News Briefs from July 6-10, 2001

Bush Picks Bybee for OLC
7/10. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Jay Bybee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Other former heads of the OLC include Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, former Attorney General William Barr, and 4th Circuit Judge Mike Luttig.
Bybee is a professor at the University of Nevada Law School. Prior to that he was a professor at Louisiana State University Law School from 1991 to 1998. He was an Associate Counsel to former President Bush. Prior to that he worked at the Department of Justice in the Office of Legal Policy and then in the Civil Division. And before that he was an associate in Washington DC law firm of Sidley & Austin. See, White House release and UNLV bio.
Walker to Leave SEC
7/10. Richard Walker, Director of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, announced that he will leave the SEC and return to the private sector. He has not yet accepted a new position. See, SEC release. During his tenure, the Enforcement Division created an Office of Internet Enforcement and began the SEC's efforts against online securities fraud.
More People and Appointments
7/10. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Mark Olson to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the remainder of a 14 year term expiring January 31, 2010. He was previously Staff Director of the Securities Subcommittee for the Senate Banking Committee. See, release.
7/10. President Bush nominated Harvey Pitt to be a Member of the SEC for a term expiring June 5, 2005. He will replace Isaac Hunt. See, release.
7/10. President Bush nominated Michael Melloy to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit. See. release.
7/10. Senate Democrats announced new additions to committees to reflect the Democratic control of the Senate following Sen. Jim Jeffords' (VT) switch. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) was added to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) was added to the Senate Commerce Committee.
7/10. Todd Stern joined the Washington DC office of the law firm of Wilmer Cutler & Pickering as a partner. He was previously an aide to former President Clinton. He will focus on congressional investigations and crisis management. See, WCP release [PDF].
Markle Foundation Advocates Internet Regulation
7/10. The Markle Foundation released a report [3.86 MB in PDF] based on public opinion polls and focus groups studies titled "Toward a Framework for Internet Accountability" at events at the National Press Club and on Capitol Hill. The report advocates taxing sales over the Internet, and regulation of the Internet. See also, Markle release.
The poll was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan & Rosner. Stan Greenberg, who was a pollster for Bill Clinton, and Zoe Baird, President of the Markle Foundation, presented the report. It is a massive 108 pages, packed with tables, bar charts, and thermometers depicting responses to poll questions. It is part study, and part advocacy. The questions were selected and worded to provide support for the policy objectives of the authors.
Among the major conclusions of the report are that a majority of the American public believe that "the government should develop rules to protect people when they are on the Internet", that "Businesses and people on the Internet can't be trusted to regulate themselves", that companies should have opt-in privacy policies, and that e-commerce should be taxed.
Other than regulation in general, and privacy and taxes in particular, the report reveals little about public attitudes about many other current Internet public policy issues. For example, the poll asked individuals to rate their concerns about the Internet, from a list provided by the pollster. The list included Internet pormography, privacy, hacking, and other topics. However, respondents were not given the option of naming spam. Nor did this question, or any other question contained in the report, address antitrust issues (such as Microsoft's conduct) or intellectual property issues (such as peer to peer music file copying). Nor does the Markle report examine public attitudes about the "digital divide" or promoting broadband access (such as with the Tauzin Dingell bill).
Privacy. The report states by 64% to 32% the public favors the government developing new rules for the Internet. Then, on the next page, the report states that the public favors opt-in to opt-out privacy practices by 58% to 37%. The wording of this question did not reference the government mandating privacy practices.
Taxes. The report contains poll results on taxing Internet commerce. It found that 60% of respondents answered affirmatively to the statement, "On-line commerce should be subject to the same taxes as other commerce, so that Internet businesses do not have an artificial advantage over other businesses." The report contains no questions regarding bans on multiple taxes, discriminatory taxes, or taxes on Internet access, which are the subject of the current tax moratorium, as well as the legislation that is likely to pass later this year extending the moratorium.
Filtering. When the pollsters asked respondents to name their concerns about the Internet, "pormagraphy and violence on the Internet" was named most (49%). "Protecting children on the Internet" came in second (46%). "Privacy of information on the Internet" was third (34%). The report presents follow up questions on privacy. The report contains no follow up questions on pormagraphy or protecting children. There is no question in the report regarding whether respondents favor mandating the use of filtering by schools and libraries, or protecting children from material on the Internet that is harmful to minors. Also, while the report touts the statistic that 64% favor government rules, the report does not explore what kinds of rules the public wants -- i.e., privacy rules, filtering rules, spam rules, or what.
Lessig Condemns Congress and Courts on Intellectual Property
7/10. Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, participated in a panel discussion on the Markle Report at the Capitol Hill event. He did not discuss the report. Instead, he offered his analysis of intellectual property on the Internet, discrimination in Internet architecture, and other issues not addressed by the Markle report.
Copyright. Lessig stated that "if we focus now on what have the priorities of the government been, both the legislative and judicial priorities, it, of course, has been the priorities of Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti, and not the priorities of the American people." He continued that "Privacy is an extremely important issue. The legislative response has been, 'Well, let's go slow. Let's let the market take care of itself.' " In contrast, "the legislative response has been to radically increase the legislative support for the protection of copyrights. The same thing in the context of the judiciary branch. In context of the number one priority of protecting children from access to pormography in cyberspace, the judicial response has been, 'We have got to go slow; we have got to make sure that any regulations are actually effective, and we don't harm free speech in cyberspace.' In the context of copyright, the courts' response has been 'Let's go as quickly as we can to make sure that we stop all violations of copyright in cyberspace.' " (Hillary Rosen is P/CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America; Jack Valenti is P/CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America.)
Code. Lessig also reiterated the thesis of his book, Code and other Laws of Cyberspace. He stated that "the significant issue about governance in cyberspace is the way in which the architecture matters. The architecture of cyberspace is the space where rules are set. And it is a pathetic, incomplete analysis that most of us have about cyberspace to think that it is really about what legislators say. The real legislators are the code writers."
Discriminatory Internet Architecture. Lessig also lamented that the Internet is becoming less of a neutral platform. He stated that "the Internet is a library because its architecture is neutral. It is a neutral platform. ... Barnes and Noble is not a library. Cable companies are not a libraries. The problem with the emerging architecture of cyberspace is that the architecture itself is becoming a platform where discrimination is enabled. The generation of broadband technologies is the generation where the owners of the platform, the cable companies, will have the rights, and in Broward County, a First Amendment right, to discriminate in the kind of content ... ." (See, District Court opinion in Comcast v. Broward County.)
SEC Files Complaint Against PacketSwitch
7/10. The SEC announced that it filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Packet Switch and its principal, Steven Ristau, alleging violation of federal securities laws in connection with the sale of securities in a corporation set up to develop a wireless Internet technology by which movies could be viewed via the Internet. The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented that they had a new technology that allowed it to broadcast movies wirelessly over the Internet, and that they had or were in the process of obtaining patents. The complaint alleges violation of §§ 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Ristau and Packet Switch. It also alleges violation of § 15(a) of the Exchange Act (broker dealer registration) against Ristau. See, release.
Trade Subcommittee Holds Hearing on China Trade
7/10. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Trade held a hearing on renewal of Normal Trade Relations with the People's Republic of China. Rep. Philip Crane (R-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee, said in his prepared statement that "we must keep the momentum moving forward toward our common goal of integrating China into the international system of rules and standards. It is my judgment that, after 15 years, we are almost there. ... slapping China through revocation of NTR will not bring about the changes that we all seek in China."
See also, prepared statements of witnesses: Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Jeffrey Bader (Assistant USTR China, Hong Kong, Mongolia, and Taiwan), Bob Stallman (American Farm Bureau Federation), Gary Benanav (New York Life), Robert Kapp (U.S. China Business Council), and Calman Cohen (Emergency Committee for American Trade).
Fed Circuit Rules in Patent Case
7/10. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion in Door Master v. Yorktowne, a patent infringement case involving cabinet door design. The Appeals Court held that the District Court correctly declined to enter judgment as a matter of law, thereby allowing the jury's findings of validity and infringement to stand. Also, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney fees. Affirmed.
GAO Reports Information Security Weaknesses at Interior Dept.
7/10. The GAO released a study [PDF] titled "Information  Security: Weak Controls Place Interior's Financial and Other Data at Risk." The GAO examined "information system general controls over the financial systems maintained by the Department of the Interior at its National Business Center (NBC) in Denver, CO." It concluded that "weaknesses were identified in NBC-Denver’s information system control environment. Specifically, NBC-Denver had not adequately limited users access, controlled system software, secured network access, or established a program to comprehensively monitor access. Also, NBC-Denver was not providing adequate physical security, segregating computer functions, controlling changes to application programs, or ensuring that all aspects of its service continuity needs were addressed. These weaknesses placed sensitive NBC-Denver financial and personnel information at risk of disclosure, critical financial operations at risk of disruption, and assets at risk of loss."
Computerized Voting Systems
7/10. The FEC published a notice in the Federal Register that it requests comments on proposed revisions to the 1990 national voluntary performance standards for computerized voting systems. Comments are due by September 10, 2001. See, Federal Register, July 10, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 132, at Pages 35978 - 35980.
Powell Meets with CLEC CEOs
7/10. FCC Chairman Michael Powell met with the CEOs of a dozen competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). See, FCC release. The agenda included "what has worked and what has not worked in terms of CLEC market entry; what issues relate to the successes or failures of CLEC access to capital markets;  to what extent CLEC success or failure can be attributed to business/market decisions as compared to policy/regulatory decisions; what is necessary for the CLEC industry to succeed; are there any technological limitations that pose challenges to the success of the CLEC industry; and what, if anything, can the FCC do, consistent with the law and principled economics, to support local communications competition beyond what it has already done."
Davis and Moran Reintroduce Cyber Security Bill
7/10. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) introduced the Cyber Security Information Act of 2001. They also sponsored similar legislation in the 106th Congress. The bill is intended to give critical infrastructure industries incentives to share information in order to fight cyber threats. Rep. Davis stated that "Many in the private sector have expressed strong support for information sharing models, but have also expressed concerns about voluntarily sharing information with the government and the unintended consequences they could face for acting in good faith. There has been concern, for example, that industry could potentially face antitrust violations for sharing information with other industry partners; have their shared information be subject to the Freedom of Information Act; or face potential liability concerns for information shared in good faith. This bill addresses all of those concerns." See, Davis release.
Industry groups praised the bill. See, release of the Information Technology Association of America, and release of the Chamber of Commerce.
More News
7/10. The House Judiciary Committee issued Report No. 107-125, regarding HR 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.
8th Circuit Rules on Prisoner's Use of Computer
7/9. The U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its opinion in Cody v. Weber, a case regarding a prisoner's constitutional right of access to the courts in the context of his use of a personal computer and electronic storage media, and searches of his electronic records by prison officials. The Appeals Court held that the prisoner was not entitled to keep his computer.
Background. William Cody has been serving a life sentence for murder in the South Dakota State Penitentiary since 1978. He is now a jailhouse lawyer who occupies his time by filing lawsuits against prison officials, and others. He first acquired a PC in 1982. He has around one hundred computer disks on which he has stored personal and legal data, including communications with real attorneys. In 1996 the prison changed its policy, and required Cody to dispose of his PC. It allowed him to print out files. Cody filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DSD) against prison officials alleging numerous claims. Cody appealed the District Court's summary judgment on three claims: his right to retain his computer; reading of his electronic records by prison officials; and retaliation by prison officials for filing lawsuits.
Prisoner's Use of PC. The District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claim regarding use of a computer. It held that he was not entitled to continued use of his computer. The Appeals Court affirmed. The issue was not whether a prisoner has a right to use a computer. Rather, Cody argued that since his notes were in electronic format, it would be a denial of his right of access to the courts to deny him access to a computer to access his notes. The Appeals Court, noting that the prison allowed him to print out any files, rejected his argument. It concluded that he suffered no injury, which is a required element of claim for denial of access to the courts.
Search of Electronic Records. The District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claim regarding unauthorized reading of his computer records on the grounds that there was no actual injury. The Appeals Court reversed, holding that Cody had raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether his records had been searched, and whether he had been injured -- by being disadvantaged in ongoing litigation.
The Court of Appeals also reversed the District Court on the retaliation claim. The opinion was split. Judge Gibson wrote the opinion of the Court; Judge McMillian joined. Judge Beam would have upheld the District Court in full.
7/9. The USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding elimination of continued prosecution application (CPA) practice as to utility and plant patent applications. See, Federal Register, July 9, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 131, at Pages 35763 - 35765. The notice stated that the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 enacted provisions for the continued examination of a utility or plant application at the request of the applicant, and therefore, "there no longer appears to be a need for continued prosecution application (CPA) practice as to utility and plant applications. Thus, the Office is proposing to eliminate CPA practice as to utility and plant applications. An applicant for a utility or plant patent may also continue to effectively obtain further examination of the application by filing a continuing application under section 1.53(b). Since RCE practice does not apply to design applications, CPA practice will remain in place for design applications." Written comments must be received on or before September 7, 2001.
RIM Wins Patent Infringement Suit
7/9. The U.S. District Court (NDCal) granted summary judgment to Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry wireless e-mail devices, in Glenayre's action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,631,503. The Court found that RIM's products did not infringe the patent in suit, which discloses a battery based power generation technique for use in wireless communication devices. Glenayre stated that it will seek reconsideration by the District Court. See, Glenayre release.
DrKoop Settles Securities Litigation
7/9. announced that it has reached a tentative agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against it and several former and current officers and directors in the U.S. District Court (WDTex). It stated that it will pay $4.25 Million. See, drkoop release.
Bush Names New NSTAC Members
7/9. President Bush announced his intent to appoint six people to the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC): Daniel Burnham (Raytheon Company), Joseph Nacchio (Qwest), Van Honeycutt (Computer Sciences Corporation), Clay Jones (Rockwell Collins), and David Cote (TRW). Duane Ackerman (BellSouth). In addition, Burnham will become Chairman, and Nacchio will become Vice Chairman. The NSTAC was created by President Reagan by Executive Order 12382 in September of 1982. It provides information and advice to the President from the perspective of the telecommunications industry regarding the telecommunications aspects of national security. See, release.
9th Circuit Affirms Copyright Infringement Judgment
7/9. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Columbia v. Krypton, a copyright infringement case. Krypton Broadcasting operated three TV stations that licensed programs from Columbia Broadcasting. Elvin Feltner was its principal. The stations failed to make timely licensing payments. Columbia terminated the licensing agreements. The stations continued to air the programs. Columbia filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal) against Krypton and Feltner alleging copyright infringement. The District Court found Feltner vicariously and contributorily liable for the copyright infringement committed by the TV stations, and awarded $31.68 Million in statutory damages. Feltner appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed.
ICANN Report
7/9. The ICANN published in its web site a document titled A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS. See also, comment by Stuart Lynn, President and CEO of ICANN.
7/9. Former Rep. Richard Zimmer (R-NJ) joined the Washington DC office of the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher as of counsel in the firm's Corporations Department and its Public Policy Group. He was a Member of Congress from 1991 through 1997, and sat on the House Ways and Means Committee. See, release.
More News
7/9. Webvan, an online grocer, ceased all operations. It stated that it intends to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.
7/9. Comcast made an offer to acquire AT&T's broadband businesses for 1.0525 Billion shares of Comcast stock, which had a value of $44.5 Billion as of the closing price on Friday June 6. See, Comcast release. AT&T responded that "We have no current plans to sell our Broadband business." See, AT&T release.
7/9. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued an opinion in Hallco v. Foster, a patent infringement action. The Appeals Court vacated and remanded.
First Amendment Trumps IP Rights in Tootsie Case
7/6. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Hoffman v. LA Magazine, reversing the District Court's holding that the LA Magazine had misappropriated actor Dustin Hoffman's name and likeness by publishing a fake photo of him in women's cloths. The Appeals Court invoked New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment case protecting serious journalism, to insulate a publisher of a fake celebrity photo from intellectual property claims. While the suit is over publication of a computer altered photo of Hoffman, the intellectual property issues involved in the case will affect a broad range of other fact patterns.
Facts. Dustin Hoffman starred in a 1982 movie titled "Tootsie" in which he played the part of a straight man who dressed up as a woman to get an acting job. In 1997 LA Magazine (LAM) published an altered photograph from the movie. It did not obtain the permission of either Hoffman or the copyright holder, Columbia pictures. LAM used computer technology to alter a still photograph from the movie to depict Hoffman in a Richard Tyler gown and Ralph Lauren heels. The caption referenced the Lauren heels; Lauren advertised in the same issue.
Complaint. Hoffman filed a complaint in California state court against LAM's parent company, Capital Cities/ABC (now ABC), alleging that LAM's publication of the altered photograph misappropriated Hoffman's name and likeness in violation of the California common law right of publicity, the California statutory right of publicity (Civil Code § 3344), the California unfair competition statute (Business and Professions Code § 17200), and the federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court (CDCal). Hoffman later added LAM as a defendant.
District Court. The District Court held for Hoffman on all claims against LAM. It also rejected LAM's First Amendment defense, holding that the "First Amendment does not protect the exploitative commercial use of Mr. Hoffman's name and likeness." The Court also awarded Hoffman $1.5 Million in compensatory damages and $1.5 Million in punitives.
Appeals Court. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, and directed that judgment for LAM be entered. In many recent cases defendants have sought unsuccessfully to avoid the consequences of intellectual property laws by invoking the First Amendment clause protecting "freedom of speech or of the press". However, in this case, the Court reversed on First Amendment grounds. The Court held that the publication of the picture in question was not commercial speech. It further held that since Hoffman is a public figure, he could only prevail by showing actual malice, that its, "reckless disregard for the truth" or a "high degree of awareness of probable falsity", pursuant to New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). But, the Court reasoned, there was no falsity, because the LAM article stated that the photo was a fake. Robert Boochever wrote the opinion; Wallace Tashima and Richard Tallman joined.
6th Circuit Holds Implied in Fact Contract Claims not Preempted by Copyright Act
7/6. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued its opinion in Wrench v. Taco Bell, a case involving preemption of state law contract and tort remedies by the federal Copyright Act.
Background. The plaintiffs, Wrench LLC and its two principals, are the creators of a cartoon character named "Psycho Chihauhua." Following discussions with the plaintiffs, the defendant, Taco Bell, began an ad campaign featuring a Chihuahua dog similar to that developed by plaintiffs, but without plaintiffs' permission. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (WDMich) against Taco Bell, based upon diversity of citizenship, in which they plead various implied contract and tort causes of action.
District Court Opinions. The trial court issued three opinions. It granted summary judgment to Taco Bell on the grounds that the Copyright Act preempted all of the claims, including those based on breach of an implied in fact contract. The trial court also held that plaintiffs' concept lacked the novelty necessary to sustain their claims. (See, 1998 WL 480871, 36 F. Supp. 2d 787, and 51 F. Supp. 2d 840.)
Appeals Court. The Appeals Court reversed. The preemption language of the Copyright Act, found at § 301, provides that a state common law or statutory claim is preempted if the work is within the scope of the "subject matter of copyright," as specified in §§ 102 and 103, and, the rights granted under state law are equivalent to any exclusive rights within the scope of federal copyright as set out in § 106. The Appeals Court held that neither the subject matter nor equivalency prongs of the test were satisfied, and hence, there is no preemption. It held that since the plaintiffs' claims pertain to intangible ideas and concepts, they do not come within the subject matter of copyright; § 102(b) expressly excludes intangible ideas and concepts. It also held that an implied in fact contract claim under Michigan law contains the additional element of expectation of compensation, which is not an element of a § 106 claim, and hence, not equivalent. The Appeals Court also held that the Michigan Courts would not impose a novelty requirement in an implied in fact contract claim.
Torricelli Amendment
7/6. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the Telecom Subcommittee, wrote a letter to Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Chairman of the House Rules Committee, regarding the Torricelli amendment. This is an amendment to the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill that imposes a new lowest unit charge rule on broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite providers. Tauzin and Upton requested that the Rules Committee craft a rule that would delete the provision from the base text of the Shays Meehan bill, yet permit its proponents to offer an amendment on the House floor.
On June 28, 2001, the House Administration Committee reported two bills. HR 2360, sponsored by Rep. Robert Ney (R-OH) and Rep. Al Wynn (D-MD), was reported favorably. HR 2356, sponsored by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), was reported unfavorably. HR 2356 more closely resembles S 27, the McCain Feingold bill, which passed the Senate on April 2 after a long and contentious debate. It contains the Torricelli amendment.
Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) is an unlikely sponsor of campaign finance reform legislation. Torricelli, and current and former staff members, are currently being investigated by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White (SDNY) for violation of campaign finance laws. Several persons have already plead guilty to making illegal contributions to his campaign.
DC Circuit Upholds OTARD Order
7/6. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion in Building Owners and Managers Assoc. Intl. v. FCC, a petition for review of the FCC's rule prohibiting restrictions on certain over the air reception devices (aka OTARD) that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, video programming services via multipoint distribution services, or TV broadcast signals. Several trade associations challenged the FCC's order on the grounds that it exceeds the statutory authority of the FCC, constitutes an unconstitutional taking, and is arbitrary and capricious. Petition denied.
Judge Rogers wrote the opinion, in which Randolph and Garland concurred. In addition, Randolph wrote a separate concurance to state that he would have overruled Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
WTO Chief Condemns "Anti Globalization Dot Com Types"
7/6. WTO Director General Mike Moore gave a speech in Geneva, Switzerland, titled "Open Societies, Freedom, Development and Trade". It was a condemnation of the hooligans who use violence to try to stop WTO meetings from taking place. He criticized the "mindless, undemocratic enemies of the open society who have as a stated aim the prevention of Ministers and our leaders from even meeting."
However, Moore also stated that "It would strengthen the hand of those who seek change if NGOs distance themselves from masked stone-throwers who claim to want more transparency, anti-globalization who trot out slogans that are trite, shallow and superficial. This will not do as a substitute for civilized discourse." He did not explain what he meant by the phrase "anti-globalization"
7/5. DG Moore also gave a speech in Interlaken, Switzerland, in which he again advocated a new round of multilateral trade negotiations.
More News
7/6. The NCTA filed its reply brief [PDF] with the Supreme Court of the U.S. in NCTA v. Gulf Power Company, the pole attachments case.

Go to News Briefs from July 1-5, 2001.