4/22. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) released its divided opinion [32 pages in PDF] in EEOC v. Ford Motor Company, a case regarding telecommuting and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the employer, Ford, on the EEOC's claims of employment discrimination and retaliation. This opinion holds that employers may be required to allow employees who cannot because of a disability make it to the worksite to telecommute instead, even on an unfixed schedule to be determined by the employee, and even for jobs that the employer determines must be performed at the workplace or other designated locations.

Introduction. Telecommuting can provide benefits to businesses through lower costs and greater worker productivity. It can provide benefits to employees who will spend less time commuting, and may prefer to work at home for family or other reasons. It also provides positive externalities through lower congestion on roads and rails, and less pollution. However, federal, state and local governments have often created disincentives to telecommuting in the private sector.

With this opinion, the 6th Circuit finds that the federal government can impose telecommuting on businesses under the rubric of enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990.

This case involves Title I of the ADA, which bans discrimination in employment. Most of the debates involving information and communications technology (ICT) and the ADA have involved Title III, which bans discrimination in public accommodations, such as restaurants and hotels. There has been debate because some courts and government agencies interpret public accommodations to include web sites, software and/or ICT devices.

Also, in 2010 the Congress enacted a sweeping bill to expand the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority to regulate, in the name of disability access, certain software, computers, electronic devices, and services that are used for communications.

Title III was enacted to increase access of persons with mobility disabilities to public places. That is, it was primarily enacted to force businesses to provide curb cuts, wheel chair ramps, elevators and other accommodations for persons in wheel chairs. Subsequent debates have focused on expanding by interpretation the meaning of Title III to cover access of persons with sight and hearing disabilities to ICT devices and services.

Title II bans discrimination by state and local governments. Title IV regulates telecommunications services for hearing and speech impaired persons. See, story titled "Summary of the ADA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,080, April 26, 2014.

The ADA has a troubled history. Its many supporters heap praise upon it. On the other hand, during the 1990s, economists published research papers in peer reviewed economics journals that reported the results of econometric analysis of employment and disability employment data collected by government agencies. The papers demonstrated that the ADA had caused a decrease in disability employment. That is, Title I has been counter productive to its stated goal.

This is a Title I employment discrimination case that finds that employers can be found to have discriminated for not allowing employees who cannot perform work duties at the location designated by the employer to perform those duties remotely with the aid of ICT.

This opinion, if followed in this and other circuits, is certainly not in the best interests of businesses, which will lose a degree of control over the management of their businesses. This opinion is likely not in the best interests of individuals with disabilities either. This is because employers would become less likely to hire people with disabilities for fear that they might be compelled into allowing telecommuting when work responsibilities cannot effectively be performed remotely. Employers would hire fewer persons with disabilities in the first place.

Facts. Ford hired Jane Harris as a resale steel buyer. The majority, which recited the facts in a manner most favorable to its finding that the District Court's grant of summary judgment was in error, wrote that this job involved "periodic site visits to observe the production process", and meetings with the suppliers. The Court continued that Ford determined that "such meetings were most effectively handled face-to-face, and that email or teleconferencing was an insufficient substitute for in-person team problem-solving".

Harris suffered from worsening irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), "an illness that causes fecal incontinence". The Court elaborated that "her symptoms worsened and, on particularly bad days, Harris would be unable even to drive to work or stand up from her desk without soiling herself".

Her work quality suffered, including her at home work.

She requested that she be permitted to telecommute on an as needed basis as an accommodation for her disability. Ford had a telecommuting policy that authorized employees to work up to four days per week from a telecommuting site. However, this policy also stated the telecommuting is not appropriate for all positions.

Ford instead offered her various alternative accommodations at the work site. She then filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination in violation of the ADA. Several months later, Ford terminated Harris.

The EEOC eventually filed a complaint against Ford in the U.S. District Court (EDMich) alleging failure to accommodate Harris's disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112, and retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203.

The District Court granted summary judgment to Ford on both claims. It found that Harris was unqualified, and that Ford had not failed to offer reasonable accommodations. The EEOC brought the present appeal.

Statute. Title I, at Section 12112, provides, in relevant part, that employers shall not discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability, and that discrimination includes not making reasonable accommodations for a qualified individual who has a disability.

The present case involves several issues, including whether Harris is a qualified individual, and whether or not allowing unscheduled teleworking constitutes failure to make reasonable accommodations.

Section 12112(a) provides that "No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment."

Subsection (b) then provides that discrimination includes "not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity".

Majority Opinion. Judge Karen Moore, joined by Judge Jeffrey Helmick (USDC/NDOhio sitting by designation), wrote the majority opinion reversing the judgment of the District Court on both claims.

She wrote that there are material issues of fact that preclude summary judgment by the District Court. Hence, the case goes back to the District Court for further proceedings.

She concluded that the EEOC could show that Harris was qualified.

She conceded that the 6th Circuit "previously concluded that telecommuting is not a reasonable accommodation for most jobs," except in unusual cases, citing Smith v. Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857 (1997). But, she continued "the class of cases in which an employee can fulfill all requirements of the job while working remotely has greatly expanded". Although, she did not elaborate on the developments in ICT.

She later wrote that "communications technology has advanced to the point that it is no longer an ``unusual case where an employee can effectively perform all work-related duties from home.´´"

Thus, Judge Moore has held that communications technology has changed in the last 16 years. Moreover, this changes how the ADA must be applied.

This provides very little guidance to the District Court, or to employers, regarding when, and under what circumstances, an employer must allow a disabled employee to telecommute. This provides very little guidance regarding what technology based solutions must be offered to the employee.

Dissent. Judge George McKeague wrote an opinion in which he dissented on both claims. He argued that "This court's precedent clearly states that an employee who cannot satisfy an employer's basic attendance requirements is unqualified under the ADA as a matter of law."

Moreover, he wrote that "The EEOC has simply failed to show that Harris could perform the essential functions of her job while telecommuting up to eighty percent of the workweek, or four out of five days, on an unpredictable schedule."

He also wrote that "we addressed whether the ADA compels employers to provide work-at-home arrangements in Smith v. Ameritech, and held that an employee’s requested accommodation to telecommute, in light of his job duties, was unreasonable as a matter of law."

Case Information. This case is EEOC v. Ford Motor Company, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 12-2484, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-13742, Judge John O'Meara presiding.

Judge O'Meara and Judge Moore were appointed by former President Clinton. Judge McKeague was appointed by former President Bush. Judge Helmick was appointed by President Obama.

4/30. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) amended and approved HR 4225 [LOC | WW], the "Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act of 2014" or "SAVE Act". The HJC approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and an amendment to that amendment.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the Chairman of the HJC, stated that there is "criminal epidemic and our children are the target. We've been referring all morning to this epidemic as domestic minor sex trafficking. But let’s call it what it really is -- the forcible rape of children for profit. And the Internet is spurring this epidemic. Criminals can now use websites to advertise, schedule, and purchase sexual encounters with children." See, opening statement.

Rep. Goodlatte (at right) added that "Many trafficking advertisements do not explicitly offer sex with children but rather disguise their illegal services using benign or vague terms. But some advertisements are explicit and it's these advertisements that the government will hopefully more successfully target once this legislation is enacted."

Rep. Goodlatte also noted during debate that over 600 federal statutes ban certain types of advertising.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), a former Chairman of the HJC, stated that the "internet makes it as easy to order up a young girl for the night as it is to order a pizza".

This legislation does not reference, but will impact, web site operators and their employees. The bill leaves great uncertainty regarding what may be the criminal liability of web site operators for carrying sex related ads, for hosting interactive or social networking sites in which users post sex related material, or for providing search results that list web pages that offer sex acts.

A vague and uncertain statute works to the advantage of the government when dealing with internet companies that have reputations to protect. Prosecutors will be able to easily obtain indictments if this bill is enacted. It may be irrelevant that a company could ultimately obtain a dismissal of the case. The threat by a prosecutor to obtain a indictment, to hold a news conference to publicize it, and to associate the company's name with "sex trafficking", may be enough to enable the government to dictate web site management practices.

Currently, 18 U.S.C. § 1591 enables prosecution of a wide range of persons for "participation in a venture" of sex trafficking. There is no dispute in the Congress regarding imposing severe criminal penalties on those engaged in core elements of trafficking for prostitution, such as coercing, transporting and selling women. The statute does not specify, however, as to just how far "participation in a venture" reaches, and how far beyond prostitution the term "sex acts" reaches.

This bill would enable prosecutors to prosecute not only those who coerce, transport and sell for prostitution. It would also enable prosecutors to prosecute certain businesses and employees that operate web sites where advertisements for sex acts are placed, posted, or returned as search results.

Since the bill approved by the HJC does nothing to clean up the existing lack of clarity in the statute, and fails to list, define and prohibit any practices of web site operators, it would increase the uncertainty.

The bill as introduced would have created a new Section 1591A. For a summary of that version, see story titled "House Judiciary Committee to Mark Up Sex Ads Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,648, April 28, 2014.

The bill as approved by the HJC drops that language, and instead tweaks the existing Section 1591 by adding a reference to advertising.

Section 1591, as amended at the HJC, would provides as follows. The amendments would add the words shown in red.

(a) Whoever knowingly---

(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, or maintains by any means a person; or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),

knowing, or, except where, in an offense under paragraph (2), the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

4/30. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stated during debate on HR 4225 [LOC | WW] that "I am not the biggest fan of some of the internet companies that spend their incredible wealth on the Democratic party".

This bill is primarily directed at enabling the federal government to regulate the business practices of internet companies.

Representatives and Senators only very rarely make statements of this nature during committee or floor debates. One may safely assume that these thoughts are often on their minds, and sometimes even affect their voting decisions, but they do not express these considerations in official proceedings.

This suggests that there may be a current of thought among Congressional Republicans about the political activities of some of the internet companies.

Moreover, while no Republican spoke up for the interests of internet companies during this mark up, in prior legislative debates, when the Republican leadership has pushed for legislation opposed by some internet companies, there have been Republicans on the HJC who have stood up to their party leadership, and sided with the internet companies.

Recall for example, the spirited opposition of Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) to the HR 3261 [LOC | WW], the "Stop Online Piracy Act" or SOPA during the HJC mark up of that bill in the 112th Congress in December of 2011. Recall also the opposition by the same trio to the data retention bill, HR 1981 [LOC | WW], approved by the HJC in the 112th Congress in July and August of 2011. Recall also that Rep. Sensenbrenner is now one of the most vocal members of the House on reigning in the surveillance activities of the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA is implementing Bush administration statutes.

But, not one Republican spoke up for the principle of protecting internet companies from unreasonable regulation by the federal government at the April 30 mark up. The sponsors' rationale for this bill is fighting sex trafficking. But then, the sponsors' rationale for the data retention bill was fighting sexual abuse of minors, and terrorism. It was titled "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act".

Rep. Issa, Rep. Chaffetz, and Rep. Sensenbrenner all backed HR 4225. Rep. Sensenbrenner did so with vehemence.

The vote on final passage was 24-3, with only Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) voting no. See, roll call. However, an earlier vote and the debate broke down along partisan lines. In the vote on Rep. Scott's amendment regarding mandatory minimum sentences, every Republican who voted, voted no, and every Democrat who voted, voted yes. See, roll call.

In short, Republicans unanimously supported this bill. Senior Democrats expressed objections. Junior Democrats largely avoided the mark up.

As Rep. Gohmert (at right) pointed out, internet companies back Democrats. Tech companies and their employees give to Democratic candidates and committees. Silicon Valley has not elected a Republican since Tom Campbell.

Mozilla's and Silicon Valley's treatment of Brendan Eich may also be on the minds of Rep. Gohmert and other Republicans. When internet companies lobby the Congress and regulatory agencies their mantra is usually internet freedom. The understanding of Rep. Gohmert and some other Republicans may be that internet companies did not extend the same freedom to Eich that they ask for themselves and their users. This may be particularly important for Rep. Gohmert and others because they share Eich's views.

Eich was terminated for his support for a state referendum that defined marriage. All but one Republican voted for a bill in 1996, HR 3396, the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), that took the same position. See, Roll Call. House Republicans then filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in defense of the DOMA.

Rep. Gohmert was not yet in the House in 1996. But, has been one of the most vocal supporters of the DOMA. See, YouTube video of his statement after the Supreme Court released its opinion on July 26, 2013, and YouTube video (at 4:05-5:10) of his April 8, 2014 exchange with Attorney General Eric Holder regarding a hypothetical situation similar to that of Eich.

See also, "Commentary: Brendan Eich and Internet Freedom" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,639, April 7, 2014.

4/30. The New America Foundation (NAF) announced the formation of a project named "X Lab" that will be headed by Sacha Meinrath, who was previously head of the NAF's Open Technology Institute.

The NAF stated in a release that X Lab will be "an incubator to rethink how technological advances support and curtail our civil rights and fundamental freedoms over time".

The NAF stated that X Lab issues will include "the development of new circumvention technologies". Meinrath and others elaborated at a news conference on April 30 about circumvention of firewalls and communications surveillance technologies.

The NAF stated that X Lab will also focus on "new manufacturing technologies like 3-D printing that are already beginning to disrupt many facets of the traditional manufacturing system". Meinrath stated that 3-D printing has the potential to affect patent protection in manner similar to how file sharing affected copyright protection.

Meinrath also said that X Lab will focus intelligent transportation systems and smart electricity grid policy, which he stated are interrelated with each other and IT policy.

Meinrath also talked about some long running spectrum and broadband issues at the X Lab's launch news conference.

5/1. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it approved by voice vote the nomination of Elisebeth Cook to be a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).

4/29. Nokia announced the appointment of Rajeev Suri as P/CEO, effective May 1, 2014. On April 25, Nokia completed the sale of its devices and services business to Microsoft. Nokia stated in a release that it will now focus on its other businesses -- Networks, Here, and Technologies. Its Networks business is products and services for telecom operators to manage the increase in wireless data traffic. Its Here business involves providing location data across different operating systems, platforms and screens. Its Technologies business includes its intellectual property licensing program, and further innovation. Suri has worked for Nokia since 1995. He was previously head of its Networks business.

TIME? Day one of a six day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". Location: Annapolis, MD.

The House will not meet.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Copyright Office (CO) will hold a hearing to assist it in preparing a study of U.S. law recognizing and protecting "making available" and "communication to the public" rights for copyright holders. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 37, February 25, 2014, at Pages 10571-10573. The deadline to submit comments in advance of this hearing is April 4, 2014.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Technology Policy Institute (TPI) will host a panel discussion titled "Internet Economics in a Changing Video and Data Environment". The speakers will include Stanley Besen (Charles River Associates), Joseph Cavender (Level 3 Communications), David Clark (MIT's Communications Futures Program), Bob Crandall (TPI and Brookings Institution), and Scott Wallsten (TPI). Breakfast will be served from 8:30 AM. Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: City Club, 555 13th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in H-W Technology v. Overstock.com, App. Ct. No. 14-1054. Panel B. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in CEATS v. Continental Airlines, App. Ct. No. 13-1529. Panel B. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

TIME? Day two of a six day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". Location: Annapolis, MD.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Recent Antitrust Developments: March and April 2014". The focus will be developments in the health care and pharmaceuticals markets. The speakers will be Kellie Kemp (WSGR) and Megan Browdie, Jacqueline Grise, Tanisha James, and Howard Morse (all of Cooley). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location: Cooley, Suite 700, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development(NITRD) Program's Middleware and Grid Interagency Cooridination (MAGIC) Team meets the first Wednesday of each month. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 226, November 22, 2013, at Page 70076. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "NSA Telephonic and Electronic Surveillance: The Executive, Legislative and Judicial Drivers of Reform and Likely Outcomes". The speakers will be David Valdez (FCC), Allan Friedman (George Washington University), Amie Stepanovich (Access), Kevin Bankston (New America Foundation), Douglas Bonner (Drinker Biddle & Reath), Michael Sussman (Perkins Coie), Marc Zwillinger (ZwillGen). Prices vary. CLE credits. No webcast. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on May 2. See, notice. Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, Conference Room 2B, 1500 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding text to 911 service. The FCC adopted this item on January 30, 2014, and released it on January 31, 2014. It is FCC 14-6 in PS Docket Nos. 10-255 and 11-153. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 43, March 5, 2014, at Pages 12442-12458.

The House will meet at 12:00 NOON.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Auction 84, which is for certain AM broadcast construction permits, is scheduled to begin. See, November 18, 2013 Public Notice (DA 13-2168 in AU Docket No. 13-268) and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 231, December 2, 2013, at Pages 72081-72086.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "E-Rate Modernization Workshop". See, Public Notice (DA 14-563 in WC Docket No. 13-184) with agenda. Webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONC/HIT) HIT Policy Committee will meet. See, DHHS notice and notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 243, December 18, 2013, at Page 76627. Location: __.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, App. Ct. No. 13-1504. Panel D. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in I/P Engine. v. AOL, App. Ct. No. 13-1307. Panel D. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Essociate v. Azoogle.com, App. Ct. No. 13-1446. Panel F. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

TIME? Day three of a six day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". Location: Annapolis, MD.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding Widelity Inc.'s report regarding the post-incentive auction transition. This PN is DA 14-389 in GN Docket No. 12-268. The FCC released it on March 20, 2014. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 61, March 31, 2014, at Pages 18026-18027.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 63, April 2, 2014, at Page 18605. Location: National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Samsung Electronics v. USITC, App. Ct. No. 13-1519. Panel H. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a discussion of the book titled "Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law and the Common Good". The speakers will be the author, Tom Bell (Chapman University School of Law), Chirstopher Newman (George Mason University School of Law), and and Jim Harper (Cato). Free. Open to the public. Webcast. See, notice. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Privacy and Social Media". The speakers will be Richard Santalesa (The Sm@rtEdgeLaw Group), Christopher Hearsey (Bigelow Aerospace), Adrian Fontecilla (Proskauer Rose), Peter Gillespie (Fisher & Phillips), and Jessica Flanigan (Monument Policy Group). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

TIME? Day four of a six day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". Location: Annapolis, MD.

8:30 AM - 2:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 63, April 2, 2014, at Page 18605. Location: National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Technology Policy Institute (TPI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Evolving Media Landscape: What do the Data Show?". The speakers will include Michael Smith (TPI and Carnegie Mellon University), Joel Waldfogel (University of Minnesota), Alejandro Zentner (University of Texas at Dallas), and Thomas Lenard (TPI). Breakfast will be served from 8:30 AM. Free. Open to the public. See, notice. Location: City Club, 555 13th St., NW.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "Accelerating Sustainability: Maximizing the Benefits of Connected Cars". See, notice. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

9:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law will hold a hearing on Comcast's proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. The witnesses will be __. Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Couterterrorism and Intelligence and Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protections, and Security Technologies will hold a hearing titled "Assessing Persistent and Emerging Cyber Threats to the U.S. Homeland". The witnesses will be __. See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda once again includes consideration of S 1720 [LOC | WW], the "Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013". See, stories titled "Patent Legislation Update" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,637, April 7, 2014, and "Senate Judiciary Committee Members Still Working on Patent Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,641, April 17, 2014. The agenda also includes consideration of four District Court nominees: Carlos Mendoza (MDFl), Darren Gayles (SDFl), Paul Byron (MDFl), and Beth Bloom (SDFl). Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Cross Atlantic Capital Partner v. Facebook, App. Ct. No. 13-1596. Panel L. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

TIME? The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will meet to consider two advisory opinions regarding application of the federal election campaign finance regulatory regime to Bitcoins. See, Draft A and Draft B. See, story titled "FEC to Consider Bitcoin Advisory Opinions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,642, April 18, 2014. Location: FEC, 999 E St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The American Bar Association's (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law will host an on site and teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Antitrust Analysis in Digital Platform Markets: Just One Side of the Story?". The speakers will be Lisa Kimmel (FTC), Aaron Hoag (DOJ), Pete Levitas (Arnold & Porter), Marc Rysman (Boston University), and Scott Sher (WSGR). Prices vary. No CLE credits. See, notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "The Impact of Regulatory and Industry Standards on Patents". The speakers will be Logan Breed (Hogan Lovells), Jorge Contreras (American University law school), Michelle Herman (Intellectual Ventures), and Michael Hawes (Baker Botts). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Compulsory Video Licenses of Title 17". The witnesses will be __. Webcast. See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protections, and Security Technologies will hold a hearing titled "Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Threat to Critical Infrastructure". The witnesses will be __. See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "Conflicts of Interest in Buy/Sell Transactions: How to Spot and Avoid Them". The speakers will be Ted Frank (Arnold & Porter), Alison Bost (Womble Carlyle), Bernard DiMuro (DiMuro Ginsburg), Saul Singer (District of Columbia Bar), Lawrence Movshin (Wilkinson Barker Knauer), Marni Byrum (McQuade Byrum), George Clark, and Michael Frisch (Georgetown University Law Center). CLE credits. No webcast. Prices vary. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on May 7. See, notice. Location: __.

TIME? Day five of a six day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". Location: Annapolis, MD.

TIME? Day six of a six day event hosted by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRDP), DARPA, NSA, and others titled "High Confidence Software and Systems Conference". Location: Annapolis, MD.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will hold a partially closed meeting. The agenda includes reports on "science, technology, and innovation in China". See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 81, April 28, 2014, at Page 23340. Location: National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW.

9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will hold a meeting regarding "ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting". Open to the public. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 40, February 28, 2014, at Pages 11400-11401. Location: BEA, 1441 L St.,  NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, App. Ct. No. 13-1640. Panel N. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Innovative Biometric Technology v. Toshiba America, App. Ct. No. 13-1288. Panel M. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a public hearing on its memorandum titled "Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Natural Products (Laws of Nature/Natural Products Guidance)'', released on March 4, 2014. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 74, April 17, 2014, at Pages 21736-21738. See also, story titled "USPTO to Hold Hearing on Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting Laws of Nature" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,640, April 16, 2014. Location: USPTO, Madison Auditorium, 600 Dulany St., Alexandria, VA.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding the FCC's attributable material relationship rule. This PN is DA 14-414 in GN Docket Nos. 12-268 and 13-185 and WT Docket No. 05-211. The FCC released it on March 27, 2014. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 71, April 14, 2014, at Pages 20854-20855.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding FCC rules that require fax advertisements sent to a consumer who has provided prior express invitation or permission to include an opt-out notice. This PN is DA 14-556 in CG Docket Nos. 02-278 and 05-338. The FCC released it on April 25, 2014.

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 1998-2014 David Carney. All rights reserved.