1/9. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) gave a speech at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which he listed and discussed his proposals for legislative and agency action.

He said the foreign IP infringing activity should be dealt with by trade policy rather than by bills such as the SOPA and PIPA. He called for legislation to regulate broadband data caps. He advocated a Congressional review of software patents. He urged expansion of the FCC's December 2010 order regulating broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers to regulate wireless providers the same as wireline. He advocated amending antitrust statutes to prohibit BIAS providers from discriminating against content providers. He advocated rewriting the ECPA to protect privacy. He advocated passage of cyber security legislation, but criticized the leading House and Senate bills in the 112th Congress.

He also identified the People's Republic of China's blocking of access to US web sites, such as Google and Facebook, not as censorship, but as protectionism intended to advantage PRC based competitors. He did not, however, offer a solution to this, other than giving President Obama negotiating instructions.

First, he praised the actions one year ago that blocked further consideration by the House and Senate of the SOPA and PIPA.

The Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and others, was S 968 [LOC | WW], the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011", "PROTECT IP Act", or "PIPA". The related bill in the House, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and others, was HR 3261 [LOC | WW], the "Stop Online Piracy Act" or "SOPA".

Sen. Wyden (at right) said that "Last year at this time legislation was before Congress that would have censored and broken the Internet. Legislation -- infamously known as PIPA and SOPA -- that would have stifled the growth of the Internet economy and the jobs it creates."

He said that, going forward, dealing with foreign web sites that infringe intellectual property rights should be dealt with "through the prism of international trade policy".

He said the the "centerpiece of our agenda should be guaranteeing innovators the Freedom to Compete. Here is what the freedom to compete in the marketplace means. First, it begins with access to the Internet. Internet Service Providers -- wired or wireless -- must be barred from practices that discriminate against specific content.  The Open Internet order established by the FCC is a good start but it doesn't go far enough because, in reality, it is not comprehensive."

On the other hand, rather than being expanded, that order may be on the verge of being overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir).

The FCC promulgated its BIAS rules in its huge Report and Order (R&O) [194 pages in PDF] of late December, 2010. It is FCC 10-201 in GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52. See also, stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,186, December 22, 2010, and TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,188, December 24, 2010.

Sen. Wyden next said that "It is clear that consumers across this country will benefit if there is more competition among Internet Service Providers. This is not the case today. The FCC estimates that 96 percent of the population has only one or two wireline ISPs to choose from." However, he offered no proposals for attaining more competition.

Sen. Wyden then further addressed the network management practices of BIAS providers. "If a provider wishes to slow consumers' Internet connections in order to discriminate against a provider of content, my view is that they should face the anti-trust laws."

He said that he and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) "are working on legislation to do just that -- to strengthen the anti-trust laws in order to ensure that the major ISPs cannot use their market dominance to pick online winners and losers."

Next, he addressed "broadband data caps". He said that "There is a case for data caps that manage congestion -- manage a scarcity of bandwidth -- but they shouldn't be used to create scarcity in order to monetize data." He argued that "It is time for legislation to establish disciplines on data caps that give innovators and entrepreneurs the opportunity that is a pillar of our nation’s economy: the freedom to compete."

Last month, Sen. Wyden introduced S 3703 [LOC | WW | PDF], the "Data Cap Integrity Act of 2012". See, story titled "Sen. Wyden Introduces Data Caps Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,496, December 21, 2012.

Next, he addressed software patents. He said that the "Congress should begin a review -- a cost-benefit analysis -- of software patents' contribution to the economy. The acquisition of these patents appears less about deploying innovation and more about employing a legal arsenal. The patent system should not, as Julie Samuels at EFF says, operate as a tax on innovation, as it does now. How are you promoting innovation if you stand behind a law that enables a few lines of code to be patentable for 20 years? Software is different than a new invention. It is a building block -- a new set of instructions -- that should be continually built upon and improved."

He also spoke vaguely about "privacy". He said that "it is particularly troubling that the documents Americans leave lying around their kitchen counter receive more privacy protections than the content Americans store in the cloud. A rewrite of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act should address this imbalance."

He criticized the House passed CISPA. He said, "Let's address the goals of CISPA without creating a cyber-industrial complex", an apparent reference to the bill in the Senate backed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). Sen. Wyden twice voted against invoking cloture on that bill.

The CISPA, which the House passed in April of 2012, was HR 3523 [LOC | WW], the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011". The bill backed by Sen. Reid was S 3414 [LOC | WW | PDF], the "Cybersecurity Act of 2012". Neither the Senate, nor any Senate Committee approved that bill.

Sen. Wyden next said that "the protection of intellectual property is important", but "balance between providing rights-holders a monopoly and promoting competition and innovation is just as important."

He predicted that "Members of Congress are going to file legislation that would penalize false representations, strengthen Fair Use, and provide real due process and for seizures of property. These efforts should be supported."

Finally, he discussed some trade issues. He said that "countries are increasingly imposing barriers to digital goods and digital services for non-competitive purposes. China's current practice of blocking Google and Facebook is about giving its domestic providers of search and social networking an artificial advantage. It’s anti-competitive protectionism. The discussions in Dubai last month demonstrated the growing interest in foreign regimes to control and censor the Internet."

He advocated providing "the Obama Administration with clear, statutory negotiating instructions that require it seek open Internet disciplines in all trade discussions."

Most of the legislative and oversight proposals in this speech fall within the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) and Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC). Sen. Wyden is a member of neither Committee. Moreover, in recent years he has attained little success in enacting technology related legislation. However, he has been active and more successful in blocking, delaying, or amending technology related legislation that he opposes.

1/9. The Supreme Court issued its opinion [22 pages in PDF] in Already v. Nike, a trademark case in which the issue is standing to sue.

Nike, which makes shoes, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) against Already, which makes competing shoes, alleging trademark infringement. Already counterclaimed that Nike's trademark is invalid. Nike then issued a covenant not to sue, stating that Already's actions "no longer infringe or dilute". Nike then moved to dismiss both its claims and the counterclaim of Already.

The District Court dismissed both claims and counterclaim. Already appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) affirmed. See, November 10, 2011 opinion. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether a covenant not to enforce a trademark against a competitor's existing products and any future "colorable imitations" moots the competitor's action to have the trademark declared invalid.

The Supreme Court held that "Already's only legally cognizable injury -- the fact that Nike took steps to enforce its trademark -- is now gone and, given the breadth of the covenant, cannot reasonably be expected to recur. There being no other basis on which to find a live controversy, the case is clearly moot."

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a unanimous court. However, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor, "to underscore that covenants like the one Nike filed here ought not to be taken as an automatic means for the party who first charged a competitor with trademark infringement suddenly to abandon the suit without incurring the risk of an ensuing adverse adjudication."

Kennedy wrote that "Courts should be well aware that charges of trademark infringement can be disruptive to the good business relations between the manufacturer alleged to have been an infringer and its distributors, retailers, and investors. The mere pendency of litigation can mean that other actors in the marketplace may be reluctant to have future dealings with the alleged infringer. Nike appears to have been well aware of that dynamic in this case."

He added that "Courts should proceed with caution before ruling that" covenants not to sue can be used to terminate litigation.

This case is Already v. Nike, Supreme Court of the U.S., Sup. Ct. No. 11-982, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 11-314-CV. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard Sullivan presiding. Judge Lohier wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Livingston and Leval joined. See also, Supreme Court docket.

1/8. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released a document [10 pages in PDF] titled "Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments".

This policy statement addresses "whether injunctive relief in judicial proceedings or exclusion orders in investigations under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 are properly issued when a patent holder seeking such a remedy asserts standards-essential patents that are encumbered by a RAND or FRAND licensing commitment." (Footnotes omitted.)

This policy statement argues that an exclusion order or injunction for a FRAND encumbered SEP may be inconsistent with the public interest. However, there are exceptions. For example, an exclusion order or injunction may be appropriate where the putative licensee has refused to take a FRAND license.

Neither the DOJ nor the USPTO have authority to write rules that are binding either upon the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in Section 337 proceedings, or the U.S. District Courts in patent infringement actions. This policy statement is written for whatever persuasive or argumentative value it might have.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shares antitrust enforcement authority with the DOJ, did not join in this statement. However, the FTC expressed views regarding the availability of injunctive relief to enforce SEPs subject to FRAND commitments in an amicus curiae brief [25 pages in PDF] filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) on December 5, 2012, in Apple v. Motorola, App. Ct. Nos. 2012-1548 and 2012-1549. See also, story titled "FTC Files Amicus Brief Re Availability of Injunctive Relief in SEP FRAND Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,484, December 6, 2012.

19 U.S.C. § 1337 provides, in part, that "The importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that ... infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent or a valid and enforceable United States copyright registered under title 17". Moreover, this section empowers the USITC to issue exclusion orders. See also, the USITC's web page on Section 337 proceedings.

The DOJ/USPTO policy statement states that "exclusion typically is the appropriate remedy when an imported good infringes a valid and enforceable U.S. patent".

It also explains the benefits of standards setting and FRAND commitments. "Standards, and particularly voluntary consensus standards set by standards-developing organizations (SDOs), have come to play an increasingly important role in our economy" and "serve the public interest in a variety of ways".

However, the policy statement continues, "collaborative standards setting does not come without some risks. For example, when a standard incorporates patented technology owned by a participant in the standards-setting process, and the standard becomes established, it may be prohibitively difficult and expensive to switch to a different technology within the established standard or to a different standard entirely. As a result, the owner of that patented technology may gain market power and potentially take advantage of it by engaging in patent hold-up, which entails asserting the patent to exclude a competitor from a market or obtain a higher price for its use than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."

"In an effort to reduce the occurrences of opportunistic conduct in the adoption of voluntary consensus standards, while encouraging participants to include the best available technology in standards, some SDOs have relied on voluntary licensing commitments by their participants, including commitments to license the patents they own that are essential to the standard on F/RAND terms."

The DOJ and USPTO state that the US "continues to encourage systems that support voluntary F/RAND licensing -- both domestically and abroad -- rather than the imposition of one-size-fits-all mandates for royalty-free or below-market licensing, which would undermine the effectiveness of the standardization process and incentives for innovation."

This statement argues that "In some circumstances, the remedy of an injunction or exclusion order may be inconsistent with the public interest. This concern is particularly acute in cases where an exclusion order based on a F/RAND-encumbered patent appears to be incompatible with the terms of a patent holder’s existing F/RAND licensing commitment to an SDO."

It reasons that "A decision maker could conclude that the holder of a F/RAND-encumbered, standards-essential patent had attempted to use an exclusion order to pressure an implementer of a standard to accept more onerous licensing terms than the patent holder would be entitled to receive consistent with the F/RAND commitment -- in essence concluding that the patent holder had sought to reclaim some of its enhanced market power over firms that relied on the assurance that F/RAND-encumbered patents included in the standard would be available on reasonable licensing terms under the SDO’s policy. Such an order may harm competition and consumers by degrading one of the tools SDOs employ to mitigate the threat of such opportunistic actions by the holders of F/RAND-encumbered patents that are essential to their standards."

On the other hand, "An exclusion order may still be an appropriate remedy in some circumstances, such as where the putative licensee is unable or refuses to take a F/RAND license and is acting outside the scope of the patent holder’s commitment to license on F/RAND terms."

Also, "An exclusion order also could be appropriate if a putative licensee is not subject to the jurisdiction of a court that could award damages."

See also, stories titled "DOJ's Morton Addresses SEPs, FRAND, Non-SEPS and Hold Ups" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,484, December 6, 2012, and "DOJ's Hesse Addresses Patents and Standard Setting Organizations" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,466, October 23, 2012.

1/9. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) granted early termination on January 7, 2013 of the Hart Scott Rodino Act (HSR) waiting period for the following transactions:

• priceline.com Incorporated and Kayak Software Corporation
• Elliott Associates, L.P. and Compuware Corporation
• Liberty Spinco, Inc. and Barnes & Noble, Inc.
• Liberty Spinco, Inc. and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
• Robert R. Bennett and Liberty Spinco, Inc.
• John C. Malone and Liberty Spinco, Inc.

See, FTC notice of January 8.

The FTC also granted early termination on January 8 of the HSR waiting period for the transaction involving Hewlett-Packard Company and Digital Risk, LLC. See, FTC notice of January 9.

See also, FTC web page titled "Hart Scott Rodino Pre-Merger Notification Program".

1/9. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) claimed some credit for the shutdown of Gougou.com on the basis that it was listed in the OUSTR's December 2012 notorious markets report. See, OUSTR release.

The OUSTR added that it "hopes that the Notorious Markets Review will continue to yield the kind of concrete action from highlighted markets that led to the removal of several markets from the list in 2012."

The OUSTR released a report [9 pages in PDF] on December 13, 2012, titled "Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets". This report identified internet and physical notorious markets located outside of the US that make available intellectual property infringing products.

It listed numerous deep linking web sites, cyber lockers, B2B and B2C sites, BitTorrent indexing sites, BitTorrent trackers, social media cites, and pay per download sites, as well as physical markets.

The report named Gougou.com, and stated that "Industry reports that this China-based website continues to actively provide users with deeplinks to infringing music files and torrent links from unauthorized sources." (At page 4.)

See also, story titled "OUSTR Releases 2012 Notorious Markets Report" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert 2,492, December 17, 2012.

1/9. The Copyright Office (CO) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that announces, describes, recites, and sets the effective date for, its new rules regarding its practices for providing refunds of cable royalties under the provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA).

This notice explains that "A cable operator must pay royalties to and file Statements of Account with the Office every six months in order to use the statutory license that allows for the retransmission of over-the-air broadcast signals" under 17 U.S.C. § 111.

This notice continues that the STELA, which was S 3333 [LOC | WW] in the 111th Congress, "allows a cable operator to calculate its royalty obligation for the carriage of distant signals on a community-by-community basis for accounting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2010, instead of calculating its royalty obligation based on the system as a whole. STELA also states that a cable operator shall not be subject to an infringement action if it used the subscriber group methodology to calculate its royalty obligation in a Statement filed prior to the effective date of STELA. Although a cable operator cannot be held liable for using the subscriber group methodology, the regulation clarifies that a cable operator's obligation to pay for the carriage of distant signals prior to the effective date of STELA was determined on a system-wide basis."

"Therefore, refunds for an overpayment of royalty fees on a Statement filed prior to the effective date of STELA will be made only when a cable operator has satisfied its outstanding royalty obligations (if any), including the obligation to pay for the carriage of each distant signal on a system-wide basis." (Parentheses in original.)

The effective date is February 8, 2013. See, FR, Vol. 78, No. 6, January 9, 2013, at Pages 1755-1759.

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

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

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.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal Society's Washington DC Lawyers Chapter will host a lunch at which Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) will speak. The price to attend ranges from $15 to $20. Location: Tony Cheng's Restaurant, 619 H St., NW.

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.

The House will meet. See, House calendar for 113th Congress, 1st Session.

10th anniversary of the Supreme Court's opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003). See, story titled "Supreme Court Upholds CTEA in Eldred v. Ashcroft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 584, January 16, 2003.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "NIST Cloud Computing and Big Data Forum and Workshop". Free. See, NIST notice and notice in the Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 243, December 18, 2012, at Pages 74829-74830. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, Administration Building, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

8:00 - 10:00 AM. Broadband Census News LLC will host a panel discussion titled "The President Elect's and Congress' New Broadband Agenda". The speakers will be Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), and David Grossman (Rep. Eshoo's staff). Breakfast will be served. This event is open to the public. The price to attend is $47.12. See, notice and registration page. This event is also sponsored by Comcast, Google, ICF Intl., TIA, and US Telecom. Location: Clyde's of Gallery Place, 707 7th St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:15 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "How Far Can Patent Holders Go?". The speakers will be Mark Whitener (General Electric), Jonathan Gleklen (Arnold & Porter), Hwang Lee (Korea Univ. School of Law), Frances Marshall (DOJ Special Counsel for IP), and Yizhe Zhang (Jones Day). Free. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, Room 220, 555 12th St., NW.

4:30 - 8:00 PM. The CCIA, CEA, CEI, PK, Tech Freedom, Twin Logic, and numerous other entities will host an event titled "Celebration of Internet Freedom". This is the first anniversary of the successful grass roots lobbying campaign to block Congressional passage of the SOPA and PIPA. At 4:30 PM there will be a pre-screening cocktail reception. From 5:00 - 6:00 PM there will be the premiere screening of a short film titled "Silicon Prairie: America's New Internet Economy", followed by a panel discussion. From 6:00 - 8:00 PM there will be a reception. Location: Knight Studio, Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. (Enter via the 6th Street entrance.)

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Committee will host an event titled "The Role of Spectrum Sharing in Addressing the Bandwidth Crunch". There will be a panel of government speakers: Shawn Chang (Democratic staff, House Commerce Committee), David Redl (Republican staff, HCC), Peter Tenhula (NTIA), and John Leibovitz (Deputy Chief of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau). There will be a second panel of industry representatives: Scott Bergmann (CTIA), Dean Brenner (Qualcomm), Mark Racek (Ericsson), and Steve Sharkey (T-Mobile). CLE credits. Prices vary. See, notice. Reservations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on January 14. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [21 pages in PDF] regarding applications and notifications from foreign carriers or affiliates of foreign carriers for entry into the U.S. market for international telecommunications services and facilities under section 214 of Communications Act. This pertains to the effective competitive opportunities test or ECO Test. The FCC adopted this NPRM on October 10, and released the text on October 11. It is FCC 12-125 in IB Docket No. 12-299. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 227, November 26, 2012, at Pages 70400-70407.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR-7298 Rev. 2 [222 pages in PDF] titled "Glossary of Key Information Security Terms".

The House will meet. See, House calendar for 113th Congress, 1st Session.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "NIST Cloud Computing and Big Data Forum and Workshop". Free. See, NIST notice and notice in the Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 243, December 18, 2012, at Pages 74829-74830. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, Administration Building, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

10:00 AM. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in City of Arlington v. FCC (Sup. Ct. No. 11-1545) and Cable, Telecommunications and Technology v. FCC (Sup. Ct. No. 11-1547). See, Supreme Court calendar. See also, FCC merits brief. At issue is whether, in reviewing an agency's interpretation of its statutory authority, a court should apply the two part analysis set forth in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Location: Supreme Court, 1 First St., NW.

10:00 AM. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), will give a speech titled "The Agenda for the Senate Judiciary Committee for the 113th Congress". Reporters may register by contacting mediarelations at law dot georgetown dot edu. Location: Georgetown University law school, Hart Auditorium, McDonough Hall, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy (GCBPP) will host a panel discussion titled "U.S. Trade Policy: Where We've Been and Where We're Going". The speakers will be Linda Dempsey (National Association of Manufacturers), Bill Reinsch (National Foreign Trade Council), Howard Rosen (Peterson Institute for International Economics), Bradford Jensen (GCBPP), and Robert Vastine (GCBPP). Location: Room B-318, Rayburn Building.

12:10 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireline Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "The Lifeline Broadband Pilot Program". Location: Wiley Rein, 1750 K St., NW.

4:00 - 5:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an on site and webcast event titled "Still a series of tubes? The dynamic Internet and competition policy". The speakers will be Jeffrey Eisenach (Navigant Economics), Christopher Yoo (University of Pennsylvania law school), Jonathan Nuechterlein (Wilmer Hale), and Kevin Hassett (AEI). See, notice. Free. Open to the public. Location: AEI, 12th Floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

The House will not meet. See, House calendar for 113th Congress, 1st Session.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "NIST Cloud Computing and Big Data Forum and Workshop". Free. See, NIST notice and notice in the Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 243, December 18, 2012, at Pages 74829-74830. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, Administration Building, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 224, November 20, 2012, at Pages 69597-69598. Location: DOC, Hoover Building, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

1:00 PM. The US Telecom will host a webcast presentation titled "LTE Essentials". The speaker will be Annabel Dodd (Northeastern University). See, notice.

5:15 - 6:45 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Chased by the Dragon: Competition and Innovation in China and the United States". The speakers will be Robert Atkinson (ITIF), Nicholas Bloom (Stanford), Philip Levy (University of Virginia), Jimmy Goodrich (ITIC), and Alan Wolff (McKenna Long & Aldridge). See, notice. Location: ITIF/ITIC, Suite 610A, 1101 K St., NW.

6:00 - 7:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Committee will host a reception in honor of WCIT Ambassador Terry Kramer. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to its request for comments regarding how to "block illegal robocalls on landlines and mobile phones". The FTC states that this is a "competition". See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 205, October 23, 2012, at Pages 64802-64808.

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.