9/16. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an administrative complaint [4 pages in PDF] that charges that Reed Elsevier with violation of federal antitrust laws in connection with its proposed acquisition of ChoicePoint.

On February 21, 2008, Reed Elsevier and ChoicePoint announced that Reed Elsevier would acquire ChoicePoint. See, ChoicePoint release.

The complaint alleges violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45.

The complaint alleges that the relevant market is "electronic public records services for law enforcement customers".

The parties also entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Orders [6 pages in PDF]. See also, Decision and Order [redacted, 23 pages in PDF]

Under this settlement Reed Elsevier will divest assets related to ChoicePoint's AutoTrackXP and Consolidated Lead Evaluation and Reporting (CLEAR) electronic public records services to Thomson Reuters Legal Inc.

David Wales, acting Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, stated in a release that "The proposed acquisition would have eliminated the intense head-to-head competition between LexisNexis and ChoicePoint that has lowered prices and led to product innovations for a critical law enforcement tool".

Wales added that "The action announced today ensures that law enforcement customers will continue to benefit from this competition as they attempt to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal activity."

Crispin Davis, CEO of Reed Elsevier, stated in a release that "We are delighted to have received regulatory approval from the FTC to close the acquisition of ChoicePoint. The acquisition of ChoicePoint represents a major step in the building of a leading risk management business and in the development of Reed Elsevier’s online workflow solutions strategy. The market growth in risk information and analytics is very attractive and ChoicePoint brings important assets and market positions that fit well with our existing business and can be leveraged to very good effect."

See also, ChoicePoint release of September 16, 2008.

Neither Reed Elsevier nor ChoicePoint admitted any violation of federal law.

9/8. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division released a report titled "Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act". See also, PDF version [215 pages].

Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2, provides that "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

It is the section that the Antitrust Division uses to address single firm conduct. Single firm conduct does not include anti-competitive acts that involve multiple firms, such as price fixing, market allocation, and anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. It does include actions such as tying, bundled discounts, refusals to deal, and predatory pricing.

Currently, the Antitrust Division and the European Commission (EC) have divergent views regarding how competition law should be applied to single firm conduct, particularly in the context of firms that have become large, and/or acquired a large market share, as a result of their innovation and intellectual property portfolios.

The report notes that "there are significant differences among various countries' laws, legal institutions, and enforcement policies. With increasingly globalized markets, the diversity of competition regimes has raised concerns. Firms doing business globally, when confronted with, for example, a product-design decision, may be pushed to conform to the rules of the most restrictive jurisdiction. Certain types of remedies, such as mandatory disclosures of intellectual property, also have global impacts."

This divergence has resulted in inconsistent outcomes on opposite sides of the Atlantic (with the Antitrust Division taking no action against single firm conduct that the EC takes action against) and with U.S. companies seeking intervention by antitrust regulators by engaging in antitrust forum shopping.

The Antitrust Division focuses on protecting consumers, while the EC often acts to protect competing firms. The Antitrust Division advocates the benefits of dynamic innovation, and intellectual property rights as a means to promote such innovation. The EC takes a static view of IP, and sometimes concludes that certain firms' IP rights must be restricted by government action.

Various Antitrust Division officials have been expressing the Antitrust Division perspective for years in speeches and papers. However, the just released report is the longest and most thorough exposition of its perspective on single firm conduct.

The Antitrust Division and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently conducted a year long series of 29 hearings related to single firm conduct. The just released report states that it "synthesizes views expressed at the hearings, in extensive scholarly commentary, and in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and lower courts. It reflects the Department's enforcement policy and is intended to make progress toward the goal of sound, clear, objective, effective, and administrable standards for analyzing single-firm conduct under section 2."

The Antitrust Division and the FTC sometimes act jointly on antitrust matters, as they did in conducting joint hearings. However, the FTC did not join in the just released report. Indeed, several FTC Commissioners criticized the report. But, the FTC did not issue a report of its own.

The EC did not join in this report, or issue any public statement.

In is possible also that in the next administration, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and non-career attorneys sent by the next administration to run the Antitrust Division, will not share all of the views expressed in this report. The Antitrust Division's large body of economists will likely continue to be a base of support for conclusions in the report.

The Clinton administration's Joel Klein, who aggressively pursued Microsoft beginning in 1998 for single firm conduct, took a more interventionist approach to single firm issues than have all of his successors in the Bush administration -- Charles James, Hewitt Pate, and Thomas Barnett.

It should also be noted that the Clinton administration's Robert Pitofsky, as Chairman of the FTC, pursued Intel. See, story titled "FTC Brings Administrative Action Against Intel", June 9, 1998.

9/8. The divergence between the European Commission (EC) and Antitrust Division on application of antitrust law in the context of single firm conduct became particularly public when the EC took action against Microsoft in 2004 that was opposed by the Antitrust Division.

See, stories titled "European Commission Seeks 497 Million Euros and Code Removal from Microsoft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 863, March 25, 2004; "European Commission Releases Microsoft Decision" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 883, April 23, 2004; "EU Seeks More Money and Disclosures from Microsoft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,279, December 23, 2006; and "European Commission Takes Another 280.5 Million Euros From Microsoft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,410, July 13, 2006.

Hewitt Pate, who was head of the Antitrust Division at the time that the EC issued its original 2004 order, frequently criticized the EC's action. See for example, story titled "US Antitrust Chief Says EU's Microsoft Decision Could Harm Innovation and Consumers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 863, March 25, 2004.

See also, April 2, 2004, speech by Pate, and story titled "Pate Criticizes EC Decision Regarding Microsoft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 869, April 5, 2004.

See also, June 6, 2004, speech by Pate in Brussels, and story "Pate Addresses US EU Differences on Antitrust, Microsoft, and IPR" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 913, June 8, 2004.

Since 2004, the divergence has been manifested with respect to other technology and IP based companies.

The EC's action against Intel has furthered demonstrated the split between the US and EC. See, stories titled "European Commission Initiates Proceeding Against Intel Alleging Anticompetitive Behavior" and "Barnett Addresses Sherman Section 2 Remedies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,617, July 27, 2007.

See for example, September 13, 2006, speech by Thomas Barnett titled "Interoperability Between Antitrust and Intellectual Property", and story titled "DOJ's Barnett Slams Europe on Antitrust, iPods and Single Firm Conduct Analysis" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,450, September 15, 2006.

See also, story titled "EC Again Targets Microsoft" and "Barnett Addresses Application of Competition Law to Unilateral Conduct" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,700, January 15, 2008.

Finally, see story titled "Kroes Asserts that EC Antitrust Enforcement is Not Socialist" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,740, April 1, 2008.

9/8. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division released a report titled "Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act". See also, PDF version [215 pages].

The report is long and detailed. The following summary only touches on some of the technology related highlights.

Product Tying. Product tying is selling a product only on the condition that the buyer also purchase a second product. The report adds that tying can occur by "linking two products technologically".

Microsoft incurred the wrath of the Clinton Antitrust Division by tying an internet browser to a personal computer operating system, and the wrath of the European Commission (EC) by tying a media player to an operating system.

The report states that "In some circumstances, tying can allow a competitor with monopoly power over one product to acquire monopoly power in a tied product or to maintain its monopoly in the tying product. Those circumstances, however, are limited."

"In many others, tying can promote efficiency and benefit consumers through a reduction in production or distribution costs. It also can be used to price discriminate, which generally does not create or maintain monopoly power."

The report concludes that "the historical hostility of the law to tying is unjustified. In particular, the qualified rule of per se illegality applicable to tying is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern antitrust decisions and should be abandoned."

It continues that "Tying in the form of technologically linking products is an area where enforcement intervention poses a particular risk of harming consumers more than it helps them in the long run. Technological tying often efficiently gives consumers features they want and judicial control of product design risks chilling innovation. This form of tying, therefore, should be condemned only in exceptional cases, such as when integrating two separate products serves no purpose other than to disadvantage competitors and harms the competitive process."

Bundled Discounts. The bundling of services at discount prices is common for large companies in the communications and information technology sectors. For example, cable and phone companies offer discounted bundles of broadband internet access, multichannel video programming, and voice communications.

The report states that "When a defendant's rivals can effectively compete on a bundle-to-bundle basis, bundled discounting is much like single-product price cutting, and the practice is best analyzed as predatory pricing."

It also states that "When a defendant's rivals cannot compete bundle-to-bundle, discounts or rebates work more like tying, and a different analysis is appropriate. In those circumstances, the Department believes a cost-based safe harbor for bundled discounting, in which an imputed price for the item (or items) in the bundle potentially subject to competition is computed by allocating to that item (or items) the entire discount or rebate received by a customer, is appropriate. The rationale of this safe harbor is that an equally efficient competitor that does not sell all the items in the bundle would not be excluded if this imputed price exceeds an appropriate measure of a defendant's cost."

And, its states that "Bundled discounting failing this safe harbor is not necessarily anticompetitive and should not be presumed to be so. Rather, a plaintiff should be required to demonstrate that the practice has harmed the competitive process or likely would do so if allowed to continue. If the defendant demonstrates that the practice has a procompetitive explanation, it should be condemned only if plaintiff demonstrates a substantially disproportionate anticompetitive harm."

See also, story titled "9th Circuit Rules on Application of Antitrust Law to Bundling Discounts" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,634, September 5, 2007.

The report also addresses loyalty discounts, which are of less significance in the communications and information technology sectors.

Refusals to Deal with Rivals. The report addresses unconditional refusals by firms with monopoly power to deal with their rivals, such as refusals to license intellectual property rights.

It states that "forcing a competitor with monopoly power to deal with rivals can undermine the incentive of either or both to innovate".

Moreover, it states that "judges and enforcement agencies are ill-equipped to set and supervise the terms on which inputs, property rights, or resources are provided. Thus, the Department concludes that antitrust liability for mere unilateral, unconditional refusals to deal with rivals should not play a meaningful role in section 2 enforcement."

Exclusive Dealing. The report states that this "can enhance efficiency by aligning the incentives of trading partners, by preventing free riding, and in other ways. Exclusive dealing also can undermine the competitive process by, for example, barring smaller competitors from efficient distribution channels and denying them the ability to operate at efficient scale."

The report concludes that "exclusive-dealing arrangements foreclosing less than thirty percent of existing customers or effective distribution should not be illegal."

It also states that the DOJ "does not believe that the legality of an exclusive-dealing arrangement should be determined solely by the explicit duration of the contract or agreement. When a firm with lawful monopoly power utilizes exclusive dealing, the Department will examine whether the exclusive dealing contributed significantly to maintaining monopoly power and whether alternative distribution channels allow competitors to pose a real threat to the monopoly before potentially imposing liability."

9/8. Three Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a statement [11 pages in PDF] that contains blunt criticism of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division's report titled "Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act". See also, FTC release.

The report and this statement demonstrate that there is a wide divergence between the Antitrust Division and these three FTC Commissioners on application of antitrust law to many types of single firm conduct.

Commissioners Pamela Harbour, Jonathan Leibowitz and Thomas Rosch wrote that this report, "if adopted by the courts, would be a blueprint for radically weakened enforcement of Section 2 of the Sherman Act." They added that the FTC "does not endorse" the report.

They argued that the report "is chiefly concerned with firms that enjoy monopoly or near-monopoly power, and prescribes a legal regime that places these firms’ interests ahead of the interests of consumers. At almost every turn, the Department would place a thumb on the scales in favor of firms with monopoly or near-monopoly power and against other equally significant stakeholders."

They also argued that the report "seriously overstates the level of legal, economic, and academic consensus regarding Section 2".

They offered harsh words for many parts of the report, including the sections dealing with bundled offerings, tying, and unilateral refusals to deal with rivals.

Finally, they wrote words of defiance. They stated that they are "ready to fill any Sherman Act enforcement void that might be created if the Department actually implements the policy decisions expressed in its Report." They also wrote that "we will continually seek to strengthen our relationships with our foreign counterparts".

FTC Chairman William Kovacic wrote his own statement [8 pages in PDF]. He wrote that "Robust public debate -- even between the two federal antitrust agencies -- can serve the valuable end of pressing the U.S. antitrust system toward the acceptance of better practices".

He thanked the DOJ and FTC staff who worked on the hearings and this report.

Finally, he offered a broad historical perspective on the development of, and debates over, antitrust law.

But, he did not criticize the DOJ report.

Ed Black is the head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA). He was an active proponent of the Antitrust Division's 1998 lawsuit against Microsoft. He has advocated a more activist approach to single firm conduct.

He stated in a release that "Instead of clarifying antitrust law, the DoJ's report on monopoly conduct has further muddied the legal waters. With this report, the DoJ has charged ahead alone and put forward a unique interpretation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act."

He wrote that the FTC "quickly distanced itself from the report citing its overly pro-business, anti-consumer bent. This split interpretation of antitrust law will create significant uncertainty in the business sector and likely harm effective enforcement efforts."

Black continued that "With several high-profile antitrust cases currently being examined by regulators around the world, antitrust policy is playing an ever important role in our economy. It is important for regulators to get it right now."

Black added that "Although CCIA is at odds with several conclusions of this report, the lax treatment of exclusive dealing and tying arrangements gives us the most pause."

See also, essay [PDF] by Jonathan Baker, a member of the American Antitrust Institute's (AAI) Advisory Board, titled "Turning on Itself: How Dueling Agencies in the Bush Administration Made Mincemeat of Antitrust Regulation Policy".

9/8. Commenters often refer to two U.S. antitrust agencies, the DOJ and FTC. However, in the context of information and communications technology companies, there is a third antitrust regulator -- the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Since the mid-1990s, the FCC has had an active antitrust merger review process. For example, it recently concluded its 15 month review of the merger of XM and Sirius. The merger review process, however, does not pertain to single firm conduct.

The FCC has no specific statutory authority to conduct antitrust merger reviews. Nevertheless, it conducts them. Nor does the FCC have any authority under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Yet hypothetically, it is possible that the FCC may in the future conduct proceedings that are in the nature of single firm conduct antitrust reviews. The FCC has already taken some actions that resemble FTC or DOJ actions under antitrust law involving single firm conduct.

Consider, for example, the FCC's October 31, 2007 order regarding multiple dwelling units (MDUs), in which it asserted Section 628(b) of the Communications Act as authority. See, stories titled "FCC Adopts R&O Abrogating Contracts Between MDU Owners and Cable Companies" and "Commentary on FCC's R&O Regarding MDU Owners and Cable Companies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,669, November 5, 2007.

Section 628(b), which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 548(b), provides in full that "It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers." The FCC relied upon the "unfair methods of competition" language, which is identical to language in the FTC Act, at 15 U.S.C. § 45.

Also, the FCC's August 1, 2008, order [67 pages in PDF] regarding Comcast's network management practices (NMPs) possesses attributes of an order in a single firm conduct antitrust enforcement action. See, story titled "FCC Asserts Authority to Regulate Network Management Practices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,805, Monday, August 4, 2008.

The FCC concluded that BitTorrent, whose peer to peer service Comcast interfered with, is "a competitive threat to cable operators such as Comcast because Internet users have the opportunity to view high-quality video with BitTorrent that they might otherwise watch (and pay for) on cable television." (Parentheses in original.)

The FCC further found that Comcast's NMPs pose "significant risks of anticompetitive abuse".

That is, the FCC took action against a large company with market power that it concluded had unilaterally engaged in anti-competitive conduct that harmed a competitor, and the competitive nature of the internet. This is subject to the interpretation that the FCC conducted a proceeding in which it applied antitrust principles to single firm conduct.

Also, on September 11, 2008, AT&T filed a complaint [redacted, 44 pages in PDF] with the FCC against Cox asserting violation of Section 628(b) in a program access dispute. See, story titled "AT&T Complains to FCC About Cox's Refusal to License San Diego Padres Games" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,826, September 16, 2008. The pending AT&T complaint also goes to alleged anti-competitive practices of a single firm nature.

Of course, the FCC might reject the claim stated in AT&T's complaint. Also, its MDU order may not evidence any new trend; rather, it may have been a results driven conclusion, made with little regard for statutory directives, that was justified after the fact by Section 628(b) simply because it was the least inconceivable justification available.

The FCC issued no public reaction to the just released report of the Antitrust Division.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 15.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It resume consideration of S 3001 [LOC | WW], the Department of Defense authorization bill.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation". The witness will be Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). See, notice. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will meet to mark up 11 bills, including HR 6353 [LOC | WW], the "Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008". The HCC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda [PDF] includes mark up of S 3474 [LOC | WW], the "Federal Information Security Management Act of 2008" or the "FISMA Act of 2008", and S 3484 [LOC | WW], the "Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 2008". Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.

10:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Corporation for Public Broadcasting Nominations". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

2:00 PM. The House Foreign Affairs Committee's (HFAC) Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment will hold a hearing titled "Exporting Toxic Trash: Are We Dumping Our Electronic Waste on Poorer Countries?" The witnesses will include John Stephenson (GAO). See, notice. Location: Room 2172, Rayburn Building.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008". It adopted this item on August 22, and announced it and released the text [34 pages in PDF] on August 25, 2008. This NPRM is FCC 08-195 in WC Docket No. 08-171. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 168, at Pages 50741-50751.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 15.

RESCHEDULED FROM SEPTEMBER 16. 9:00 AM - 1:15 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau will host an event titled "Pandemic Preparedness: Enhancing Communications Response for Health Care and First Responders". Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a closed hearing titled "Cyber Security". See, notice. Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

9:00 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hunam Inn, et al., D.C. No. 08-cv-0040. Location: Courtroom 8, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of an authorization for subpoenas relating to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and consideration of the nominations of Clark Waddoups (to be a Judge of the U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah), Michael Anello (U.S.D.C., Southern District of California), Mary Scriven (U.S.D.C., Middle District of Florida), Christine Arguello (U.S.D.C., District of Colorado), Philip Brimmer (U.S.D.C., District of Colorado), and Gregory Garre (DOJ Solicitor General). See, notice. The SJC will webcast this meeting. The SJC rarely follows the agendas for its executive business meetings. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.

12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (OUSTR) Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) requests to testify at is October 2, 2008, hearing. The TPSC will hold this hearing to receive testimony to assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress on the People's Republic of China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 31, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 148, at Pages 44783-44785.

12:15 - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless and Wireline Practice Committee will host a lunch titled "Universal Service and Intercarrier Compensation: Is Reform on the Way?" The price to attend is $15.00. See, registration page. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K St., NW.

1:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing on HR 5793 [LOC | WW], the "Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2008". See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding expanding the scope of services and products covered by the FCC's schools and libraries tax and subsidy program. The FCC adopted this item on July 25, 2008, and released the text [26 pages in PDF] on July 31, 2008. It is FCC 08-173 in CC Docket No. 02-6. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 19, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 161, at Pages 48352-48359.

The House may meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 15.

9:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 172, at Pages 51631-51632. Location: Room 5855, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 - 11:00 AM. The AeA will host an event titled "McCain Campaign staff at AeA". The speaker will be Ike Brandon of the McCain presidential campaign. He will "discuss innovation and competitiveness issues". See also, Sen. McCain's position paper titled "Technology". To register, contact israel_shamir at aeanet dot org. Location: AeA, Suite 600 North, 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Copyright Office will hold a hearing in connection with its proposed rulemaking regarding the scope and application of the Section 115 compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of a musical work by means of digital phonorecord deliveries. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 13, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 157, at Pages 47113-47114. Location: Copyright Hearing Room, Library of Congress, Room LM-408, 4th Floor, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Ave., SE.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Defense (DOS) in response to its interim rule and request for comments regarding its Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). This addresses, among others things, information, technology and software. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 21, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 140, at Pages 42274-42279.

TIME? The U.S. District Court (DC) will begin trial in US v. Stevens, D.C. No. 08-cr-0231. 150 prospective jurors will fill out questionnaires. Location: Courtroom 24A, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

8:00 AM - 6:00 PM. Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) and others will host an event titled "Transatlantic Symposium on the Societal Benefits of RFID". See, TABD notice and agenda [PDF]. Location: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 1800 K St., NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) will hold a meeting regarding the ongoing negotiations of a multi-nation trade agreement titled "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement". See, notice in the Federal Register, September 5, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 173, at Pages 51860-51861. Location: Main Auditorium, Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host an event titled "OneWebDay 2008: e-Democracy Time Capsule Closing and Public Forum". The speakers will include Jonathan Adelstein (FCC Commissioner), Sascha Meinrath (NAF), and Drew Clark (BroadbandCensus.com). See, notice and registration page. Location: NAF, 7th floor, 1630 Connecticut Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "General Counsel Series: Irvin Nathan, General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives". The speakers will be Nathan Irvin. The price to attend ranges from $10 to $20. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

3:00 - 5:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion on the book titled "Innovation and Technology Adoption in Health Care Markets". The speakers will be the authors, Anupam Jena and Tomas Philipson, Christopher Adams (FTC), and John Calfee (AEI). See, notice and registration page. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

4:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime will hold a hearing on HR 6713 [LOC | WW], the "E-fencing Enforcement Act of 2008", HR 6491 [LOC | WW], the "Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008", and S 3434 [LOC | WW], the "Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008". See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

Deadline to submit to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's (OUSTR) Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) written testimony to assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress on the People's Republic of China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 31, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 148, at Pages 44783-44785.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOI/NPRM) regarding regulation of advertising sponsorship identification. This item is FCC 08-155 in MB Docket No. 08-90. This FCC adopted this item on June 13, 2008, and released the text [22 pages in PDF] on June 26, 2008. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 143, at Pages 43194-43200.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding assignment of Educational Broadband Service (EBS) spectrum in the Gulf of Mexico. The FCC adopted this item on March 18, 2008, and released the text [111 pages in PDF] on March 20, 2008. This item is FCC 08-03 in WT Docket Nos. 03-66, 03-67, and 02-68, IB Docket No. 02-364, and ET Docket No. 00-258. See, notice of extension of comment deadlines in Federal Register, July 8, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 131, at Pages 38955-38956.

Deadline to submit petitions to participate (and the $150 filing fee) in the Copyright Royalty Judges' proceeding to determine the distribution of the digital audio recording technology royalty fees in the 2002, 2003, and 2004 Musical Works Funds. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 22, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 164, at Pages 49708-49709.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding recommendations made by the Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC) with respect to BIS's deemed export licensing policy. The BIS seeks comments on, among other things, whether the scope of technologies on the Commerce Control List (CCL) that are subject to deemed export licensing requirements should be narrowed, and if so, which technologies should be subject to deemed export licensing requirements. See, original notice in the Federal Register, May 19, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 97, at Pages 28795-28797, and extension notice in the Federal Register, August 22, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 164, at Pages 49645-49646.

8:30 AM. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will host an event titled "Transatlantic RFID Workshop on Consumer Privacy and Data Security". See, workshop web site. Location: FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

TIME? The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold the second day of trial in US v. Stevens, D.C. No. 08-cr-0231. Voir dire will likely take place. Judge Emmet Sullivan will preside. Location: Courtroom 24A, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:30 AM. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. The BIS will telecast the open portion of the meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 9, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 175, at Pages 52265-52266. Location: Department of Commerce, Hoover Building, Room 4830, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves., NW.

POSTPONED. 12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "SEC Senior Enforcers Speak on SEC Priorities". The speakers will be Scott Friestad (Deputy Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Enforcement), Joan McKown (Chief Counsel, SEC/DOE), George Curtis (Deputy Director, SEC/DOE), and Larry Ellsworth (Jenner & Block). The price to attend ranges from $5 to $15. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the DTV Transition -- Countdown to February 2009". See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Privacy in Today's Workplace". The speakers will be Gerard Stegmaier (Wilson Sonsini) and Charles Henter. The price to attend ranges from $80 to $115. For more information, contact 202-626-3488. See, notice. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

6:00 - 10:00 PM. Douglas Ginsburg, a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir), will give a speech titled "Continuity and Change in the Supreme Court: Antitrust as a Case Study", at a fund raising dinner hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The price to attend is $2,000. See, notice. Location: Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center, Pavilion Room, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

9:00 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold the third day of trial in US v. Stevens, D.C. No. 08-cr-0231. Open statements may be delivered. Judge Emmet Sullivan will preside. Location: Courtroom 24A, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The American Constitution Society (ACS) will host a panel discussion titled "2008-2009 ACS Supreme Court Preview". For more information, contact Daniel Schuman of Jeremy Leaming at 202-393-6181. Location: National Press Club, 13th floor, 529 14th St., NW.

12:15 - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a brown bag lunch titled "Antitrust Issues and the Presidential Campaign: A Debate Between McCain and Obama Supporters". The speakers will be James Rill (Howrey), William Kolasky (Wilmer Hale), and Don Resnikoff (District of Columbia). The price to attend ranges from $10 to $15. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: Jacob Burns Moot Court Room, George Washington University, 2000 H St., NW.

1:00 - 5:00 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a public meeting to work on its 2008 Annual Report to Congress. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 146, at Pages 43978-43979. Location: Conference Room 333, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol St., NW.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its second draft of NIST SP 800-116 [70 pages in PDF] titled "A Recommendation for the Use of PIV Credentials in Physical Access Control Systems (PACS)".

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau in response to the PPM Coalition's (PPMC) September 2, 2008, filing titled "Emergency Petition for Section 403 Inquiry." This petition asks the FCC to open an inquiry into Arbitron's use of Portable People Meters (PPM). This item is DA 08-2048 in MB Docket No. 08-187.

9/16. President Bush nominated Karen House to be an Alternate Representative of the United States to the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly. See, White House news office release. She was Publisher of the Wall Street Journal prior to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.'s acquisition of Dow Jones International.

9/16. President Bush nominated six persons to be members of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Science Board with terms expiring on May 10, 2014: Barry Barish, Ray Bowen, Esin Gulari, G.P. Peterson, Douglas Randall, and Diane Souvaine. See, White House news office release.

9/16. President Bush withdrew his nomination of Jeffrey Taylor to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. See, White House news office release.

9/15. Lee Morris was named Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He was previously the DHS's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. See, DHS release.

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.