9/18. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division filed a pleading [32 pages in PDF] titled "Statement of Interest of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Class Settlement" in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) in Authors Guild and American Association of Publishers v. Google.

It recommends that the "Court should reject the Proposed Settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so as to comply with Rule 23 and the copyright and antitrust laws." It adds that this pleading contains only a "preliminary explanation" of the DOJ's antitrust concerns.

The DOJ pleading first enumerates the benefits of the settlement. "The United States strongly supports a vibrant marketplace for the electronic distribution of copyrighted works, including in-print, out-of-print, and so-called ``orphan´´ works. The Proposed Settlement has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public. By allowing users to search the text of millions of books at no cost, the Proposed Settlement would open the door to new research opportunities. Users with print disabilities would also benefit from the accessibility elements of the Proposed Settlement, and, if the Proposed Settlement were approved, full text access to tens of millions of books would be provided through institutional subscriptions. Finally, the creation of an independent, transparently-operated Book Rights Registry (the ``Registry´´) that would serve to clarify the copyright status and copyright ownership of out-of-print works would be a welcome development." (Parentheses in original.)

The pleading also states that "the inaccessibility of many works due to the lack of clarity about copyright ownership and copyright status -- is a matter of public, not merely private, concern." However, it stops short of stating that the settlement is legislation, or that the use of the judicial process violates the Constitution's delegation of legislative authority to the Congress.

The pleading merely argues that the legislative nature of the process warrants closer review by the courts. It states that "A global disposition of the rights to millions of copyrighted works is typically the kind of policy change implemented through legislation, not through a private judicial settlement. If such a significant (and potentially beneficial) policy change is to be made through the mechanism of a class action settlement (as opposed to legislation), the United States respectfully submits that this Court should undertake a particularly searching analysis ..." (Parentheses in original.)

Rule 23 and Problems of Representation of Those Who Are Not Class Members. The pleading argues that the settlement does not comply with Rule 23, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which addresses class action litigation. It argues that the settlement affects the rights of persons who are not members of represented class, and especially "rightsholders of out-of-print works and foreign rightsholders". In addition, class members were not "afforded adequate notice".

The pleading elaborates, with respect to rightsholders of out of print works, that the settlement authorizes "the Registry to license Google to exploit the copyrighted works of absent class members for unspecified future uses (potentially derivative works or other uses) -- essentially authorizing, upon agreement of the Registry, open-ended exploitation of the works of all those who do not opt out from such exploitations. ... Such licensing is far afield from the facts alleged in the Complaint. And the rights conferred are so amorphous and malleable that it is difficult to see how any class representative could adequately represent the interests of all owners of out-of-print works (including orphan works)." (Parentheses in original.)

It also states that the settlement "draws distinctions between in-print and out-of-print works. Google must obtain the permission of copyright owners of in-print works before making use of those works (beyond scanning). ... But Google can incorporate out-of-print works into new commercial products without the owner’s permission ... Copyright owners of out-of-print works can deny Google permission to use their works in certain ways if they learn of the agreement and their rights under it. ... But, copyright owners of out-of-print works provide a release to Google for any exploitation of their rights that occurred prior to those owners becoming aware of Google’s use. ... And, because the owners of orphan works are an incredibly diverse group that includes not only living authors or active publishers, but heirs, assignees, creditors, and others who acquire the property interest by contract or operation of law, these rightsholders are difficult or impossible to locate, and thus difficult to notify. Moreover, no amount of notice is likely to protect those orphan rightsholders who are unaware of their rights or unclear how or whether they want to exploit them. Yet, if an out-of-print copyright owner does not come forward within five years, profits from the commercial use of the out-of-print work are distributed to pay the expenses of the Registry and then to the Registry’s registered rightsholders. ... The structure of the Proposed Settlement itself, therefore, pits the interests of one part of the class (known rightsholders) against the interests of another part of the class (orphan works rightsholders)." (Parentheses in original.)

The DOJ suggests that "changing the forward-looking provisions of the current Proposed Settlement applicable to out-of-print rightsholders from an opt-out to an opt-in would address the bulk of the Rule 23 issues raised" by the DOJ.

Next, the DOJ pleading elaborates on inadequate representation of foreign rightsholders. It states that the settlement "operates to sweep in untold numbers of foreign works, whose authors, under current law, are not required to register in the same manner as U.S. rightsholders. Many of those authors have never published works in the United States and are not members of the Authors Guild or the Association of American Publishers, which exclude many foreign copyright owners from membership by virtue of their membership criteria. Moreover, the interests of these class members likely differ from those of the class representatives."

Antitrust Problems: Restricting Price Competition. The DOJ's pleading also raises antitrust concerns. It states that the DOJ has "opened an investigation into the competitive impact of the Proposed Settlement. That investigation is not yet complete ..." This pleading does not "state with certainty whether the Proposed Settlement violates the antitrust laws".

Nevertheless, the pleading articulates two concerns. "First, through collective action, the Proposed Settlement appears to give book publishers the power to restrict price competition. Second, as a result of the Proposed Settlement, other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come."

The DOJ continues that "In at least three respects, the collectively negotiated provisions of the Proposed Settlement appear to restrict price competition among authors and publishers: (1) the creation of an industry-wide revenue-sharing formula at the wholesale level applicable to all works; (2) the setting of default prices and the effective prohibition on discounting by Google at the retail level; and (3) the control of prices for orphan books by known publishers and authors with whose books the orphan books likely compete."

It adds that these features of the settlement "bear an uncomfortably close resemblance to the kinds of horizontal agreements found to be quintessential per se violations of the Sherman Act."

Regarding agreement on wholesale terms, the DOJ argues that "The parties' contention that this kind of industry-wide pricing mechanism is necessary to create a vibrant market for digital books is difficult to reconcile with the facts on the ground. Millions of digital books are already available for purchase, including growing numbers of out-of-print books, as a result of bilateral negotiations between distributors and individual rightsholders."

Regarding restrictions on retail price competition, the DOJ argues that courts in other cases have found such restrictions to be per se illegal.

Regarding orphan works, the DOJ pleading explains that the settlement "appears to limit price competition by giving publishers, through the mechanism of negotiations conducted by the Registry, the ability to control the future pricing of orphan works that may compete with the works of known rightsholders. The Registry is effectively controlled by large commercial publishers. Allowing it to set the prices of orphan works effectively allows known rightsholders to choose the price at which their competitors' books (those of unknown rightsholders) are offered for sale."

Thus, the DOJ warns that "there is a significant potential" the DOJ will conclude that these provisions violate the Sherman Act.

Antitrust Problems: Restricting Competition in Digital Distribution. The DOJ argues that the settlement grants "Google de facto exclusive rights for the digital distribution of orphan works". Moreover, "Google's competitors are unlikely to be able to obtain comparable rights independently."

This then "appears to create a dangerous probability that only Google would have the ability to market to libraries and other institutions a comprehensive digital-book subscription. The seller of an incomplete database -- i.e., one that does not include the millions of orphan works -- cannot compete effectively with the seller of a comprehensive product."

The DOJ suggests that "This risk of market foreclosure would be substantially ameliorated if the Proposed Settlement could be amended to provide some mechanism by which Google’s competitors' could gain comparable access to orphan works".

More Information. The DOJ pleading also makes the argument that "data provided should be available in multiple, standard, open formats supported by a wide variety of different applications, devices, and screens. Once these books are digitized, the format in which they are made available should not be a bottleneck for innovation".

The DOJ also issued a release.

The DOJ's pleading focuses only on antitrust related objections to the settlement. It does not address other objections to the settlement.

For background on the underlying litigation, see:

• story titled "University Publishers Accuse Google of Systematic Infringement of Copyright on a Massive Scale" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,142, May 25, 2005.
• story titled "Author's Guild Sues Google for Copyright Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,218, September 21, 2005.
• story titled "Major Book Publishers Sue Google for Digitizing Copyrighted Books" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,237, October 20, 2005.
• story titled "Google, Publishers and Authors Debate Google's Print for Libraries Program" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005
• story titled "Microsoft Counsel Says Google Systematically Violates Copyright" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,547, March 6, 2007.

This case Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers v. Google, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, D.C. No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC).

9/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [14 pages in PDF] in Art Attacks Ink v. MGA Entertainment, a copyright and trademark case involving dolls and t-shirts which turned on the issues of access to copyrighted works, and secondary meaning. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court for MGA. MGA makes Bratz dolls. Art Attacks Ink (AAI) is a small family company that makes and sells t-shirts with cartoon characters customized to resemble the purchaser. Its copyrighted "Spoiled Brats" characters are at issue in this case. The Court of Appeals described these as "predominantly female characters with oversized eyes, disproportionately large heads and feet, makeup, and bare midriffs". MGA, which has also been sued by Mattel, makes "Bratz" dolls, including dolls which the Court wrote "feature large eyes, heavy makeup, oversized eyes, heads, and feet, and bare midriffs". AAI filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDCal) alleging copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement. MGM prevailed on all claims in the District Court, either by jury verdict, or judgment as a matter of law. AAI brought the present appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On the copyright claim, the Court of Appeals held that, notwithstanding the facts that AAI had displayed relevant images in its web site, displayed them in sales booths, and sold them on t-shirts to customers, AAI nevertheless failed to demonstrate that MGA had access to the copyrighted works. On the trade dress infringement claim, the Court held that AAI failed to show that its designs acquired secondary meaning. It therefore did not address the issues of functionality or substantial likelihood of confusion, or trade dress analysis.This case is Art Attacks Ink LLC v. MGA Entertainment, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No.07-56110, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No. CV-04-01035-RMB.

9/16. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a release regarding Notices of Publication in Trademark Applications. It states that "On October 6, 2009, the USPTO will begin sending electronic Notices of Publication to trademark applicants who have authorized e-mail communication with the USPTO. The new emailed Notices of Publication will contain the same information as the updated Notices of Publication sent via mail in other cases, but will have clickable hyperlinks to allow applicants to access the Trademark Official Gazette (OG). All Notices of Publication, including those sent on paper and post cards, will now invite applicants to review the publication information contained in the OG and take the appropriate steps to correct any inaccurate information prior to registration or the issuance of a Notice of Allowance. Notices of Publication issued by email will be sent on the publication date. This is a change from the current practice where the notices are mailed three (3) weeks before the date of publication. Paper notices will continue to be mailed prior to publication."

9/11. The U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in American Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott, a contact case regarding settlement negotiations in a trademark dispute. This case concerns when a document produced in settlement negotiations constitutes an enforceable contract, and construction of that document. The Court of Appeals held, like the District Court, that the document in the present case is enforceable. However, the Court of Appeals also held that its terms are ambiguous, and therefore remanded. This case is American Eagle Outfitters, et al. v. Lyle & Scott Limited, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 08-4807, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, D.C. No. 06-cv-00607.

9/9. The Copyright Royalty Judges published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, requests comments on, and sets the comment deadline (October 9, 2009) for responses to the August 12, 2009, motion of Phase I claimants requesting a partial distribution of 50% of the 2007 cable royalty funds, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 111. See, Federal Register, September 9, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 173, at Pages 46468-46469.

9/3. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued its opinion [14 pages in PDF] in Hensley Manufacturing v. ProPride, a trademark infringement case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal based upon the fair use exception to trademark infringement. This case is Hensley Manufacturing, Inc. v. ProPride, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. No. 08-1834, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, D.C. No. 08-10425.

8/24. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) release a memorandum [30 pages in PDF] titled "New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions". This document states that "The state of the law with respect to subject matter eligibility is in flux. The following interim instructions are for examination guidance pending a final decision from the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos." The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 1, 2009. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Cert in In Re Bilski" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,945, June 1, 2009. Oral argument is scheduled for November 9, 2009. The USPTO memorandum also states that "These examination instructions do not constitute substantive rulemaking and hence do not have the force and effect of law. Rejections will be based upon the substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable."

8/24. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) issued its opinion [55 pages in PDF] in SCO Group v. Novell, a dispute involving claims of slander of title, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment case. However, the underlying dispute goes to the scope of intellectual property in certain UNIX and UnixWare technology and other rights retained by Novell following a 1995 asset purchase agreement (APA). The Court of Appeals wrote that "we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment with regards to the royalties due Novell under the 2003 Sun-SCO Agreement, but REVERSE the district court’s entry of summary judgment on (1) the ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; (2) SCO’s claim seeking specific performance; (3) the scope of Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA; (4) the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA." This case is SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, App. Ct. No. No. 08-4217, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, D.C. No. D.C. NO. 2:04-CV-00139-DAK.

8/24. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [23 pages in PDF] in One Industries v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, a trademark case involving motorcycle apparel. It affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for One Industries. This case is One Industries, LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 08-55316, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No. CV-06-01133-JAH.

8/5. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its response to the petition for writ of certiorari in Ferguson v. USPTO, a case regarding whether a method for marketing software products is eligible for federal patent protection. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion on March 6, 2009, affirming the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' rejection of the patent claims. The opinion is reported at 558 F.3d 1359. The OSG wrote that "The petition for a writ of certiorari should be held pending the Court's decision in Bilski v. Doll, No. 08-964, and then disposed of as appropriate in light of the Court's decision in that case." Bilski v. Doll is schedule for oral argument on Monday, November 9, 2009. See, docket. Consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari in Ferguson v. USPTO is scheduled for September 29, 2009. See, docket. This case is Lewis Ferguson, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. No. 08-1501, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The House will meet at 4:00 PM in pro forma session only. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 21.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will resume consideration of HR 2996 [LOC | WW], the "Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010".

9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Free Trade Agreements in Asia: Implications for Taiwan and the United States". The first panel is titled "The Taiwan-China ECFA: Implications for Taiwan and the United States". The speakers will be Philip Levy (AEI), Claude Barfield (AEI), Rupert Hammond-Chambers (U.S.-Taiwan Business Council), and Daniel Rosen (Peterson Institute for International Economics). The second panel is titled "Free Trade Proliferation in Asia: Economic and Strategic Implications". The speakers will be Dan Blumenthal (AEI), Ellen Frost (Peterson Institute for International Economics), and Ernest Preeg (Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event to release a study titled "The Role of Digital Stimulus in the G-20". The speakers will be Rob Atkinson (ITIF), Tim Kelly (World Bank), Young Kyu Noh (Embassy of the Republic of Korea), and Valérie La Traverse (Embassy of Canada). See, notice. Location: ITIF, Suite 610, 1101 K St., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Smart Grid 101: What is it and what are the latest policy and regulatory issues facing both government and industry in its implementation?". See, notice. This event qualifies for CLE credits. Prices vary. Location: Dow Lohnes, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "From the Ground Up: Fundamentals of Practice Before the D.C. Court of Appeals". The speakers will be Inez Reid, John Fisher, Rosanna Mason, and David Tedhams (all of the U.S. Court of Appeals), and Todd Kim (Office of the Attorney General). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Most DC Bar events are not open to the public. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

7:30 - 9:30 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a lecture by Jonathan Lazar titled "Current Issues in Human-Computer Interaction and Public Policy". See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. Votes postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 21.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hold oral argument in Cablevision Systems Corporation v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 07-1425. This is a petition for review of the FCC's order extending the exclusivity prohibition. See, FCC's brief [PDF]. Judges Sentelle, Griffith and Kavanaugh will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 12, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 154, at Page 40595. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event to release a study titled "Explaining International Health IT Leadership". The speakers will be Daniel Castro (ITIF), Hannu Hanhijarvi (Finland), and Christina Wanscher (Denmark). See, notice. Location: ITIF, Suite 610, 1101 K St., NW.

11:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will hold a hearing titled "USA PATRIOT Act". See, notice. The HJC will webcast this hearing. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications Committee will host a brown bag lunch. Fernando Schulhof will discuss "the Brazilian telecoms market". Register by September 15 with Jennifer Ullman at Jennifer dot ullman at verizon dot com. Location: Verizon, 1300 I St., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "Beginner’s Guide to Publishing Law and Publishing Agreements". The speaker will be Gail Ross (Lichtman Trister & Ross). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Most DC Bar events are not open to the public. This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

Day one of a three day closed event hosted by the New America Foundation (NAF) titled "Beyond Broadband Access: Data Based Information Policy for a New Administration". See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House may consider, under suspension of the rules, HR 3593 [LOC | WW], an untitled bill to amend the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 to extend by one year the operation of Radio Free Asia. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 21.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act: Ensuring Liberty and Security". The witnesses will be David Kris (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's National Security Division), Glen Fine (DOJ Inspector General), Suzanne Spaulding (Bingham Consulting Group), Kenneth Wainstein (O'Melveny & Meyers), and Lisa Graves (Center for Media and Democracy). The SJC will webcast this event. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy will hold a hearing titled "Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition". See, notice. The HJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in I4i v. Microsoft, App. Ct. No. 2009-1504. This is a patent infringement case involving XML and Microsoft Word. Location: Courtroom 201.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold one of a series of meetings to consider staff drafts of material for its 2009 Annual Report to Congress. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 5, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 149, at Pages 39145-39146. Location: Conference Room 231, Hall of States, 444 North Capitol St., NW.

4:00 - 6:00 PM. The House Intelligence Committee's (HIC) Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis and Counterintelligence will hold a closed hearing titled "I&A Reform Effects". See, notice. Location: Room HVC-304 Hearing Room, Capitol Building.

Day two of a three day closed event hosted by the New America Foundation (NAF) titled "Beyond Broadband Access: Data Based Information Policy for a New Administration". See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 21.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 172, at Pages 46099-46100. Location: Department of Commerce, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "A National Interoperable Broadband Network For Public Safety: Recent Developments". See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment will hold a hearing titled "I&A Reconceived: Defining a Homeland Security Intelligence Role". The witness will be Bart Johnson, acting Under Secretary in charge of the DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The HHSC will webcast this hearing. See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of HR 985 [LOC | WW] and S 448 [LOC | WW], both titled the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2009", and S 1670 [LOC | WW], the "Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009". The agenda also includes consideration of four U.S. Attorney nomination: Paul Fishman (District of New Jersey), Jenny Durkan (Western District of Washington), Florence Nakakuni (District of Hawaii), and Deborah Gilg (District of Nebraska). See, notice. The SJC will webcast this event. The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold one of a series of meetings to consider staff drafts of material for its 2009 Annual Report to Congress. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 5, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 149, at Pages 39145-39146. Location: Conference Room 231, Hall of States, 444 North Capitol St., NW.

3:00 - 4:30 PM. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) will hold a closed hearing. The witness will be Dennis Blair (Director of National Intelligence). See, notice. Location: Room HVC-304 Conference Room 1, Capitol Building.

Day three of a three day closed event hosted by the New America Foundation (NAF) titled "Beyond Broadband Access: Data Based Information Policy for a New Administration". See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments, or petitions to deny, to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the applications of Caribbean Crossings Ltd. and Trinity Communications Ltd. for transfer of control pursuant to the Submarine Cable Landing Licensing Act and Section 214 of the Communications Act. Since the Bahamas is not a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) the applicants seek an FCC determination that the Bahamas provides effective competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers. See, public notice [PDF]. It is DA 09-1856 in IB Docket No. 09-149.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of September 21.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a workshop titled "Ten-Digit Numbering and E911 Requirements for VRS and IP Relay". See, notice. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "Building in the Sandbox: End-to-End Arguments and Internet Innovation". The speakers will be Richard Bennett (ITIF), John Day (Boston University Metropolitan College), Christopher Yoo (University of Pennsylvania law school), William Lehr (MIT), and David Farber (Carnegie Mellon University). See, notice. The ITIF will webcast this event. Location: ITIF, 1101 K St., NW.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "The Role of In-House Counsel". The speakers will be Eric Einhorn (Windstream Communications), Jerald Fritz (Allbritton Communications), Cristina Pauze (Time Warner Cable), and Richard Whitt (Google). For more information, contact Micah Caldwell at mcaldwell at fh-law dot com or Evan Morris at emorri05 at harris dot com. Location: Harris Corporation, Suite 650E, 600 Maryland Ave., SW.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host an event titled "Broadband Competition Policy Broadband Competition Policy: How Much Regulation is Enough?" The speakers will be Ben Scott (Free Press), Everett Ehrlich (ESC Company), Mark Cooper (Consumer Federal of America), Robert Atkinson (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation), and Michael Calabrese (NAF). See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the recommendations of its World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WRC-11 Advisory Committee). See, public notice [2 pages in PDF], Attachment 1 [54 pages in PDF], and Attachment 2 [18 pages in PDF]. It is DA 09-1994 in IB Docket No. 04-286.

Yom Kippur begins at sundown.

Yom Kippur.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "Benchmarking Leading Countries' National Innovation Policies". The speakers will be Rob Atkinson (ITIF), Stephen Ezell (ITIF), Debra Amidon (Entovation International) and Peter Westerstråhle (government of Finland). See, notice. The ITIF will webcast this event. Location: ITIF, 1101 K St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Diversity Committee will host a brown bag lunch for planning purposes. For more information, contact Edgar Class at eclass at wileyrein dot com or 202-719-7504. Location: Wiley Rein, Conference Room 9E, 1750 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office regarding its proposed rules regarding registration of copyright in online works. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 15, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 134, at Pages 34286-34290, and story titled "Copyright Office Proposes New Rules for Registration of Online Only Works" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,970, July 15, 2009.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. 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 two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2009 David Carney. All rights reserved.