOS’s business. The FTC put forward economic evidence -- which the district court ignored -- showing directly how PNOS discriminate on price between their core and marginal customers, thus treating the former as a distinct market. Therefore, we cannot agree with the district court that the FTC would never be able to prove a PNOS submarket."

Judge Kavanaugh wrote in dissent that "the FTC's case is weak and seems a relic of a bygone era when antitrust law was divorced from basic economic principles."

He argued that the District Court properly rejected the FTC's PNOS market assertion. He concluded that "Whole Foods competes in an extraordinarily competitive market that includes all supermarkets, not just so-called organic supermarkets. There is no good legal basis to block further implementation of this merger."

He reasoned that "the FTC commits the basic antitrust mistake of confusing (i) product differentiation (which is how a seller such as Whole Foods competes within a market) and (ii) separate product markets. Discerning the difference in a particular case usually turns on pricing information. Here, the pricing evidence shows that Whole Foods prices did not differ based on the presence or absence of a Wild Oats in the area and that conventional supermarkets constrain Whole Foods prices. The relevant product market therefore is all supermarkets." (Parentheses in original.)

Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, stated in a release that "We are pleased by today's decision of the appeals court in the Whole Foods matter and are looking forward to future proceedings before the district court, leading to a full trial on the merits before the Commission."

This case is FTC v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc. et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, App. Ct. No. 07-5276, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 07cv01021, Judge Paul Friedman presiding.

WTO Doha Talks Fail Again

7/29. U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab stated in a release that "we will not be able to reach a breakthrough at this time". She added that "negotiations deadlocked" on agriculture issues.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) began this latest meeting on July 21, 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland. See also, WTO release announcing the "collapse" of talks.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) stated in a release that "I'm disappointed but not surprised. The writing was on the wall once these negotiations devolved into India and China trying to roll back their existing WTO commitments. That would have meant increased tariffs on U.S. exports, and there's no way Congress would have supported that."

Sen. Grassley continued that "I'd hoped to see the talks result in new market access opportunities for U.S. farmers, manufacturers, workers, and service providers. But no deal is better than a bad deal."

"If India, China, and other advanced developing countries want the benefits of expanded trade, they have to abandon protectionism and negotiate in good faith. I hope they recommit themselves to pursuing a meaningful trade expansion agenda in the future. WTO members need to realize what's at stake and the opportunity that's been lost, at least for the time being", said Sen. Grassley.

NTIA Seeks Amendment of 1090 MHz Rules

7/29. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) filed a petition for rulemaking [PDF] with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that it amend its rules "to allow Aeronautical Utility Mobile Stations to use the 1090 MHz frequency for runway vehicle identification and collision avoidance".

The NTIA explained that its "proposals would allow air traffic control (ATC) to identify service vehicles transiting within the airport movement area, enhance ATC ability to control vehicle movement, and thereby reduce the risk of aircraft colliding with vehicles on the airport surface. Providing ATC with the ability to control service vehicle movement on the airport movement area would significantly reduce the number of incidents occurring there and increase overall safety."

Basically, to track the location of vehicles new airport surface detection equipment (ASDE) would use 1090 MHz vehicle squitters and triangular of signals.

The NTIA asserts that there would be no degrading the performance of existing systems that rely on 1090 MHz.

DOJ Obtains Indictment of Sen. Stevens in DC

7/29. A grand jury of the U.S. District Court (DC) returned an indictment [27 pages in PDF] that charges Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) with seven counts of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 in connection with his alleged failure to disclose receipt of things of value on his annual Senate Financial Disclosure Forms (SFDF) for the years 1999 through 2006.

Sen. Ted StevensSen. Stevens (at right) was, until the release of this indictment, the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC), which has jurisdiction over communications issues, and exercises oversight over the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and other information technology and communications related agencies.

The indictment alleges that Sen. Stevens failed to disclose "home improvements" to his house in Girdwood, Alaska, performed by others, including a "second-story wraparound deck, new plumbing, new electrical wiring" and other remodeling and additions.

It also alleges that he failed to disclose vehicle exchanges, and receipt of a Viking "gas grill, and a new multi-drawer, stationary tool storage cabinet with new tools".

It alleges that he received these things of value from VECO Corporation, an oil industry services company based in Alaska. It further alleges that Sen. Stevens "did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO".

§ 1001(a) provides, in part, that "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" or "imprisoned ...".

Sen. Stevens responded in a release that "I have proudly served this nation and Alaska for over 50 years. My public service began when I served in World War II. It saddens me to learn that these charges have been brought against me. I have never knowingly submitted a false disclosure form required by law as a U.S. Senator."

He added that "In accordance with Senate Republican Conference rules, I have temporarily relinquished my vice-chairmanship and ranking positions until I am absolved of these charges."

"The impact of these charges on my family disturbs me greatly", said Sen. Stevens. "I am innocent of these charges and intend to prove that."

The indictment does not charge Sen. Stevens with any violations of the Internal Revenue Code.

Nor does the indictment charge Sen. Stevens with any violation of Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code, which pertains to "Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest". Yet, the indictment alleges facts that would support charges under Chapter 11.

There is a wide disconnection between the facts alleged in the indictment, and the criminal charges brought by the indictment. The indictment does not explain this gap, and government officials who touted this indictment at a news conference on July 29 were evasive about it.

DOJ Forum Shopping. This article posits the hypothesis that the reason that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought the lesser charges of non-disclosure in SFDFs, rather than tax or Chapter 11 charges, is that the government is forum shopping for a favorable judge and jury. That is, the DOJ obtained this indictment in the District of Columbia, and seeks to keep this case from being tried in Anchorage, Alaska, where it fears a verdict of acquittal.

The 6th Amendment of the Constitution provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 provides that "Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice."

Stevens' house is in Alaska. The alleged home improvements, and all of the transactions alleged in the indictment, occurred in Alaska. Only the filing of the Senate Financial Disclosure Forms (SFDFs) are alleged to have taken place in District of Columbia. Thus, the §1001/SFDF offense is the only one that the DOJ can assert occurred in the District of Columbia.

Thus, the indictment alleges that Sen. Stevens violated §1001 "in the District of Columbia".

If the DOJ were to charge Sen. Stevens with bribery or tax evasion, then there would be no credible argument that the alleged crime occurred in the District of Columbia, and Sen. Stevens would be entitled to have the case moved to Alaska. Of course, it still remains an open issue whether the alleged §1001/SFDF offense was committed in Alaska. And, Sen. Stevens may soon seek to move the case.

Victor Song, Deputy Chief of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Criminal Investigations Division participated in a news conference on July 29. However, he did not explain the absence of tax charges.

Matthew Friedrich, acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's Criminal Division, also participated in the news conference. He was asked "Why did the Justice Department go after disclosures as opposed to other statutes, the tax statute or gift ban statute?"

He gave a non-responsive answer. First, this is what he said: "I guess the best way to answer that, in terms of would of, could of, should of on other charges, again, as I alluded to, I really need to stick to what's charged here in terms of the indictment. The indictment is pretty detailed. I think, if you take a look at it, it lays out pretty clearly what our basis is for what we brought."

Another reporter persisted, "Why wouldn't that be a tax violation ... ?", while another asked asked "Did he report these on his tax returns; like improvements to a house would be income, wouldn't it?" Friedrich said "I'm not going to comment on the senator's tax returns."

There are many reasons why the DOJ would fear a trial in Anchorage, or anywhere in Alaska. Anchorage is a town with a high proportion of active duty and retired military personnel. Any jury pool would include people who know of Sen. Stevens' distinguished service in WWII and his long history of support for the military and military personnel, particularly as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its Defense Subcommittee, both of which he has chaired. He piloted C-46s and C-47s in the China theater and received the Distinguished Service Cross, which the Department of Defense states is awarded for "extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a Medal of Honor".

Sen. Stevens also has been one of most successful Senators in influencing appropriations, legislation, and regulatory actions to benefit his state. Any Anchorage jury pool would include people familiar with Sen. Stevens' service to the state.

In addition, many potential jurors in Anchorage possess a high level of distrust for the federal government in Washington DC, which has obtained this indictment. Moreover, it unlikely that any rational and competent prosecutor seeking to maximize his or her career opportunities in the state would willingly or diligently prosecute Sen. Stevens. The DOJ would thus have to send prosecutors from out of state. Some jurors and judges would perceive these prosecutors with suspicion, as outsiders.

Moreover, jury pools in Anchorage contain more highly educated people who hold managerial, engineering, professional and legal jobs than jury pools in the District of Columbia. These people are more capable of dissecting, analyzing, and rejecting complicated government cases.

In sum, were the DOJ to attempt to prosecute Sen. Stevens in Alaska, it would likely face a jury with members unfavorable to the prosecution. In contrast, the DOJ likely could not pick a jury anywhere in the country more biased in its favor in a case against Sen. Stevens than in the District of Columbia.

Thus, the hypothesis advanced here is that, while the DOJ has not admitted so much, it has procured an unusual indictment for the purpose of manipulating the forum in which the case would be tried, and hence, the outcome of the case.

Disclosure. David Carney, author of this story, is an ex-Alaskan who voted for Sen. Stevens in the 1984 Senate election.

Correction

The Wednesday, July 23, 2008, issue of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert, No. 1,798, contained an article titled "Orphan Works Bills Discussed".

The 7th paragraph incorrectly stated that "Only one, Victor Perlman (American Society of Media Photographers), was an opponent. He stated that these bills are ``disastrous´´ for creators of visual arts."

In fact, Mr. Perlman stated that "For creators of visual materials, most of the orphan works legislation has looked more like a choice between the disastrous and the disastrous. The current version of the House bill finally reached the level of protections that the two largest photo trade associations could support."

Copies of this article published in the TLJ web site will reflect this correction.

Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
Wednesday, July 30

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of July 28.

TIME CHANGE. 10:00 AM. 9:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Politicized Hiring at the Department of Justice". See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Improving Consumer Protection in the Prepaid Calling Card Market". This hearing will also address S 2998 [LOC | WW], the "Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2008", sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). Sen. Nelson will preside. The witnesses will be Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), William Kovacic (FTC Chairman), Sally Greenberg, (National Consumers League), Gus West (Hispanic Institute), and Barry Smitherman (Chairman, Texas Public Utility Commission). See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:00 AM. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will hold a meeting. The agenda includes an interpretive release to provide guidance regarding the use of company web sites under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Location: SEC, Auditorium, Room L-002.

10:15 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will meet to mark up numerous items. The agenda includes HR 6353 [LOC | WW], the "Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008", and HR 2140 [LOC | WW], the "Internet Gambling Study Act". The HJC will webcast this meeting. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Alliance for Public Technology (APT) host a panel discussion titled "Broadband in Low-income Communities: From Access to Adoption". The speakers will be Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Joy Howell (APT), Austin Bonner (One Economy Corporation), and Alec Ross (OEC). A box lunch will be served. Location: Room HC-6, Capitol Building.

Thursday, July 31

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of July 28.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 128, at Page 37975-37976. Location: Bolger Center, 9600 Newbridge Drive, Potomac, MD.

9:30 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's (SHSGAC) Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security will hold a hearing titled "Offline and Off-budget: The Dismal State of Information Technology Planning in the Federal Government". See, notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet to mark up several bills, including S 3274 [LOC | WW], the "National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda once again includes consideration of S 2746 [LOC | WW], the "OPEN FOIA Act of 2008". The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee (HSC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program". The witnesses will be Chris Greer (NITRD), Daniel Reed (Microsoft), Craig Stewart (Indiana University), and Don Winter (Boeing Company). Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Small Business Committee (HSBC) will hold a hearing titled "Cost and Confidentiality: The Unforeseen Challenges of Electronic Health Records in Small Specialty Practices". Location: Room 1539, Longworth Building.

10:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing on HR 5884 [LOC | WW], the "Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2008", a bill to amend 28 U.S.C. § 111 to limit the use of protective orders and the sealing of cases and settlements. The HJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:30 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on HR 5607 [LOC | WW], the "State Secrets Protection Act of 2008". The HJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its proposed rule changes regarding retransmission of digital television broadcast signals by cable operators pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 111. See, notice of extension in the Federal Register, July 14, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 135, at Page 40203, and original notice in the Federal Register, June 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 106, at Pages 31399-31415.

Friday, August 1

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of July 28.

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 128, at Page 37975-37976. Location: Bolger Center, 9600 Newbridge Drive, Potomac, MD.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may hold an event titled "Open Commission Meeting". See, FCC agenda and story titled "FCC Announces Tentative Agenda for August 1 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,795, July 18, 2008. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

Deadline to submit reply comments regarding broadband availability mapping (BAM) to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding BAM and modifications to the FCC Form 477 data collection. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on March 19, 2008, but did not release the text [81 pages in PDF] until June 12, 2008. It is FCC 08-89 in WC Docket No. 07-38.See, notice in the Federal Register, July 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 128, at Pages 37911-37922. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts Order Regarding Broadband Data Collection" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008.

Deadline to submit initial comments regarding issues other than broadband availability mapping (BAM) to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding BAM and modifications to the FCC Form 477 data collection. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on March 19, 2008, but did not release the text [81 pages in PDF] until June 12, 2008. It is FCC 08-89 in WC Docket No. 07-38.See, notice in the Federal Register, July 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 128, at Pages 37911-37922. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts Order Regarding Broadband Data Collection" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008.

Monday, August 4

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Lexicon Medical v. Northgate Technologies, App. Ct. No. 2007-1420. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDIll) in a patent infringement case involving the post KSR v. Teleflex obviousness standard. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Griffin Broadband Communications v. U.S., App. Ct. No. 2008-5032. This is an appeal from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in a 5th Amendment takings case involving government termination of a contract relationship regarding the provision of communications services on a military base. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting by teleconference. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 19, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 119, at Pages 34945-34946.

Tuesday, August 5.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Qualcomm v. Broadcomm, App. Ct. No. 2007-1545. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

6:30 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Devin Crock at dcrock at kelleydrye dot com or Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com. Location: Tony and Joe’s Seafood Place at the Georgetown Waterfront, 3000 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking regarding inspection of records relating to the depiction of simulated sexually explicit performances. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 6, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 110, at Pages 32262-32273. This notice states that this "means conduct engaged in by real human beings, not conduct engaged in by computer-generated images".

People and Appointments
7/29. Margaret Peterlin, Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will leave the USPTO in August. See, USPTO release.

7/29. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division gave an award to Herbert Hovenkamp, a law professor at the University of Iowa law school and author of a leading treatise on antitrust law. See, release.

7/29. William Schulz was named Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. He will replace Jonathan Burks, who is leaving the SEC on August 1, 2008. See, SEC release and release.

More News

7/29. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a release [6 pages in PDF] that describes the contents of a yet of its order that imposes restrictions upon the XM Sirius. The FCC held up the merger for sixteen months. It has yet to release the order. See also, story titled "FCC Approves XM Sirius Merger" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,800, July 25, 2008.

7/25. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) released a paper titled "Security and Privacy Issues Associated With Federal RFID-Enabled Documents". It states that Department of State (DOS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have developed two new alternative ID cards for U.S. citizens without a passport, the passport card and the Enhanced Driver's License (EDL). The CDT argues that "Both of these cards carry a long-range radio frequency identification (RFID) chip that presents a privacy nightmare for American citizens." It continues that "These insecure chips, containing traveler data, could be read from long distances by anyone, without the cardholder's knowledge or consent, and could be used to track and profile the movements and activities of innocent Americans. Moreover, access to a traveler's ``unique ID number´´ could be used to further access sensitive personal information held by the government ..."

7/18. Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for competition regulation, gave a speech in Strasbourg, France, regarding broadcasting, and especially government owned broadcasters.

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 information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.