1/7. The Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCUS) denied certiorari in several patent cases. See, January 7, 2013 Orders List [26 pages in PDF].

First, the SCUS denied certiorari in Leader Technologies v. Facebook. See, Orders List at page 6.

Leader Technologies filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (DDel) against Facebook alleging patent infringement. The patent in suit relates to software that allows users on a network to communicate and collaborate on a large scale.

The trial jury, and the court, found the relevant claims invalid for the reason that Leader Technologies had offered for sale and publicly demonstrated the claimed invention prior to the critical date.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. See, May 8, 2012 opinion [15 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). The denial of certiorari lets stand the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

This case is Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 12-617, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2011-1366. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. See also, Supreme Court docket.

Second, the SCUS denied certiorari in Trans Video Electronics v. Sony Electronics, a patent infringement case involving technology for distributing video content through the Sony PlayStation Network. See, January 7, 2013 Orders List at page 6.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for Sony. See, August 10, 2012 judgment of the Federal Circuit.

This case is Trans Video Electronics, Ltd  v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 12-575, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 2012-1110 and 2012-1134. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. 09-CV-3304, Judge Edward Chen presiding. See also, Supreme Court docket.

Third, the SCUS denied certiorari in Retractable Technologies v. Becton Dickinson and Becton Dickinson v. Retractable Technologies, another patent dispute. See, Orders List at page 3.

See also, July 8, 2011 opinion of the Federal Circuit. See also, petitioner for writ of certiorari, respondent's brief, and amicus curiae brief of the Solicitor General urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari.

These cases are Retractable Technologies, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. and  Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Retractable Technologies, et al., Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. Nos. 11-1154 and 11-1278, petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2010-1402. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. See also, Supreme Court docket.

Fourth, the SCUS denied certiorari in Three-Dimensional Media v. Kappos. See, Orders List at page 3.

See also, December 12, 2011 judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir), and Solicitor General's opposition brief.

This case is Three-Dimensional Media Group Ltd. v. David Kappos, Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 12-48, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2011-1055. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. See also, Supreme Court docket.

1/1. The House and Senate passed, and President Obama signed, HR 8 [LOC | WW] (112th Congress), the "American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012", huge bill also know as the fiscal cliff bill. Section 301 of this bill modifies and extends the research and development tax credit.

This tax credit expired December 31, 2011. This extension is retroactive back to December 31, 2011. It extends the credit through December 31, 2013.

Grant Sieffert, head of the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), stated in a release that "R&D credit has been, and will remain, a cost-effective policy for increasing research activity and producing a dollar-for-dollar increase in research spending", that it is "essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in telecommunications".

Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 41, pertains to the "Credit for increasing research activities".

The Congress enacted its first research and development (R&D) tax credit bill in 1981 as a temporary measure. Since then the Congress has repeatedly extended it for one or a few years.

There were numerous bills in the 112th Congress to revise this credit. See, stories titled "Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearing to Address Expired R&D Tax Credit" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,376, April 20, 2012, and "Startup R&D Tax Credit Bills Introduced" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,434, August 22, 2012.

1/3. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed and simultaneously settled an administrative complaint against Google regarding its abuse of standards essential patents (SEPs) for which it was bound by FRAND commitments. Google admitted neither wrongdoing, nor relevant factual allegations. An accompanying order imposes some limitations on its ability to abuse these SEPs.

Second, the FTC announced in a statement [4 pages in PDF] that it will take no action against Google with respect to search bias.

FTC Chairman Jonathan Leibowitz said in a statement that "There are two aspects to the settlement we announce today. The first involves Google’s misuse of patent protection to prevent competition. We stop that abuse. The second concerns allegations that Google unfairly biases its search results to harm competition. We close that investigation, finding that the evidence does not support a claim that Google’s prominent display of its own content on its general search page was undertaken without legitimate justification. But we do accept Google’s binding commitment to stop the most problematic business practices relating to its search and search advertising business."

Google's David Drummond stated in a release that "The conclusion is clear: Google's services are good for users and good for competition."

Microsoft's Dave Heiner stated in a release that "The FTC's overall resolution of this matter is weak and --frankly -- unusual. We are concerned that the FTC may not have obtained adequate relief even on the few subjects that Google has agreed to address."

Patent Abuse. The SEP complaint [6 pages in PDF] alleges that Google "engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices by breaching its commitments to standard-setting organizations (``SSOs´´) to license its standard essential patents (``SEPs´´) on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (``FRAND´´) terms. Google violated its FRAND commitments by seeking to enjoin and exclude willing licensees of its FRAND-encumbered SEPs."

This complaint further alleges that "Google's conduct will harm consumers by either excluding products from the market entirely as a result of an injunction, or by leading to higher prices because manufacturers using Google’s SEPs would be forced, by the threat of an injunction, to pay higher royalty rates which would be passed on to consumers."

Also, "Motorola breached its FRAND obligations by seeking to enjoin and exclude implementers of its SEPs, including some of its competitors, from marketing products compliant with some or all of the Relevant Technology Standards. Google continued Motorola's exclusionary campaign after acquiring Motorola. Google used these threats of exclusion orders and injunctions to enhance its bargaining leverage against willing licensees and demand licensing terms that tended to exceed the FRAND range."

This complaint alleges violation of only Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45. It does not allege violation of the Sherman Act.

Section 5 provides, in relevant part, that "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." This has two components. First, there is the clause, "Unfair methods of competition", which sounds like an antitrust provision, but has hardly been so invoked for decades. Also, there is no body of law that gives it meaning. Second, there is the clause, "unfair or deceptive acts", which the FTC has frequently invoked to fight fraud.

Commissioner Thomas Rosch wrote in a separate statement that "I do not agree to invoke a standalone unfair methods of competition claim under Section 5 because it is not clear what the ``limiting principles´´ of such a claim would be."

Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen wrote in a dissenting statement that "I disagree with my colleagues about whether the alleged conduct violates Section 5 but, more importantly, believe the Commission’s actions fail to provide meaningful limiting principles regarding what is a Section 5 violation in the standard-setting context".

The FTC and Google simultaneously entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order [4 pages in PDF]. It is a shell document. Google admits no wrongdoing or liability. Google does not admit any of the factual allegations, other than those pertaining to the jurisdiction of the FTC. It imposes no fine or other financial penalty. It merely requires Google to submit periodic reports to the FTC regarding its compliance with the Decision and Order [29 pages in PDF].

This document prohibits Google from revoking or rescinding the relevant FRAND commitments. It also provides that Google shall cease and desist from directly or indirectly making any future claims for injunction relief based upon alleged infringement of a relevant FRAND patent, except as permitted by this document.

Moreover, this document's limitations upon Google's future conduct is long and complex. It limits some abuses of relevant SEPs, but allows other abuses. Google will still be allowed to seek certain exclusion orders and injunctive relief from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) and U.S. District Courts.

Search Bias. The search bias statement concludes that the FTC decided "to close the portion of its investigation relating to allegations that Google unfairly preferences its own content on the Google search results page and selectively demotes its competitors’ content from those results".

This statement notes that complaining entities alleged that Google "unfairly promoted its own vertical properties through changes in its search results page" and "manipulated its search algorithms in order to demote vertical websites that competed against Google’s own vertical properties."

The FTC concluded that "the evidence presented at this time does not support the allegation that Google’s display of its own vertical content at or near the top of its search results page was a product design change undertaken without a legitimate business justification. Rather, we conclude that Google’s display of its own content could plausibly be viewed as an improvement in the overall quality of Google’s search product. Similarly, we have not found sufficient evidence that Google manipulates its search algorithms to unfairly disadvantage vertical websites that compete with Google-owned vertical properties. Although at points in time various vertical websites have experienced demotions, we find that this was a consequence of algorithm changes that also could plausibly be viewed as an improvement in the overall quality of Google’s search results.

The FTC wrote this about applicable law. The FTC may "challenge business practices if it has reason to believe that such practices violate Section 5's prohibition on unfair methods of competition, and create a likelihood of significant injury to competition, including monopolization or attempted monopolization actionable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. To determine whether Google violated Section 5 with respect to these search bias allegations, the Commission considered whether Google manipulated its search algorithms and search results page in order to impede a competitive threat posed by vertical search engines."

The FTC sent a no action letter to Susan Creighton (Wilson Sonsini), who previously headed the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and now represents Google.

Google sent a letter to the FTC in which it made two sets of commitments, effective for five years. First, Google commits that it will provide "website owners with the option to opt out from display on Google's Covered Webpages of content from their website that has been crawled by Google". Also, Google commits to remove restrictions on the use of its online search advertising platform, AdWords, that may make it more difficult for advertisers to coordinate online advertising campaigns across multiple platforms.

Congressional Reaction. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) which has jurisdiction over antitrust matters. He stated in a release that "I am pleased that the FTC conducted an important inquiry into whether the Nation’s dominant Internet search company engaged in ‘search bias’ in a manner that constituted a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. I am disappointed, however, that it relied on simple, voluntary commitments from Google to end certain practices that a majority of Commissioners found to have raised strong concerns about impeding innovation."

Sen. Leahy added that "I understand that other antitrust authorities are continuing to examine related search practices, and I support the Commission’s decision to continue to monitor Google for conduct that may harm competition and consumers."

He also addressed patent abuse. He wrote that "I remain skeptical that exclusion orders or injunctions are appropriate in any circumstance other than when the infringer is unable or unwilling to pay a reasonable royalty."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), the ranking Republican on the SJC's antitrust subcommittee, praised in a release Google's "commitment to allow advertisers to export ad campaign data to other platforms" and its "promise not to misappropriate content from other websites".

However, he continued that the agreement "does not address all the concerns about anticompetitive conduct raised at our Subcommittee hearing. We will continue to work with antitrust authorities to help ensure robust competition in the Internet search arena so that consumer welfare is maximized."

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who represent Silicon Valley districts in the House, issued a joint release in which they praised the FTC's action.

Rep. Eshoo stated that "the FTC’s settlement with Google strikes an appropriate balance that protects consumers and preserves innovation ... At a time when the market for smartphones, tablets and other wireless devices continues to flourish, the settlement ensures that competitors will have access to the patents essential to powering these key technologies." Furthermore, "despite a thorough investigation into allegations of search bias, the FTC ultimately decided against taking action that could hinder innovation and consumer choice. I applaud this decision, which recognizes the evolving Internet search market and the exciting innovations that have been the hallmark of the Internet to date".

Rep. Lofgren stated that "I'm pleased the FTC chose to complete its investigation of Google’s search practices with an enforceable agreement to protect consumers without impermissibly expanding the jurisdictional reach of the FTC ... It’s good that the consent agreement between the FTC and Google on patents will help ensure consumers continue to benefit from new and innovative products and services that connect them to the Internet. Providing entrepreneurs and companies with greater access to standard technologies will help keep this key marketplace strong and diverse -- creating jobs and growing our economy".

Praise for the FTC. Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "The FTC’s decision not to proceed with a search case against Google was the right call. Over the course of its far-reaching 19-month investigation, the FTC thoroughly reviewed the facts and the applicable law and made its decision accordingly. This is exactly how law enforcement is supposed to work. This was a prudent decision by the FTC that shows that antitrust enforcement, in the hands of responsible regulators, is sufficiently adaptable to the realities of the Internet age."

Black said, regarding patents that the "CCIA has long expressed concern with how the patent system operates. A limited set of incentives intended to encourage invention has morphed into a system that too frequently impedes innovation, particularly in high-tech markets. The settlement with Google on standard essential patents attempts to address one of the grey areas of patent policy and we will monitor it closely. Given that SEP issues are minor compared to the major abuse that goes on elsewhere in the patent system, we hope that the FTC does not stop here. The agency’s historical expertise in this area gives it both the resources and the cachet to inject competition concerns into the greater debate around patent reform.”

Tom Lenard, head of the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), stated in a release that "After investigating Google’s search practices for almost two years, the Federal Trade Commission and its staff undoubtedly wanted more than the few voluntary modifications to which Google has agreed. But the Commission demonstrated its professionalism by concluding that the evidence did not support bringing an antitrust case and that no additional remedy was likely to benefit consumers.

He added that "Some of Google’s competitors, unhappy with the FTC’s findings, wanted the Commission to wait for the European Union, which has a parallel investigation, and is reportedly obtaining bigger concessions from Google. But the EU's antitrust regime puts more weight on competitors and less on consumers than the U.S. does. The Commission is correct in resisting pressures to follow Europe."

Berin Szoka of the Tech Freedom stated in a release that "The FTC's decision is a victory not just for Google but for regulatory humility and the freedom of product design -- two bedrocks of Internet Freedom. The FTC has rightly set a high bar for restricting companies' ability to tweak their own products by requiring clear proof that product changes are demonstrably anti-competitive."

Criticism of FTC Settlement with Google. David Heiner, Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft, wrote a short piece titled "The FTC and Google: A Missed Opportunity".

He argued that the order in the patent proceeding imposes only weak requirement upon Google. He wrote that "During patent licensing negotiations, Google can continue to threaten that it will sue for an injunction, knowing that many would-be licensees will not be in a position to engage in litigation or arbitration with Google and also meet all of the other procedural requirements set forth in the decree that are imposed on the licensee. Google can even continue to use its standard essential patents to fend off patent infringement actions against it: the proposed decree gives Google leeway to sue for an injunction on its standard essential patents if it takes the position that injunctive relief sought against it is based on a patent that is standard essential.  Since it is often hard to tell which patents are standard essential, the risk of injunction lawsuits from Google may dissuade firms from seeking to enforce their non-standard essential patents against the company."

He added that "The good news is that other antitrust agencies, within the United States and overseas, are still examining Google’s conduct. In Europe Vice President Almunia has made clear that he will close his investigation of Google only with a formal, binding order that addresses search bias and other issues. We remain hopeful that these agencies will stick to their established procedures, ensure transparency, and obtain the additional relief needed to address the serious competition law concerns that remain."

Fair Search stated in a release that "As the dust settles after the Federal Trade Commission's disappointing announcement of its settlement with Google, it is clear that the FTC will not have the last word in determining whether Google’s practices are illegal, and whether the company will have to change them."

Fair Search's members include Microsoft, Oracle, Nokia, Expedia, Kayak and other companies.

It added that "FairSearch and its members will continue to work with authorities in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere who continue to look closely at Google’s biased display of search results and other anti-competitive practices. The fight for a more competitive online marketplace and the innovation it produces will continue."

The Consumer Watchdog's John Simpson stated in a release that "Google clearly skews search results to favor its own products and services while portraying the results as unbiased. That undermines competition and hurts consumers ... The FTC rolled over for Google. They’ve accepted Google executives’ promises that they will change two practices without even requiring a consent agreement, but Google has a track record of broken promises. Don’t forget, this fall the FTC fined Google $22.5 million for violating its most recent consent agreement. Why would the FTC take Google at its word?"

The House will not meet. It will next meet on January 14.

The Senate will not meet. It will next meet on January 21.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit initial comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its notice in the Federal Register regarding its proposed fee schedule for filing cable and satellite statements of account. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 235, December 6, 2012, at Pages 72788-72791.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [57 pages in PDF] regarding cable TV technical rules. The FCC adopted and released this item on August 3, 2012. It is FCC 12-86 in MB Docket No. 12-217. See, notice in the Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 195, October 9, 2012, at Pages 61351-61375. See also, TLJ story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Cable TV Technical Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,421, August 5, 2012.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regarding its proposed rules changes pertaining to voluntary self disclosures (VSD) of violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 216, November 7, 2012, at Pages 66777-66780.

EXTENDED FROM DECEMBER 26. Extended deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its November 1 Public Notice (PN) seeking updated information and comment on review of hearing aid compatibility regulations. This PN is DA 12-1745 in WT Docket No. 10-254. See also, November 27 extension Public Notice (DA 12-1898) and extension notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 234, December 5, 2012, at Pages 72294-72295.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in response to its December 7, 2012 notice in the Federal Register (FR) regarding health information technology. This notice contains interim final changes to the final rule published in the DHHS's September 4, 2012 notice in the FR. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 236, December 7, 2012, at Pages 72985-72991, and FR, Vol. 77, No. 171, September 4, 2012, at Pages 54163-54292.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding implementation of Phase II of the Mobility Fund, which pertains to universal service fund subsidies for mobile broadband. The FCC released this PN on November 27, 2012. It is DA 12-1853 in WC Docket No. 10-90 and WT Docket No. 10-208.  See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 238, December 11, 2012, at Pages 73586-73589.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its proposed consent agreement with Epic Marketplace, Inc. (an online behavioral advertising company) and Epic Media Group, LLC (its parent company). The complaint alleged violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act in connection with Epic's misrepresentation of the web browsing information that it collected. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 238, December 11, 2012, at Pages 73655-73657. See also, story titled "FTC Brings Action Against Behavioral Advertising Company for History Sniffing" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,489, December 12, 2012.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Heritage Foundation (HF) and Project 2049 will host an event titled "Security, Alliance, and the Japanese Political Landscape". The keynote speaker will be Motohiro Oono (former Parliamentary Secretary of Defense). The other speakers will be Yoshihide Yoshida (Major General, Ministry of Defense of Japan), Tomohiko Taniguchi (Keio University), Yukio Tada (Sojitz Research Institute), Bruce Klingner (HF), and Randy Shriver (Project 2049). Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: HF, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Current Legal Issues for Non-Commercial Broadcasters". The speakers will be Lisa Delaney (WETA), Gregory Lewis (National Public Radio), Kate Riley (Association of Public Television Stations), Todd Gray (Dow Lohnes), and Howard Liberman (Drinker Biddle & Reath). Free. Open to the pubic. No CLE credits. Location: DBR, 1500 K St., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Trademark Search Strategies in Europe, Latin America, Canada, and the U.S.". The speakers will be Matthias Berger (Harmsen Utescher), Katrin Lewertoff (Arent Fox), John McKeown (Cassels Brock & Blackwell), Mariano Municoy (Moeller IP), and Naresh Kilaru (Finnegan Henderson). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

9:30 AM. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will hold a prehearing conference in the matter of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants Ltd. and BDO China Dahua CPA Co., Ltd., et al., Administrative Proceeding File Nos. 3-14872 and 3-15116. See, story titled "SEC to Hold Prehearing Conference in Cases Against PRC Accounting Firms" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,500, December 31, 2012. Location: SEC, Hearing Room 2, 100 F St., NE.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The DC Bar Association's Media Law Committee will hold a brown bag lunch meeting. Free. No CLE credits. Closed to reporters. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3463. Location: Washington Post, 1150 15th St., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "Introduction to Export Controls". The speakers will be Carol Kalinoski and Thomas Scott (Ladner & Associates). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. 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.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "iPhone and iPad Apps for Lawyers". Prices vary. See, notice.

EXTENDED TO MARCH 10. Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in connection with their joint workshop on December 10, 2012, titled "Patent Assertion Entity Activities". See, notice and agenda.

Supreme Court conference day. See, Supreme Court calendar.

8:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a roundtable to address the possibility of changing its rules of practice to require the disclosure of real party in interest information during patent prosecution and at certain times post-issuance. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 227, November 26, 2012, at Pages 70385-70389. See also, story titled "USPTO to Host Roundtable on Requiring Real Party in Interest Disclosures" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,483, December 5, 2012. Location: USPTO, Madison Auditorium, Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA.

10:30 AM - 3:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Emergency Access
Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 1, January 2, 2013, at Page 97. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St.,  SW.

12:00 NOON - 1:45 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a telecast panel discussion titled "The FTC’s Investigation of Google". The speakers will be Thomas Rosch (Federal Trade Commission), Paula Render (Jones Day), Hill Wellford (Bingham McCutchen), Jonathan Jacobson (Wilson Sonsini), Geoffrey Manne (Lewis & Clark Law School), and Gary Reback (Carr & Ferrell). Free. No CLE credits. See, notice.

2:00 - 2:40 PM. The National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via conference call. This meeting is open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 244, December 19, 2012, at Page 75182.

The House will meet at 2:00 PM. See, House calendar for 113th Congress, 1st Session.

8:00 AM. There will be a closed event titled "Learn How to Increase Your Blog Traffic by 1000%". The speaker will be Devon Hopkins (Social Driver). This event is open only to members of the National Press Club (NPC). See, notice. For more information, contact Anthony Shop at anthony at socialdriver dot com. Location: NPC, Truman Lounge, 13th Floor, 529 14th St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host a teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Selecting and Working with Experts in Antitrust". The speakers will be Jonathan Bowater (Compass Lexecon), Shari Lahlou (Crowell & Moring), Greg Rosston (Stanford University), and Judith Zahid (Zelle Hofmann). Free. No CLE credits. See, notice.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Moving Your Law Practice to the Cloud Safely and Ethically". The speakers will be Natalie Kelly (Georgia State Bar Association), John Simek (Sensei Enterprises), and Daniel Siegel. Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a program titled "The 10 Most Important Cloud Computing Issues". The speakers will be Henry Classen (Computer Sciences Corporation) and Philip Porter (Hogan Lovells). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. 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.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding Next Generation 911 (NG911) services. This PN is DA 12-1831 in PS Docket Nos. 10-255, 11-153, and 12-333. The FCC released it on November 13, 2012.

EXTENDED FROM DECEMBER 17. Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [146 pages in PDF] regarding its program access rules. The FCC adopted and released this item on October 5, 2012. It is FCC 12-123 in MB Docket No. 12-68. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 211, October 31, 2012, at Pages 66052-66065, and stories titled "FCC Lets Expire Its Per Se Ban on Exclusive Program Distribution Contracts", "FCC Adopts Report and Order on Program Access Rules", "FCC Adopts NPRM on Case by Case Analysis of Exclusive Contracts", and "Reaction to FCC's Program Access Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,460, October 6, 2012. See also, extension notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 234, December 5, 2012, at Pages 72295-72296.

Deadline to submit replies to oppositions to Motorola Solutions's petition for reconsideration of the FCC's Report and Order regarding certification and use of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) technology on certain Part 90 land mobile radio frequencies. This R&O is FCC 12-114 in WT Docket No. 11-69. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 243, December 18, 2012, at Pages 74822-74823.

EXTENDED FROM DECEMBER 24. Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding its licensing and operating rules for satellite services. The FCC adopted and released this NPRM on September 28, 2012. It is FCC 12-117 in IB Docket No. 12-267. See, original notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 217, November 8, 2012, at Pages 67171-67201. See also, extension notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 250, December 31, 2012, at Pages 77001-77002.

1/3. Google published a statement on January 3, 2012 by Adam Langley titled "Enhancing Digital Certificate Authority".

He wrote that Google's operating system, Chrome, "detected and blocked an unauthorized digital certificate for the ``*.google.com´´ domain. We investigated immediately and found the certificate was issued by an intermediate certificate authority (CA) linking back to TURKTRUST, a Turkish certificate authority. Intermediate CA certificates carry the full authority of the CA, so anyone who has one can use it to create a certificate for any website they wish to impersonate. In response, we updated Chrome's certificate revocation metadata on December 25 to block that intermediate CA, and then alerted TURKTRUST and other browser vendors."

Also on January 3, Microsoft issued its Microsoft Security Advisory (2798897), titled "Fraudulent Digital Certificates Could Allow Spoofing". Microsoft wrote that "Microsoft is aware of active attacks using one fraudulent digital certificate issued by TURKTRUST Inc., which is a CA present in the Trusted Root Certification Authorities Store. This fraudulent certificate could be used to spoof content, perform phishing attacks, or perform man-in-the-middle attacks. This issue affects all supported releases of Microsoft Windows."

Microsoft added that "To help protect customers from the fraudulent use of this digital certificate, Microsoft is updating the Certificate Trust list (CTL) and is providing an update for all supported releases of Microsoft Windows that removes the trust of certificates that are causing this issue."

See also, January 3 story titled "Turkish Registrar Enabled Phishers to Spoof Google" in Krebs on Security.

1/7. Comcast announced in a release that Joe Waz "will return to Comcast Corporation as Senior Strategic Advisor in public policy and external affairs".

1/3. Diane Strahan was named Chief Operating Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). She was previously a SVP at Neustar. See, MPAA release.

1/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) issued its opinion in Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, a photograph copyright infringement case involving the issue of substantial similarity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, against the photographer. This case is Donald Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, App. Ct. No. 11-1760, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya Zobel presiding. Judge Lipez wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Torruella and Howard joined.

1/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued its amended opinion [28 pages in PDF] in American Beverage Association v. Rick Snyder, et al., a case regarding the dormant commerce clause and extraterritorial effects of state regulation. The Court of Appeals issued its original opinion on November 29, 2012. See, story titled "6th Circuit Construes Dormant Commerce Clause" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,481, December 3, 2012. This case is American Beverage Association v. Snyder, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 11-2097, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-195, Judge Gordon Quist presiding. Judge Clay wrote the opinion of the three judge panel. Judges Sutton and Rice both wrote concurring opinions.

1/3. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report [34 pages in PDF] titled "Horizontal Merger Investigation Data: Fiscal Years 1996 - 2011".

1/3. The Public Knowledge (PK) published an essay titled "The Question at the Core of the Data Caps Debate". The author is the PK's Michael Weinberg.

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 1998-2013 David Carney. All rights reserved.