8/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its opinion [11 pages in PDF] in UPRS v. Kaplan, a case regarding copyright in pleadings drafted for filing with a court.

This is a copyright infringement case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court (EDNY) for the defendant Norman Kaplan, an attorney who, in another proceeding, copied and filed pleadings in which the plaintiffs, Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc. (UPRS) and Bernard Gelb, claim copyright.

Although, this is a very narrow ruling. It applies the concept of implied license, and only to copying within one legal action. This opinion does not reach the broader issue of copying pleadings from one action for use in another action, or in collections of legal forms.

It has long been a standard practice of attorneys to copy from the pleadings, discovery requests, contracts, and other legal documents drafted by other attorneys. Legal publishers publish collections of such form documents. Lawyers also turn to court records, property records offices, and other public sources. Lawyers also ask other lawyers for sample language.

The Chief Justice of the state in which the author of this article practiced addressed this topic in a speech many years ago at a swearing in ceremony for new members of the state bar. He told newly admitted lawyers never to hesitate to ask a more senior lawyer, at their firm or any other firm, for copies or form language for pleadings and other legal documents. He admonished senior lawyers never to refuse such a request. He explained that this is critical for fulfilling two fundamental ethical objectives of the bar -- maximizing the quality legal services, and minimizing the cost to clients.

The Court of Appeals in the present case rejected a copyright claim to legal pleadings, but in a much narrower manner, and upon less lofty principles. It relied upon the concept of implied license to copy within one legal action.

It summarized the issue, and its holding, as follows: "This case presents an issue of first impression: whether the holder of a copyright in a litigation document who has authorized a party to a litigation to use the document in the litigation may withdraw the authorization after the document has already been introduced into the litigation and then claim infringement when subsequent use is made of the document in the litigation. We hold that such an authorization necessarily conveys, not only to the authorized party but to all present and future attorneys and to the court, an irrevocable authorization to use the document in the litigation thereafter." (Footnote omitted.)

The alleged copyright infringement occurred in another legal action, the nature of which is not material to the present action. Gelb, who in the present action is a plaintiff below and an appellant before the Court of Appeals, drafted a complaint and exhibits in the other action. Gelb and UPRS (also a plaintiff/appellant) claim copyright in these pleadings. Initially, in that other legal action, Kaplan was attorney for Gelb, UPRS, and the other plaintiffs. He filed the complaint and exhibits with the District Court. The District Court dismissed the complaint as time barred. Kaplan filed an appeal.

While the appeal was pending, Kaplan ceased to represent Gelb and UPRS, but continued as attorney for the other plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's dismissal. On remand, Kaplan, representing all but Gelb and UPRS, filed an amended complaint and amended exhibits which copied language from the original complaint and exhibits drafted by Gelb. Meanwhile, Gelb and UPRS registered the pleadings with the Copyright Office, and then filed the present action in the District Court against Kaplan alleging copyright infringement.

There is another twist. Gelb is not an attorney. Hence, he is not bound by the ethical considerations that govern attorneys. This also makes the facts of this case very rare. Typically lawyers draft complaints for clients; in this case the client drafted a complaint for his attorney.

The District Court dismissed the copyright infringement complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, based upon the very narrow holding that Gelb and UPRS had granted Kaplan an irrevocable implied license to file an amended version of the original complaint and exhibits. Gelb and UPRS then brought the present appeal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same narrow grounds of implied license to continue to make use pleadings drafted for one action later in that same action.

It offered this rationale. "Litigation cannot be conducted successfully unless the parties to the litigation and their attorneys are free to use documents that are a part of the litigation. The parties rely on such documents as a means of establishing the nature of the dispute and the facts and legal arguments that have been put forward by each party. This is true at both the trial and appellate levels. A court’s ability to perform its function depends on the ability of the parties (and their attorneys) to put before it copies of all the documents in contention and to serve one another with copies of such documents." (Parentheses in original.)

The Court of Appeals continued that "The courts could not thoroughly and fairly adjudicate a matter if suddenly in the midst of litigation the parties lost the right to give the court copies of documents already used in the litigation that support their arguments. The holder of the copyright in a document who authorizes a party to use that document in a litigation knows, or should know, those inevitable consequences of the authorization. Accordingly, the copyright holder’s authorization will be construed to encompass the authorization, irrevocable throughout the duration of the litigation, not only to the expressly authorized party but to all parties to the litigation and to the court, to use the document for appropriate purposes in the conduct of the litigation."

The Court also wrote that "Under the theory advanced by UPRS and Gelb, the attorney could deny the client the right to reproduce the pleading or prepare derivative works if the client fires the attorney and seeks to hire different counsel. The attorney could use copyright law to hamper the client's ability to select his own counsel -- a right that is one of the foundations of our system of justice".

There is, however, a flip side unaddressed by the Court -- the unscrupulous client who switches attorneys to evade paying legal fees. This arises, for example, in cases in which there is a considerable amount of necessarily immediate legal work, as in cases in which there are risks of witness flight, dissipation of assets, destruction of property, and/or physical violence. That is, the client at risk goes to law firm A, which assembles a team that promptly conducts legal research, develops case strategy, obtains affidavits, and drafts a complaint, motion for temporary restraining order, and supporting memorandum. Before the client has paid a retainer, he takes drafts to law firm B -- a firm of lesser expertise and ethics -- which edits only the signature lines, files, and charges the client much less than is owed to law firm A. Law firm A receives no payment. It could sue the client under the fee contract, but there are many reasons for not suing one's own clients. It has no contractual relationship with law firm B. Under the holding of the present case, it may have no copyright claim against law firm B either. This creates a perverse incentive for unscrupulous clients and law firms to free ride on the services of other law firms, and a disincentive for law firms to do any work, even in emergencies, if they have not yet received a retainer.

Issues Not Addressed. The Court of Appeals did not reach the question of whether the pleadings at issue are copyrightable subject matter, nor if so, whether or when copying the pleadings would constitute fair use.

Nor did the Court of Appeals address copying for use outside of the litigation for which the pleadings were drafted.

This was the issue in White v. West. Edward White filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) in 2012 against the owners of Westlaw and LexisNexis alleging copyright infringement for publishing copies of legal pleadings. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant publishers. See, February 11, 2013 order [2 pages in PDF]. The defendants had asserted fair use.

That case is Edward White v. West Publishing Corporation and Reed Elsevier, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01340-JSR, Judge Ned Rakoff presiding.

Publication of Pleadings by TLJ. For over 15 years TLJ has quoted extensively from, and published entire copies of, complaints, motions, memoranda, briefs, and amicus curiae briefs filed with trial and appellate courts, as well as filings with administrative agencies. While most have been sent to TLJ by the author on his or her own initiative, or in response to a request from TLJ, many were acquired from public records, and published by TLJ without permission from the author.

Yet, in 15 years no author has complained to TLJ. Indeed, no one has ever complained to TLJ that TLJ has infringed a copyright. Of course, TLJ has received complaints and criticisms about stories or documents published by TLJ, but not one complaint or criticism has asserted copyright as a basis.

This history is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that most lawyers do not consider their legal pleadings to be copyrightable subject matter. On the other hand, neither is this inconsistent with the hypothesis that these lawyers consider publication by TLJ to be "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting" within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 107, and hence, a fair use limitation upon the exclusive rights of copyright.

See also,

• April 18, 2012 article by Timothy McCormack titled "Lawyers too Litigious for their Own Good -- Claiming Copyright Protection in Legal Briefs".
• February 22, 2012 article in the Wall Street Journal by Chad Bray titled "Keep Your Hands off My Briefs: Lawyers Sue Westlaw, Lexis".
• 2009 article in TechDirt by Mike Masnick titled "Are Legal Briefs Filed With A Court Covered By Copyright?".
• 2007 article in the Bench & Bar of Minnesota by Thomas Stueber titled "Due Diligence in Drafting: Copyrights in Legal Documents".

The present case is Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc. and Bernard Gelb v. Norman Alan Kaplan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 12-4030, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Judge Katzmann wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Leval and Hall joined.

8/28. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that sets an imminent deadline -- September 4 -- for filing comments on matters raised by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) petition for rulemaking [4 pages in PDF] regarding the First Responder Network Authority, which is also known as the FirstNet.

The NTIA's petition is titled "comments", but is in the nature of a petition for rulemaking. The NTIA urges the FCC "to amend its technical service rules" affecting the FirstNet, and "to refrain at this time from imposing additional reporting requirements or other obligations with respect to license renewal" on the FirstNet, particularly with respect to rural areas.

The United Telecom Council (UTC), Motorola, and the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association (NRECA) and National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA, which is transitioning to the brand of Rural Broadband Association) have argued that the FCC should be encouraging rural deployment by adopting milestones that could be used to review FirstNet's license renewal. See for example, UTC filing and NRECA/NTCA filing.

The FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) released a Public Notice (PN) [4 pages in PDF] on August 19 requesting comments. It is DA 13-1775 in PS Docket Nos. 12-94 and 06-229, and WT Docket No. 06-150. See also, FR, Vol. 78, No. 167, August 28, 2013, at Pages 53124-53126, which set the deadline to submit comments to the FCC.

8/28. Victoria Espinel joined the Business Software Alliance (BSA) as President and CEO, effective September 3, 2013. She was previously the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.

8/27. The White House news office released a statement that names five persons to be members of the President's "Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology". The five are Richard Clarke (Good Harbor Security Risk Management), Michael Morell (recently retired Deputy Director of the CIA), Geoffrey Stone (University of Chicago law school), Cass Sunstein (Harvard law school) and Peter Swire (Georgia Tech business school).

8/29. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in a release that is has filed an administrative complaint against LabMD, Inc. The FTC did not release a copy of the complaint, because LabMD has asserted "confidential business information". The release does not disclose the legal theory of the case, or even what statute is alleged to have been violated. The release does disclose that the complaint "alleges that LabMD billing information for over 9,000 consumers was found on a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network and then, in 2012, LabMD documents containing sensitive personal information of at least 500 consumers were found in the hands of identity thieves". The release adds that this includes names, Social Security numbers, and bank account information. The release does not disclose what remedies the FTC seeks.

8/28. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) released, and set the deadline for commenting upon, its Interim Environmental Review (IER) [89 pages in PDF] of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The TPPA is important to producers and users of information technology based products and services, particularly in its provisions regarding intellectual property (IP). This IER identifies numerous environmental issues in the countries that are party to the TPPA, including air pollution, water quality, waste management, deforestation, poaching, invasive species, and fisheries management. However, the IER identifies no impact of IP provisions on any of these environmental issues. The deadline to submit comments to the OUSTR is 11:59 PM on September 25, 2013. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 167, August 28, 2013, at Pages 53183-53184.

8/23. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and state plaintiffs filed in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) their Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed Injunction [108 pages in PDF] in USA v. Apple, the e-books antitrust case.

8/16. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration [29 pages in PDF] regarding tower construction near AM stations. This item states, "First, the Order establishes a single protection scheme for tower construction and modification near AM tower arrays. Second, the Order designates “moment method” computer modeling as the principal means of determining whether a nearby tower affects an AM radiation pattern. These actions take another step in the Commission’s modernization by replacing time-consuming direct measurement procedures with an efficient computer modeling methodology that is reflective of current industry practice." This is FCC 13-115 in MM Docket No. 93-177. The FCC adopted it on August 14, and released it on August 16.

9:00 AM - 3:30 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will hold a closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 151, August 6, 2013, at Page 47674. Location: NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Internet Caucus will host a panel discussion titled "Buying Your Next Plane Ticket Online: How Can the Internet Make Travel More Efficient?". The speakers will be Matthew Jennings (International Air Transport Association), Charlie Leocha (Consumer Travel Alliance), Rob Pegoraro, Sharon Pinkerton (Airlines for America), and Andrew Weinstein (Open Allies for Airfare Transparency). Free. Open to the public. Box lunches will be served. Location: Room 2226, Rayburn Building.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) will meet, on site and by webcast. The CSMAC will report the recommendations of three working groups: (1) WG3 1755-1850 MHz Satellite Control Links and Electronic Warfare, (2) WG4 1755-1850 MHz Fixed Point-to-Point and Tactical Radio Relay, and (3) WG5 1755-1850 MHz Airborne Operations. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 156, August 13, 2013, at Page 49260. Location: DOC, Hoover Building, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

Deadline for witnesses to submit their written testimony to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) in advance of its September 9 hearing in its Section 301 investigation of the intellectual property related actions of government of Ukraine. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 143, July 25, 2013, at Page 45011. Location: OUSTR, 1724 F St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:00 PM. The Heritage Foundation will host a panel discussion titled "Privacy and Liberty". The speakers will be Jim Geraghty (National Review), Debbie Rose (Association for Competitive Technology), Paul Rosenzweig (Red Branch Law and Consulting), and James Carafano (HF). See, notice. Location: HF, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

2:30 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host a public meeting regarding development of a "Consumer Data Privacy Code of Conduct Concerning Mobile Application Transparency". See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 154, August 9, 2013, at Pages 48655-48656. Location: American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) [127 pages in PDF] regarding "how to streamline or eliminate legacy regulations contained in the Computer Inquiry proceedings and that are applicable to the Bell Operating Companies". This item is FCC 13-69 in CC Docket Nos. 95-20 and 98-10. The FCC adopted its huge titled "Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" on May 10, 2013, and released the text on May 17. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 126, July 1, 2013, at Pages 39233-39237.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding spectrum allocations for space related purposes. This NPRM makes two alternative proposals to modify the Allocation Table to provide interference protection for Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) earth stations operated by federal agencies under authorizations granted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in certain frequency bands. This NPRM also proposes to amend a footnote to the Allocation Table to permit a Federal MSS system to operate in the 399.9-400.05 MHz band, and makes alternative proposals to modify the Allocation Table to provide access to spectrum on an interference protected basis to FCC licensees for use during the launch of launch rockets. This item is FCC 13-65 in ET Docket No. 13-115. The FCC adopted and released this item on May 9, 2013. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 126, July 1, 2013, at Pages 39200-39232.

Labor Day. This is a federal holiday. See, OPM list of 2013 federal holidays.

The House will not meet the week of September 2 through September 6. It will return from its August recess on Monday, September 9. See, House calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

The Senate will not meet the week of September 2 through September 6. It will return from its August recess on Monday, September 9. See, Senate calendar for the 113th Congress, 1st Session.

8:30 AM - 2:00 PM. The President's Committee on the National Medal of Science will hold a closed meeting to review and evaluate nominations. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 154, August 9, 2013, at Page 48724. Location: National Science Foundation (NSF), 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

12:00 NOON - 3:00 PM. The Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee will meet via teleconference. The DOE stated in its notice in the Federal Register (FR) that the purpose of the meeting is "to discuss progress of the subcommittee for the exascale challenges charge". See also, DOE letter of July 29, 2013. See, FR, Vol. 78, No. 160, August 19, 2013, at Pages 50404-50405.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry (FNPRM & NOI) regarding human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields. The FCC adopted this item on March 27, 2013, and released it March 29, 2013. It is FCC 13-39 in ET Docket Nos. 03-137 and 13-84. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 107, June 4, 2013, at Pages 33654-33687. See also, story titled "FCC Addresses Cellphone RF Exposure" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,543, April 1, 2013.

EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 4. Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding whether the FCC should "require apparatus manufacturers to ensure that their apparatus synchronize the appearance of closed captions with the display of the corresponding video". This FNPRM is FCC 13-84 in MB Docket No. 11-154. The FCC adopted this item on June 13, 2013, and released the text on June 14. See, original notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 127, July 2, 2013, at Pages 39691-39698. See also, Public Notice (DA 13-1785) extending deadlines. See also, story titled "FCC Again Addresses Closed Captioning Mandates for Video Programming Delivered Using IP" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,578, June 17, 2013.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initial comments and oppositions to the May 16, 2013 petition [14 pages in PDF of the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers (Amazon, Kobo and Sony) for a waiver of the FCC's disability access rules for e-readers. See, August 1, 2013 Public Notice, DA 13-1686 in CG Docket No. 10-213.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-38 G [30 pages in PDF] titled "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: Methods for Format-Preserving Encryption".

1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee for the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference's Informal Working Group 3 (Space Services) will meet by teleconference. See, FCC's August 22, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-1790 in IB Docket No. 04-286). The call in numbers are 888-858-2144 or 646-746-3008. The access code is 8672480.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau (MB) in response to its June 25, 2013 Public Notice (PN) [6 pages in PDF] regarding video description of video programming that is delivered via both television and the internet. This PN is DA 13-1438 in MB Docket No. 11-43. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 129, July 5, 2013, at Pages 40421-40424.

Deadline to submit all comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on matters raised by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) petition for rulemaking [4 pages in PDF] regarding the First Responder Network Authority, aka FirstNet. The FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) released a Public Notice (PN) [4 pages in PDF] on August 19 requesting comments. It is DA 13-1775 in PS Docket Nos. 12-94 and 06-229, and WT Docket No. 06-150. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 167, August 28, 2013, at Pages 53124-53126, which sets the deadline to submit comments to the FCC.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host a webcast and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Risk Factors for Second Request Merger Investigations by the DOJ and FTC". The speakers will be Margaret Calvert (Compass Lexecon), Mike Cowie (Dechert), Michael Knight (Jones Day), Darren Tucker (Bingham McCutchen), and Robert Davis (Venable). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

3:00 - 4:30 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) and the Free Press (FP) will host a panel discussion regarding Verizon v. FCC. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument on September 9. The speakers will be Susan Crawford (Cardozo School of Law), Angie Kronenberg (Comptel), Marti Doneghy (AARP), Matt Wood (FP) and Sarah Morris (NAF). See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) statements supporting or opposing the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments' (ACTA) June 25, 2013 Petition for Rulemaking [7 pages in PDF]. See, FCC notice (Report No. 2989) and ACTA release of June 28.

8:30 AM. The Department of Labor's (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is scheduled to release its August 2013 unemployment data.

9:00 - 10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee for the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference's Informal Working Group 1 (Maritime, Aeronautical and Radar Services) will meet by teleconference. See, FCC's August 22, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-1790 in IB Docket No. 04-286). The call in numbers are 888-858-2144 or 646-746-3008. The access code is 8672480.

10:00 - 11:30 AM. The Brookings Institution (BI) will host a panel discussion titled "Securing a More Sustainable Growth Path for China". The speakers will be Eswar Prasad (BI), Marcus Rodlauer (International Monetary Fund), David Dollar (BI) and Stephen Roach (Yale University). See, notice. Location: BI, 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:15 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Does Aspen Skiing Apply to Intellectual Property Rights?". See, Supreme Court's 1985 opinion in Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands, 472 U.S. 585, and amicus curiae brief [25 pages in PDF] filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with the U.S. District Court (DNJ) in Actelion Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex. The speakers will be Koren Ervin (FTC), Jonathan Gleklen (Arnold & Porter), Markus Meier (FTC), and Ali Stoeppelwerth (Wilmer Hale). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, ABA notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) regarding proposed revisions to the sample reseller certification language and accompanying sections of the FCC Form 499-A instructions. See, Public Notice, DA 13-1700 in WC Docket No. 06-122. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 160, August 19, 2013, at Pages 50415-50416.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding Time Warner Cable's (TWC) August 8, 2013 Petition for Preemption [30 pages in PDF] of the North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority (NCREA) with respect to the arbitration of an interconnection agreement between TWC and Star Telephone Membership Corporation. See, FCC's August 16, 2013 Public Notice, DA 13-1772 in WC Docket No. 13-204.

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.