8/19. Intel Corporation announced in a release that it "has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire McAfee, Inc., through the purchase of all of the company's common stock at $48 per share in cash, for approximately $7.68 billion. Both boards of directors have unanimously approved the deal, which is expected to close after McAfee shareholder approval, regulatory clearances and other customary conditions specified in the agreement."

Intel added that McAfee "will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Intel, reporting into Intel's Software and Services Group. The group is managed by Renée James, Intel senior vice president, and general manager of the group."

James stated in this release that "Hardware-enhanced security will lead to breakthroughs in effectively countering the increasingly sophisticated threats of today and tomorrow".

She added that "This acquisition is consistent with our software and services strategy to deliver an outstanding computing experience in fast-growing business areas, especially around the move to wireless mobility."

McAfee stated in a release that "The current cybersecurity model isn't extensible across the proliferating spectrum of devices -- providing protection to a heterogeneous world of connected devices requires a fundamentally new approach to security. Frankly, the industry needed a paradigm shift -- incremental improvements simply couldn’t bridge the opportunity gap. McAfee and Intel Corporation are joining forces to tackle this next generation cybersecurity issue which impacts everyone and anything connecting to the Internet."

On August 4, 2010, Intel and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that they settled the FTC's administrative claims that Intel violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. See, story titled "FTC and Intel Settle Antitrust Claims" and stories titled "Reaction to the FTC Intel Settlement" and "Commentary on Antitrust Processes" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,018, August 4, 2010.

8/19. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines.

FTC Chairman Jonathan Leibowitz released a statement in which he wrote that these guidelines have "bi-partisan and unanimous support". Actually, the FTC is a Commission with five Commissioners, two of whom are not of the President's party. FTC Commissioner Thomas Rosch nominally concurred, but wrote a lengthy criticism.

The DOJ stated in a release that these guidelines "outline how the federal antitrust agencies evaluate the likely competitive impact of mergers and whether those mergers comply with U.S. antitrust law".

Leibowitz summarized the major changes from the last guidelines issued in 1992. He wrote that "several major advances stand out: first, the Guidelines emphasize the competitive effects of a deal over the more rigid, formulaic approach imposed by some interpretations of the 1992 Guidelines. Second, for the first time the Guidelines provide a clear description, and many examples, of the range of evidence the agencies consider when evaluating the competitive effects of a transaction. Third, the Guidelines explain in more detail the role of market-concentration measures and revise the concentration thresholds from which the agencies will draw inferences about the likely effects of a merger on market power. Finally, the new Guidelines contain revised discussions of several factors that may be important in analyzing a merger, among them innovation and product variety, coordinated effects, price discrimination, and market entry."

Rosch also released a statement [4 pages in PDF]. He wrote that these new guidelines make "one monumental contribution", but are still "flawed".

Rosch (at left) explained the contribution. "The 1992 Guidelines treated evidence of competitive effects as relevant to merger analysis. However, those Guidelines considered market structure and shares first and considered the competitive effects of a merger only after that. That created the misimpression that proof of market structure and shares are “gating items,” without which competitive effects cannot be considered. These Guidelines properly consider competitive effects first, and market definition second, thereby making clear that while market definition is important to assessing competitive effects and that the market must be defined at some point in the process, ultimately merger analysis must rest on the competitive effects of a transaction. Additionally, these Guidelines make a substantial contribution by listing at the outset a variety of empirical evidence that may illuminate those competitive effects."

However, most of his four page statement is devoted to its flaws. He wrote that the revisions were written by FTC staff, and that its "architects" were led by "economists trained and steeped in price theory". Moreover, they relied upon commenters and workshop participants, who were "mostly members of the defense bar, academics, and other kindred souls" who "largely reflected those same perspectives".

Thus, Rosch concluded that "This process inevitably led to overemphasis on economic formulae and models based on price theory."

He also wrote that these revised guidelines contain a flawed still description of how the staff conducts ex ante merger review and what the two agencies should tell courts about merger analysis.

He elaborated that "Things have changed substantially since the 1992 Guidelines were issued twenty years ago. First, the Commission is increasingly challenging mergers in preliminary injunction and administrative (Part 3) proceedings. ... Thus, the staff’s ex ante merger reviews are and must be tethered to the evidence that it plans to present and defend in those litigation proceedings. Second, economic theories embedded in the 1992 Guidelines emphasized price effects almost exclusively. Increasingly, the Agencies and courts have considered nonprice effects, like effects on quality, variety, and innovation, to be no less important. Third, for a variety of reasons, many, if not most, courts have relied on empirical evidence instead of economic evidence, and have considered economic evidence as corroborative of that empirical evidence, if they have considered it at all. ... As previously discussed, that in turn has led the staff reviewing mergers ex ante to devote more attention to the empirical evidence that can be presented and defended at trial."

8/19. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Michael Copps gave a sarcastic and uncivil speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in which he disparaged broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers, Google, and other businesses, and advocated reclassification and regulation of broadband. He also contemptuously mocked the joint Google Verizon legislative proposal. And, he reiterated his views on media consolidation.

He stated that "the present danger is that big business will put us on the road to the cannibalization, cable-ization and consolidation of broadband and the Internet".

Copps (at right) offered this revisionist history of communications in the U.S.: "Broadcasters said just give us a ton of free spectrum -- hundreds of billions of dollars as it turned out -- and the airwaves would always serve the people first. You saw what happened there! Then cable came along and said they would fill the holes in the road that broadcasting ended up creating -- you know what happened there when you look at the programs you get and, worse, the bills you get. In both cases, we were too quick to take their word. Now the big Internet service providers give us the same pitch: ``Don't worry; be happy; we would never compromise the openness of the Internet.´´ After what happened to radio and television, and after what happened to cable, should we take their word? I don't think so!"

He argued that the FCC's "job now is to correct course by reclassifying broadband as the telecommunications service that it is ... and then craft rules and procedures that will protect consumers against discrimination, protect against a privatized Internet, and protect against the cannibalization, cable-ization and further consolidation of broadband technology."

He then mocked the internet regulation proposal of Verizon and Google. See, story titled "Verizon and Google Announce Legislative Proposal on Internet Regulation" and related stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,121, August 9, 2010.

"These very big, very powerful, very wealthy companies pronounced to Capitol Hill, the FCC and the public that they have now agreed upon a policy framework that will work for the benefit of the American people", said Copps.

"Of course it wasn't developed with input from the American people, but it is, they assure us, for the American people. It's ``trust us,´´ one more time. Well, you don't have to read very far in their joint handiwork to discover that, as much as these companies say they support an open Internet, this new framework isn't what we’ve been waiting for, not by a long shot."

"In fact," said Copps, "the Verizon-Google Gaggle would almost completely exclude wireless broadband from the future of Internet openness -- even though wireless is how more and more Americans will be getting their Internet access with each passing year. Don't we want open Internet rules that apply to all gatekeepers? Don't we want openness in the mobile world, too? Next, the Gaggle's proposal would eliminate any meaningful, effective FCC oversight of the open Internet, and that means such critically-important responsibilities as the setting of standards and the swift resolution of controversies. Our function would be to do some basic monitoring, write an occasional report, get out of the way and entrust the public interest to the special interests."

"But wait, there's more. Here's the real kicker." Copps said that "The Verizon-Google Gaggle wants to build a world of private Internets that would vastly diminish the centrality of the Internet that you and I know. They want a tiered Internet. ``Managed services´´ is what they call this. ``Gated communities for the Affluent´´ is what I call them. So, for example, a special Verizon-Google or Comcast-NBC service could come to you extra quickly, with special quality of service or priority, and thereby decrease the amount of bandwidth left for the open Internet we know today. And that also means that those of us who can’t pay for higher speeds, better quality of service and special priority are relegated to second-class service."

Copps concluded that "Deal-making between big Internet players is not policy-making for the common good. Special interests are not the public interest. Stockholders are not the only stakeholders. I will not settle -- you should not settle --for gatekeepers of the Internet striking deals that exchange Internet freedom -- yours and mine -- for bloated profits on their quarterly reports to Wall Street."

Copps spoke at an event titled "Future of the Internet", held in the auditorium of South High School in Minneapolis. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) also spoke at this event.

For more information about this event, including video, see Free Press web page.

8/17. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a paper [PDF] titled "Cloud Computing Requires National Policy Leadership". The author is the ITIF's Daniel Castro.

The paper states that "One of the principal areas of law that needs to be updated in the United States relates to electronic surveillance of data. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986 and has not kept pace with the advancement of technology."

"For example," the ITIF states, "there are different levels of protection afforded to the privacy of an individual's data based on where the data is stored and how long the data has been stored. This means that the privacy of a person's email may be different if it is stored on his or her PC versus if it is stored in the cloud. In the former case law enforcement might need a search warrant based on probable cause to review the data, but in the latter law enforcement would only need a subpoena."

The ITIF asserts that "Consensus seems to be forming that reform is needed in this area to protect Fourth Amendment rights. Where possible, the privacy of an individual's communication should be the same regardless of the type of technology that is used to facilitate this communication."

A coalition of companies and groups named Digital Due Process (DDP) announced a set of four principles on March 30, 2010. One of these DDP principles is that "The government should obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before it can compel a service provider to disclose a user's private communications or documents stored online." See, story titled "Digital Due Process Coalition Proposes Changes to Federal Surveillance Law" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,068, March 31, 2010.

However, whatever consensus is emerging, it does not now include the Obama administration or federal law enforcement agencies.

The Congress enacted the ECPA in 1986. It is Public Law No. 99-508. Title I of the ECPA amended the Wiretap Act, to include "electronic communications", and thereby bring internet based communications technologies within the scope of the statute. Title II of the ECPA is the Stored Communications Act (SCA). It addresses access to stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records. Finally, Title III of the ECPA addresses pen register and trap and trace devices.

These statutory sections have been further amended since 1986, especially by Title II of HR 3162 (107th Congress), the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law No. 107-56.

The basic prohibition of unlawful intercepts is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2511. See also, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522. The basic prohibition of unlawful access to stored communications is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2701. See also, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712. The rules governing pen registers and trap and trace devices (PR&TTD) are codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127.

This ITIF paper also recommends changes to the CFAA, the computer hacking statute, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

It states that "policymakers should strengthen laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to establish greater penalties and make it easier to prosecute criminals who hack into cloud computing services. This should include, among other things, changing the CFAA to make penalties correspond to the number of accounts illegally accessed on an online service rather than limit them to the penalties for hacking into a single PC."

The paper also argues that the government should "avoid heavy-handed regulations specific to cloud computing in the name of privacy".

The paper also states that "policymakers should be vigilant about identifying mercantilist policies erected by other countries that intentionally disadvantage foreign businesses. For example, countries may create geographic restrictions on where providers can store data, use data security or privacy laws to disadvantage foreign firms, or impose green data center requirements that unfairly favor domestic firms over foreign competitors." It adds that the U.S. "should avoid these policies itself".

For example, government entities in the U.S. should not impose requirements that data be stored in the U.S. Rather, the ITIF argues that "The goal should be to work towards eliminating geographic restrictions on the flow of data across borders".

7/29. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), stated in a release that "Given the technical advances of the last two decades and the need for a comprehensive, national cybersecurity strategy, it is clear that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act must be updated to reflect the realities of the Digital Age."

However, he said that "the administration's proposal to change ECPA to cover electronic communication transaction records raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns."

Sen. Leahy (at right) also stated that "While the government should have the tools that it needs to keep us safe, American citizens should also have protections against improper intrusions into their private electronic communications and online transactions. We must also address past government abuses of these authorities."

Finally, he stated that the SJC, "will hold hearings this fall to study these and other important issues."

The Obama administration did not publicly release the text of any proposed changes to the ECPA.

The SJC has has jurisdiction over ECPA reform. However, the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) also involves itself in surveillance issues. It has been more receptive to the policy initiatives of the Bush and Obama administrations, and less concerned about protecting citizens' interests in privacy and liberty, than the SJC.

The Senate will not meet. It will next meet on September 13, 2010.

The House will not meet. It will next meet at 2:00 PM on September 14, 2010.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its proposed three track patent examination system. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 4, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 107, at Pages 31763-31768. See also, story titled "USPTO Proposes Three Track Patent Examination System" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,092, June 4, 2010.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its "interim final rules" amending the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases to implement the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010. President Obama signed this Act, S 2968 [LOC | WW], into law on March 17, 2010. It is Public Law 111-146. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 24, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 121, at Pages 35973-35977.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding license renewals, discontinuance of operations, geographic partitioning, and spectrum disaggregation for certain Wireless Radio Services. The FCC adopted this NPRM on May 20, 2010, and released the text [71 pages in PDF] on May 25, 2010. It is FCC 10-86 in WT Docket No. 10-112. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 7, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 129, at Pages 38959-38974.

Extended deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oppositions to the petition for reconsideration to the FCC's May 20, 2010, freeze order, filed on August 6, 2010, by Green Flag Wireless. See, FCC Public Notice.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day two of a two day conference titled "Homeland Security 2020: The Future of Defending the Homeland" hosted by the Heritage Foundation. Day two is titled "Science and Technology". See, notice. Location: Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

9:30 - 10:30 AM. The National Press Club (NPC) will host a class titled "Web 2.0 Tools". The price to attend ranges from $20 to $30. For more information, contact Beth Shankle at 202-662-7509 or bshankle at press dot org. Location: NPC, 13th floor, 529 14th St. NW.

11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The National Press Club (NPC) will host a class titled "Advanced Google Search". The price to attend ranges from $20 to $30. For more information, contact Beth Shankle at 202-662-7509 or bshankle at press dot org. Location: NPC, 13th floor, 529 14th St. NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced event titled "The Judges’ Roundtable on E-Discovery and Ethics". Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

1:30 - 2:30 PM. The National Press Club (NPC) will host a class titled "Twittering Away". The price to attend ranges from $20 to $30. For more information, contact Beth Shankle at 202-662-7509 or bshankle at press dot org. Location: NPC, 13th floor, 529 14th St. NW.

3:00 - 4:00 PM. The National Press Club (NPC) will host a class titled "Reporting from Facebook". The price to attend ranges from $20 to $30. For more information, contact Beth Shankle at 202-662-7509 or bshankle at press dot org. Location: NPC, 13th floor, 529 14th St. NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Further NPRM [36 pages in PDF] regarding "prescribing a point to point predictive model for determining the ability of individual locations to receive an over the air digital television broadcast signal at the intensity level needed for service through the use of an antenna" (NPRM), and "determining eligibility of satellite subscribers for receiving distant network signals from their satellite TV provider using on-location testing/measurements" (FNPRM). The NPRM is required by the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA), which the Congress enacted in May. See, story titled "Obama Signs Satellite TV Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,089, May 28, 2010. The FCC adopted and released this item on July 28, 2010. It is FCC 10-133 in ET Docket Nos. 10-152 and 06-94. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 4, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 149, at Pages 46885-46894.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day event hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "AIPLA Boot Camp: 2010 Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers". See, event brochure. Prices vary. CLE credits. Location: Westin Alexandria, Alexandria, VA.

9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 6, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 151, at Page 47546. Location: DOC, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced event titled "Implications of Bilski on Patenting Tax Strategies". The speakers will be Dennis Drapkin (Jones Day), Ellen Aprill (Loyola Law School), Barry Grossman (Foley & Lardner), and Matthew Young (AICPA). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced event titled "Using Technology in the Courtroom: Preparing for Your First Use of Technology". Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

8:00 AM - 5:15 PM. Day two of a two day event hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "AIPLA Boot Camp: 2010 Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers". See, event brochure. Prices vary. CLE credits. Location: Westin Alexandria, Alexandria, VA.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending its satellite television significantly viewed rules to implement Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). The FCC adopted this NPRM on July 22, 2010, and released the text [27 pages in PDF] on July 23, 2010. It is FCC 10-130 in MB Docket No. 10-148. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 144, at Pages 44198-44209.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding the Agreement Containing Consent Order [9 pages in PDF] in its administrative action against Rite Aid Corporation. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 2, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 147, at Pages 45114-45116. See also, story titled "FTC and DHHS Fault Rite Aid for Tossing Records with PII in Dumpsters" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,113, July 28, 2010.

8/13. Gary Grindler, the acting Deputy Attorney General (DAG), gave a speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to the 8th Circuit Judicial Conference in which he discussed technology related issues.

The DAG is the number two position in the Department of Justice (DOJ). President Obama's first DAG, David Ogden, resigned less than one year after his Senate confirmation. Before being named acting DAG, Grindler was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the DOJ's Criminal Division. And before that, he was a partner at the law firm of King & Spalding.

Grindler (at right) spoke at length about cyber threats, intellectual property (IP) enforcement involving digital works, and online child pornography (CP). However, he spoke in vague and general terms. He made no new policy announcements.

Cyber Security and Surveillance. Grindler said that cyber security is a priority for the DOJ and for the Obama administration.

"Terrorists, criminals and spies attempt to anonymize their activity. An e-mail account can be registered to Mickey Mouse", said Grindler. He also lamented that "New encryption technologies, meanwhile, threaten to limit the effectiveness of lawful government wiretaps."

"Cyberspace threatens to become a platform for stealing government or corporate secrets from what may be believed to be a safe haven thousands of miles away, or, even worse, for damaging our nation with dangerous cyber attacks."

He said that the FBI's Cyber Division "has grown substantially in recent years. DOJ lawyers work closely with the FBI to address increasingly sophisticated and dangerous cyber hacking and theft. The department also works closely with our foreign partners because, clearly, cyber threats do not recognize borders."

For example, said Grindler, the DOJ "chairs the G-8 High Tech Crime Group, a group with more than 50 countries created to facilitate criminal investigations with law enforcement agencies abroad and to cultivate cooperation on emerging cyber-crime issues. And the United States ratified the International Convention on Cybercrime, providing a global framework for substantive and procedural laws that will foster -- and enable -- greater cooperation among nations on the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime."

See, Convention on Cybercrime, and stories titled "The Senate Committee Approves Cybercrime Treaty" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,183, July 27, 2005, and "Senate Ratifies Convention on Cybercrime" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,425, August 4, 2006.

He also mentioned that DOJ attorneys work "with the Intelligence Community to seek court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to collect intelligence through monitoring phones and email accounts. On all national security matters, including cyber security threats, there are legal advisors spread across numerous Executive Branch agencies involved in protecting national security -- including those in the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the National Security Council at the White House."

He did not address reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).

Intellectual Property. Grindler said that IP enforcement is a priority for the DOJ and for the Obama administration.

He said that "the steady advance of technology has also led to the increasing availability -- and plummeting costs -- of computing power, data storage and bandwidth. These advances have made possible a host of innovative services for the makers of creative content to distribute their works. Digital content, whether embodied in software, books, games, movie, or music, can now be transmitted from one corner of the world to another almost instantly."

"But for every technological advance by businesses and other innovators, there is, unfortunately, a criminal who tries to misuse the new technology for his or her own illicit purposes. That is the challenge confronting lawyers who must protect IP rights now and in the future -- that criminals such as online pirates and others have been every bit as nimble in adopting new technologies as legitimate providers. They have often, in fact, been even faster.

He said that the DOJ "must stay ahead of the curve", and provide a "robust and aggressive response".

He also said that "Our attention to this issue recognizes that intellectual-property law enforcement is central to protecting our nation’s ability to remain at the forefront of technological advancement, business development, and job creation. And it recognizes the constant need for better tools, more efficiency, and sharper investigative techniques to stay ahead of criminals and online pirates".

"To enhance, centralize and coordinate these efforts, Attorney General Holder created in February 2010 an IP Task Force, which I chair". He added that the DOJ "continues to rely on dedicated attorneys in the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section as well as specialized AUSAS located throughout the country as part of its Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property coordinator program."

He also said that "we must work and partner more effectively with our law enforcement counterparts overseas. And it means we must coordinate more robustly with our federal, state and local partners."

Pornography. Grindler also spoke about online child pornography.

"Federal prosecutors have brought more than 8,000 cases of child exploitation since 2006. And the cases have increased – and evolved -- every year, particularly in the realm of child pornography." Grindler also said that the DOJ will "bring our fight against child exploitation to new, historic levels".

TLJ requested from the DOJ, but did not receive, data for recent years on prosecutions and/or convictions related to online CP, online enticement, other child exploitation, and other computer crimes.

Grindler also referenced the DOJ report [280 pages in PDF] to the Congress released on August 2, 2010, titled "A National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction". It does not contain statistics on prosecutions or convictions by crime.

Grindler also discussed why the DOJ pursues a strategy of prosecuting those who only view CP online. In almost all other areas of criminal enforcement in which there are markets or exchanges, prosecutors target the producers, importers and suppliers, but not the consumers of illegal products or services. For example, prosecutors target drug dealers but not drug users, gambling operations and intermediaries but not gamblers, and the distributors of counterfeit or pirated software, movies and goods, but not the consumers.

He said that "We now know for certain that demand drives the market -- and that it leads directly to sexual assault. ... And it appears that many who are caught and charged with only possessing child pornography are also likely to be child molesters. So we are trying to use scarce resources to continue some of these investigations to try to determine whether the possessor of child pornography is also a child molester."

He also said that defense attorneys frequently file motions to exclude images from being introduced into evidence in CP trials. He urged the judges present to deny these motions.

8/19. Parul Desai will leave the Media Access Project (MAP) and go to work for the Consumers Union as Policy Counsel. See, MAP release.

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 1998-2010 David Carney. All rights reserved.