10/4. Google and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) announced that they have settled the copyright infringement action filed by five AAP members in 2005.

They did not release any documents that comprise their agreement, or describe its terms with particularity. They issued a short vaguely worded release.

This release states that the agreement "will provide access to publishers’ in-copyright books and journals digitized by Google for its Google Library Project".

This release adds that "The settlement acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright-holders. US publishers can choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project. Those deciding not to remove their works will have the option to receive a digital copy for their use. Apart from the settlement, US publishers can continue to make individual agreements with Google for use of their other digitally-scanned works."

This release discloses nothing regarding damages for prior infringement, or compensation for future use.

Nor does it disclose anything about future book scanning by, or on behalf of, Google.

Nor does it use the term "orphan works".

Google, the AAP and Authors Guild had attempted to impose a broad class action settlement agreement that was legislative in scope upon book publishing and digitization. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) criticized it, and the U.S. District Court (SDNY) rejected it.

The just announced agreement only settles the dispute between the five companies and Google. It does not require court approval.

Other related copyright infringement litigation against Google continues.

Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors Guild, stated in a release that this settlement does not affect the certified class action Authors Guild v. Google, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, D.C. Nos. 05-CV-8136.

He added that "Google continues to profit from its use of millions of copyright-protected books without regard to authors’ rights, and our class-action lawsuit on behalf of U.S. authors continues."

See also, American Society of Media Photographers v. Google, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, D.C. No. 10-CV-2977, another class action.

Background on Google Books Litigation. The Author's Guild filed a class action complaint against Google in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) on September 20, 2005. See, story titled "Author's Guild Sues Google for Copyright Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,218, September 21, 2005.

Various large book publishers filed a complaint (which action has just been settled) against Google in the same District Court on October 19, 2005. See, story titled "Major Book Publishers Sue Google for Digitizing Copyrighted Books" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,237, October 20, 2005. Both complaints alleged copyright infringement in connection with Google scanning and distributing books.

See also, 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 "Google, Publishers and Authors Debate Google's Print for Libraries Program" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005, and story titled "Microsoft Counsel Says Google Systematically Violates Copyright" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,547, March 6, 2007.

Google, publishers and the Authors Guild announced their original proposed class action settlement in October of 2008. They announced an amended agreement in November of 2009. See, story titled "Amended Settlement Agreement Filed in Google Books Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,015, November 16, 2009.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed pleadings criticizing components of the agreements. See, story titled "DOJ Files Pleading in Google Books Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,985, September 21, 2009, and story titled "DOJ Criticizes Amended Google Books Settlement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,043, February 12, 2010.

The District Court rejected the proposed settlement. See, stories titled "District Court Rejects Google Books Class Action Settlement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,206, March 22, 2011, and "Orphan Works and the Court's Rejection of the Google Book Deal" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,207, March 23, 2011.

Finally, see "Commentary: Google's Net Neutrality Deal Compared to Google's Books Deal" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,121, August 9, 2010.

10/16. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) on September 19 that requests comments regarding creating a "resale royalty right" for visual artists. It published a second notice on October 16 that provides an extended comment deadline.

Outline of this Story:

Introduction.
What Is a Resale Royalty Right?
Berne Convention.
EU Implementation.
Summary of the Nadler and Kohl Bills.
Analysis of the Nadler and Kohl Bills.
Summary of the Copyright Office NOI.

Introduction. The Berne Convention addresses such rights, but does not require signatories to enact implementing legislation. To date, the European Union and EU member states have accounted for most of the implementation activity. Moreover, the actual legislative implementations vary considerably.

There are two pending bills in the US that would create a process that minimally resembles creation of a "resale royalty right".

On December 15, 2011, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced HR 3688 [LOC | WW], the "Equity for Visual Artists Act of 2011" or "EVAA". On the same day, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) introduced S 2000 [LOC | WW], the companion bill in the Senate.

Sen. Kohl asserted in a statement in the Congressional Record that these bills would fulfill "our obligation under the Berne Convention". However, these bills actually are only tenuously related to the concept of "resale royalty rights" stated in the Berne Convention, and implemented in Europe.

On May 17, 2012, Rep. Nadler (at right) and Sen. Kohl sent a letter to the CO asking that it "assess how existing law affects and supports visual artists, and how a federal resale royalty provision would affect copyright law, visual artists and those involved in the sale of art work".

This CO notice of inquiry (NOI) follows through on this request. The extended deadline to submit comments is December 5, 2012.

The CO also wrote a report [760 pages, 30 MB] on this subject 20 years ago, titled "Droit De Suite: The Artist's Resale Royalty".

What is a Resale Royalty Right? The general principle is that a resale royalty right is a government created rule that the creator of certain works of visual art and other physical things, after he has sold all of his interest in the work, and in the absence of any contract, is nevertheless entitled to receive a portion of the sales price for all subsequent second secondary sales. The "right" is inalienable.

First, the concept of "resale royalty right" is inherently inconsistent. Under chattel property law, copyright law, and the first sale doctrine, when on physical object is sold, the buyer owns it, and may resell it. A seller may alienate all of his right, title and interest in something. In contrast, royalties pertain to per usage payments, such as for performing or making copies of a copyrighted work, that derive from contract, or are imposed by statute.

Second, a "resale royalty right" is not a right. It is more accurately described as a diminution of rights. Property rights, and quasi property rights, exist in the attributes, including the right to use, various rights of exclusion, and the right to alienate. The value of real property, chattel property, copyrights and patents, lies in significant part in the owners' ability to alienate, and the purchasers' ability to subsequently alienate. Imposing a "resale royalty right" limits the extent to which an owner can alienate his interest. This limits the value to purchaser, and hence, the price at which the creator can sell the object.

Third, a "resale royalty right", if one tries to incorporate it into copyright law, as the pending bills would do, is inconsistent with the American copyright system. As stated above, it flies in the face of the first sale doctrine. Also, the US system is based upon property rights in expressions and inventions, and a free market in these intellectual property rights. The "resale royalty right" limits market freedoms. In addition, the process that would be created by the pending bills would tax free market transactions to subsidize non-market entities and transactions.

Also, it should be noted that the pending bills would not even create a "resale royalty right". They would create a process that would be more accurately described as a tax and subsidy program, in which a small number of high value auction house sales are taxed, and non-profit museums are subsidized pursuant to Copyright Office regulation and oversight.

Berne Convention. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, at Section 14ter provides, in full, as follows:

     (1) The author, or after his death the persons or institutions authorized by national legislation, shall, with respect to original works of art and original manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy the inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work subsequent to the first transfer by the author of the work.
     (2) The protection provided by the preceding paragraph may be claimed in a country of the Union only if legislation in the country to which the author belongs so permits, and to the extent permitted by the country where this protection is claimed.
     (3) The procedure for collection and the amounts shall be matters for determination by national legislation.

This "right" is "inalienable". It applies to "original works of art and original manuscripts". It is not tied to copyright. The work need not be copyrightable subject matter. There is no limitation on term.

There are now 165 contracting states. European nations, the US, Canada, Japan, Korea, and even the north Korean communist dictatorship are members. However, neither the People's Republic of China (PRC) nor Taiwan have signed.

EU Implementation. In 2001 the European Union adopted Directive 2001/84/EC which requires EU member states to adopt laws regarding "the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art".

This Directive allows states to limit the royalty right to transactions valued at over 3,000 Euro. However, it is not limited to auction sales. And, the royalties go to the creator, or heirs, not museums.

The EU Directive sets royalty rates, with a sliding scale that does not exceed 4 percent, with a cap of 12,500 Euro per transaction.

It also provides that "Member States shall provide that authors who are nationals of third countries and, subject to Article 8(2), their successors in title shall enjoy the resale right in accordance with this Directive and the legislation of the Member State concerned only if legislation in the country of which the author or his/her successor in title is a national permits resale right protection in that country for authors from the Member States and their successors in title."

The EU Directive covers "works of graphic or plastic art such as pictures, collages, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware and photographs, provided they are made by the artist himself or are copies considered to be original works of art."

And again, this "right" is separate from copyright.

There is considerable variation in the implementing statutes in Europe.

Summary of Nadler and Kohl Bills. These bills would, among other things, add a new subsection to 17 U.S.C. § 106 that provides for the collection of 7 percent resale "royalty" whenever a "work of visual art is sold as the result of auction". Then, one half of the post expense collections would go to the creators, and one half to nonprofit art museums in the US.

The bills provide that "Whenever a work of visual art is sold as the result of auction of that work by someone other than the artist who is the author of the work, the entity that collects the money or other consideration paid for the sale of the work shall, within 90 days of collecting such money or other consideration, pay out of the proceeds of the sale a royalty equal to 7 percent of the price. Such royalty shall be paid to a visual artists' collecting society. The collecting society shall distribute, no fewer than 4 times per year, 50 percent of the net royalty to the artist or his or her successor as copyright owner. After payment to the artist or his or her successor as copyright owner, the remaining 50 percent of the net royalty shall be deposited into an escrow account established by the collecting society for the purposes of funding purchases by nonprofit art museums in the United States of works of visual art authored by living artists domiciled in the United States."

These bills define "visual work" as "a painting, drawing, print, sculpture, or photograph, existing either in the original embodiment or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author and are consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author".

A "visual artists' collecting society" (VACS) would receive the royalties, hold the authority to sue to collect unpaid royalties, and make distributions to artists and museums. It would be entitled to keep up to 18 percent as its administrative costs. Notably, there would be no authorial cause of action.

These bills would only apply to auction transactions valued at $10,000 or more. These bills would only apply to large commercial auction businesses (those with $25 Million or more in sales in the prior year), and contain an exemption for online only auction businesses, such as eBay.

Analysis of Nadler Kohl Bills. Rep. Nadler and Sen. Kohl titled their bills "Equity for Visual Artists Act". However, the primary function of these bills is not to provide equity for visual artists. The primary purpose is to create a government mandated tax and subsidy program for nonprofit museums.

Unlike the Berne Convention's and EU Directive's conception of this "right", these bills would insert this "right" into the Copyright Act's exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Conceptually, it does not fit.

The first bedrock principle of the America intellectual property system is that it exists to incent creation. But, these bills would apply retroactively to visual works created long ago. Passing a bill in 2012 that affects works made in 2011, or 11 BC, does nothing to incent creativity in 2011 or 11 BC. Time moves forward, not backward.

Of course, this was also a criticism of the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Public Law No. 105-298, that members of Congress choose to ignore. But then, the purpose of that Act was to increase the revenues of large aggregators, publishers and distributors, not incent creativity.

A second fundamental principle of the America intellectual property system is that it is authorial. Authors, at least nominally, hold the rights of exclusion. Authors are granted the remedies.

Yet, while the key provision of these bills would be added to Section 106, this provision would not create a new exclusive right for authors. Moreover, these bills would give no new remedies to authors or creators.

In addition, most of the revenue collected would not go to authors. First, the VACS would be entitled to up to 18 percent. Then, the CO would be entitled to up to 5 percent. The remaining 77 percent would be divided between the subsidized non-profit museums, and the authors and their heirs. Thus, at most 38.5 percent of revenues would go to authors. But, the actual percentage of total revenues going to authors would likely be far less.

The bills refer to "Whenever a work of visual art is sold as the result of auction". The work need not be under copyright, or even be copyrightable. Thus, oil on canvass paintings from 15th Century Florence would be covered. Hellenistic vases from the 5th Century BC would be covered. For many of the transactions that would be taxed by these bills, there would be no author or heir to receive distributions. Thus, while the bills are not explicit on this point, the entire 77 percent would likely go to the non-profit museums.

Moreover, these bills would only apply to items sold for over $10,000 at auction houses with over $25 Million in sales per year. While this would sweep in many US transactions involving Renaissance and ancient masterpieces, it would benefit very few living artists. In short, few living authors and creators would be unlikely to ever receive a share of the revenues under these bills.

However, the subsidies for non-profit museums would result in museums buying more art works from living artists. Herein lies the only significant benefit to artists. But, a free market in the sale of rights in intellectual property, not government mandated and regulated subsidies to non-profit entities, is the concept embodied in the Constitution and Copyright Act.

By amending the Copyright Act to collect tax sales of certain works (that may or may not be subject to copyright), and then distribute that revenue to museums, this bill would constitute another step in an ongoing migration of the US copyright system away from its historical and Constitutional roots as a free market and authorial system.

It should also be noted that the VACS that might end up receiving up to 18 percent of these taxes, and deciding which museums would receive subsidies, is the Artists Right Society (ARS). It is located in Rep. Nadler's district in Manhattan. Many of the museums that would  benefit from enactment of these bills lie in either Rep. Nadler's 8th District, Rep. Carolyn Maloney's (D-NY) adjacent 14th District, or other New York City districts.

Rep. Nadler is ably advocating the interests of his constituents.

Nor should it escape notice that under these bills the CO would receive a share of the revenues, and write implementing regulations. The Register of Copyright, Maria Pallante (at right), previously worked for a nonprofit museum, the Guggenheim Museum, which is located in Manhattan in Rep. Maloney's district.

The CO Attorney assigned to its NOI proceeding is Jason Okai. He previously worked for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

On the Senate side, Sen. Kohl is not running for re-election in November, and hence, after the lame duck session in November and December, will not longer be a Senator.

Finally, there is also a discriminatory and protectionist aspect to these bills. Royalties would be collected on secondary sales at auctions in the US, including on secondary sales of works made by artists, who lived in, or now live in, other countries. However, the distribution of funds to nonprofit museums would go only to US museums, and only to purchase works by US artists. The subsidized museums could only use the funds to purchase "works of visual art authored by living artists domiciled in the United States".

CO Notice of Inquiry. This notice requests comments on numerous topics, such as what categories of works should be covered under a resale royalty right, how such a right would affect the first sale doctrine, what resale transactions would implicate the resale royalty right, and what should be the minimum threshold resale amount for the right to apply.

The notice asks if "the adoption of a federal resale royalty regime would further incentivize and protect the authors of certain visual artworks".

It asks "Is it possible, however, that a resale royalty right might add to the costs of those who buy and invest in artworks and, if so, are such costs acceptable from a policy perspective? In this regard, the art market should be broadly defined, including emerging artists, heirs, investors and collectors."

The notice asks about contractual terms affecting a resale royalty right.

It also also about payment and enforcement, what the royalty rate should be, and how it should be collected.

The deadline to submit comments is December 5, 2012. See, notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 182, September 19, 2012, at Pages 58175-58179, and extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 200, October 16, 2012,
at Page 63342.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM in pro forma session.

The Senate will meet at 11:00 AM in pro forma session.

Day one of a two day event titled "2012 National Trademark Expo". Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Alexandria, VA.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "America Invents Act: Understanding the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings". The speakers will be Donna Meuth (Eisai Inc.), Michael Tierney (Judge, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, USPTO), and Jonathan Sick (McAndrews Held & Malloy). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding creating a small copyright claims process. See, original notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 77, No. 164, August 23, 2012, at Pages 51068-51071, which contains the NOI. See also, extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 179, September 14, 2012, at Pages 56874-56875, which extends the deadline from September 26 to October 19. See also, stories titled "Copyright Office Seeks Comments on Creating a Process for Adjudicating Small Copyright Claims", "Orphan Works Legislation and Adjudicating Small Copyright Claims", and "Summary of First Round of Comments on Creating a Process for Adjudicating Small Copyright Claims" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,445, September 11, 2012.

Day two of a two day event titled "2012 National Trademark Expo". Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Alexandria, VA.

The House will not meet. It is in recess, except for pro forma sessions, until after the November elections.

The Senate will not meet. It is in recess, except for pro forma sessions, until November 13, 2012.

10:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The Heritage Foundation (HF) will host an event titled "The Economic and Security Direction of the New Chinese Government". There will be two panels. The first is titled "Politics and Security". The speakers will be Cheng Li (Brookings Institution), Chris Yung (National Defense University), Dean Cheng (HF), and Walter Lohman (HF). The second panel is titled "Economics". The speakers will be Arvind Subramanian (Peterson Institute for International Economics), Melanie Hart (Center for American Progress), Derek Scissors (HF), and Terry Miller (HF). Free. Open to the public. Live webcast. See, notice. Location: HF, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Antitrust Fundamentals". The speakers will be Andrea Murino (Wilson Sonsini), Subrata Bhattacharjee (Heenan Blaikie), Carolyn Feeney (Dechert), Robert Maness (Charles River Associates), and Adam Biegel (Alston & Bird). CLE credits. Prices vary. See, notice.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Taking the RAND Case to Trial". The speakers will be Eric Benisek and Richard Vasquez (both of Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division regarding the proposed final judgment in US v. Verizon, D.C. No. Case 1:12-cv-01354. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 164, August 23, 2012, at Pages 51048-51064. See also, story titled "DOJ Approves Verizon Cable Deals" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,429, August 15, 2012.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its notice of inquiry regarding changing its trademark application filing fees. See, original notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 77, No. 159, August 16, 2012, at Pages 49426-49427, and extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 182, September 19, 2012, at Page 58097.

The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM in pro forma session.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission will meet to consider drafts of material for its 2012 annual report to Congress. See, original notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 77, No. 143, July 25, 2012, at Pages 43662-43663, and second notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 171, September 4, 2012, at Pages 53965-53966. Location: Hall of the States, Conference Room 231, 444 North Capitol St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division's (AD) Economic Analysis Group (EAG) will host a presentation titled "Calibrating Demand Systems and Simulating Mergers: The Antitrust R Package". The speaker will be Charles Taragin (DOJ). This is a brown bag lunch. For more information, contact Gloria Sheu at gloria dot sheu at usdoj dot gov or 202-532-4932 or Nathan Miller at nathan dot miller at usdoj dot gov or 202-307-3773. Location: Liberty Square Building, EAG conference room, LSB 9429, 450 5th St., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Nuts and Bolts of Applications for Approval of Assignments or Transfers of Licenses in the Broadcast, Cable, and Satellite Industries". The speakers will include David Brown (Associate Division Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau's Video Division), Michael Wagner (Assistant Division Chief the FCC's MB's Audio Division), and Wayne McKee (Deputy Chief of the FCC's MB's Engineering Division), Karl Kessinger (Associate Chief of the FCC's International Bureau's Satellite Division), and Kenneth Satten (Wilkinson Barker Knauer). CLE credits. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) states that this is an event of its Transactional Practice Committee. Registrations and cancellations due by 12:00 NOON on October 22. See, notice. Location: Mayer Brown, 1999 K St., NW.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host an event titled "Changing Hats: Reception and Roundtable on Antitrust Careers". The speakers will be Amy Manning (McGuire Woods), Sharis Pozen (Skadden Arps), Jeff Jacobovitz (McCarthy Sweeney & Harkaway), Scott Scheele (Chief of the DOJ's Antitrust Division's Telecommunications and Media Section), and Mary Jean Fell (Sprint Nextel). No CLE credits. Free. See, notice. Location: Skadden Arps, 11th Floor Conference Room, 700 14th St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report [51 pages in PDF] titled "Federal Communications Commission: Regulatory Fee Process Needs To Be Updated", and released on September 10, 2012. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 193, October 4, 2012, at Pages 60666-60667. This is also the extended deadline to submit reply comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding proposed changes to the FCC's policies and procedures for assessing and collecting regulatory fees. The FCC adopted this NPRM on July 13, 2012, and released it on July 17, 2012. It is FCC 12-77 in MD Docket No. 12-201. See also, notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 160, August 17, 2012, at Pages 49749-49773.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission will meet to consider drafts of material for its 2012 annual report to Congress. See, original notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 77, No. 143, July 25, 2012, at Pages 43662-43663, and second notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 171, September 4, 2012, at Pages 53965-53966. Location: Hall of the States, Conference Room 231, 444 North Capitol St., NW.

12:00 NOON. The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Tracking Protection Working Group will meet by teleconference. The call in number is 1-617-761-6200. The passcode is TRACK (87225).

5:00 PM. Second extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its notice in the Federal Register (FR) that announces, describes, recites and requests comments on its proposed rules regarding the verification of Statements of Account and royalty payments that are deposited with the CO by cable operators and satellite carriers. See, original notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 115, June 14, 2012, at Pages 35643-35652, first extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 176, September 11, 2012, at Page 55783, and second extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 192, October 3, 2012, at Pages 60333-60334.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (DA 12-1411) regarding the auction of certain FM broadcast construction permits scheduled to commence on March 26, 2013, and the competitive bidding procedures for Auction 94. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 193, October 4, 2012, at Pages 60690-60695.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "AIPLA Annual Meeting". Location: Marriott Wardman Park.

9:30 AM - 5:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a one day event titled "IP Basic Training: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights". The speakers will be Joanne Lint (McDermott Will & Emery), Laura Possessky (Gura & Possessky), and Paul Rivard (Banner & Witcoff). One can register for components of this program. The patents portion will be at 9:30 - 11:45 AM. The trademark portion will be at 12:30 - 2:45 PM. The copyright portion will be at 3:00 - 5:15 PM. Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Revising COPPA: A Discussion of the FTC’s Proposals". The speakers will be Dan Castro (ITIF), Emma Llanso (Center for Democracy & Technology), Morgan Reed (Association for Competitive Technology), Berin Szoka (Tech Freedom), and Stephen Balkam (Family Online Safety Institute). Free. Open to the public. Lunch will be served. Live webcast. See, notice. Location: ITIF/ITIC, Suite 610A, 1101 K St., NW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event to release and discuss a report titled "What Taiwan Must Do to Be Globally Competitive". The speakers will be Dan Blumenthal (AEI), Mignonne Chan (Chinese Taipei Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Center), Rupert Hammond-Chambers (US-Taiwan Business Council), Derek Scissors (Heritage Foundation), and Gary Schmitt (AEI). Free. Open to the public. Live webcast. See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

2:30 PM. The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Economics will host a presentation by Randall Lewis (Google) titled "Advertising Externalities". For more information, contact Christopher Metcalf at cmetcalf at ftc dot gov or Tammy John at tjohn at ftc dot gov. Location: FTC, ground floor Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Developing Rules for the Broadcast Incentive Auction". The speakers will include __. CLE credits. Prices vary. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) states that this is an event of its Wireless Telecommunications Committee. Registrations and cancellations due by 12:00 NOON on October 24. See, notice. Location: __.

EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 26. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office (CO) regarding proposed changes to CO regulations for reporting Monthly and Annual Statements of Account for the making and distribution of phonorecords under the compulsory license. See, original notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 77, No. 145, Friday, July 27, 2012, at Pages 44179-44197, and extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 176, September 11, 2012, at Pages 55783-55784.

EXTENDED FROM SEPTEMBER 25. Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Copyright Office (CO) regarding proposed changes to CO regulations for reporting Monthly and Annual Statements of Account for the making and distribution of phonorecords under the compulsory license. See, original notice in the Federal Register (FR), Vol. 77, No. 145, Friday, July 27, 2012, at Pages 44179-44197, and extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 176, September 11, 2012, at Pages 55783-55784.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to its notice in the Federal Register (FR) that announces, describes, and recites its proposed rules regarding when a transaction involving the transfer of rights to a patent in the pharmaceutical, including biologics, and medicine manufacturing industry is reportable under the Hart Scott Rodino Act. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 161, Monday, August 20, 2012, at Pages 50057-50062.

The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM in pro forma session.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) titled "AIPLA Annual Meeting". Location: Marriott Wardman Park.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a teleconferenced event titled "Criminal Antitrust Update". The speakers will be Anne Marie Cushmac (McGuire Woods) and Paul Victor, Molly Donovan, Seth Farber, Peter Crowther, and Eva Cole (all of Winston Strawn). No CLE credits. Free. See, notice.

1:30 - 3:15 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Workshop to Focus on Broadcaster Issues in the Incentive Auction NPRM". See, notice and agenda. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

10/18. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that announces, describes, recites, and sets the comment deadline for, proposed changes to the USPTO's professional responsibility rules. The USPTO proposes to align its rules with American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the ABA, which were published in 1983, substantially revised in 2003 and updated through 2011. The proposed changes do not incorporate the ABA's August 2012 revisions. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 202, October 18, 2012, at Pages 64189-64215. See also, USPTO release. The deadline to submit comments is December 17, 2012.

10/11. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that extends the deadline to submit comments in response a July 26, 2012 notice in the FR regarding its proposed changes to its rules of practice in patent cases to implement the changes to the conditions of patentability, to implement the first inventor to file system provisions of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act, and to eliminate the provisions pertaining to statutory invention registrations. The just published notice also extends the deadline to submit comments in response to another July 26, 2012 notice in the FR requesting comments regarding its proposed changes to its examination guidelines to implement the first inventor to file system provisions of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act. The old deadline for both was October 5, 2012. The new deadline for both is November 5, 2012. See, July 26 rules of practice notice, FR, Vol. 77, No. 144, July 26, 2012, at Pages 43742-43759; July 26 examination guidelines notice, FR, Vol. 77, No. 144, July 26, 2012, at Pages 43759-43773; and extension notice, FR, Vol. 77, No. 197, October 11, 2012, at Page 61735. See also, story titled "USPTO Announces First Inventor to File NPRM and Roundtable" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,430, August 16, 2012.

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 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
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2012 David Carney. All rights reserved.