News from December 26-31, 2001

More Microsoft News
12/31. The states which have not joined in the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice and states filed an opposition to Microsoft's December 21 motion to delay the trial. Microsoft promptly filed a reply on December 31. This is Civil Action Nos. 98-1232 and 98-1233 (CKK), pending in the U.S. District Court (DC).
Federal Circuit Reverses in Linear Technology v. Micrel
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion in Linear Technology v. Micrel, a patent infringement case involving application of the on-sale bar.
Linear Technology filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Micrel alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,755,741, which pertains to adaptive transistor drive circuitry used in telecommunications, cell phones and computers. The District Court held the patent invalid due to the on-sale bar.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) provides that "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States".
The Appeals Court reversed. The Court stated that in its recent decision, Group One v. Hallmark Cards, 254 F.3d 1041 (2001), required reversal. In that opinion, which was handed down after the District Court ruled in this case, the Court changed the analysis required to determine whether an offer for sale has occurred.
FTC May Investigate Deceptive Internet Advertising in Securities & Commodities Businesses
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion in FTC v. Ken Roberts Co., holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has authority to investigate deceptive Internet advertising and marketing practices, notwithstanding the fact that such practices relate to securities and commodities trading regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Background. The appellants, Ken Roberts Co., and others, sell instructional materials that purport to teach investors how to make money by investing in the commodities and securities markets. The Court noted that they "rely heavily on Internet advertising: their web sites feature grandiose claims about potential earnings by investors and testimonials from persons who have allegedly benefitted from Ken Roberts' instructional materials." The FTC, which has authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to investigate unfair and deceptive trade practices, began to investigate appellants' practices. The FTC issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) requiring them to produce documents and respond to written interrogatories. They refused to comply. They argued that the FTC was precluded from investigating in this area because its activities fall under the authority of the CFTC and SEC, pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act and the Investment Advisers Act.
Proceedings Below. Appellants filed an administrative petition with the FTC to quash the CIDs. The FTC rejected the petition. Appellants still refused to comply. The FTC then petitioned the U.S. District Court (DC) to compel enforcement. The District Court granted the petition. Appellants then filed the present appeal.
Appeals Court Holding. The Appeals Court affirmed. Judge Harry Edwards, writing for a unanimous three judge panel, rejected appellants' arguments: "Neither the Commodity Exchange Act nor the Investment Advisers Act evince an unambiguous intent to deprive the FTC of its otherwise applicable authority to investigate possibly deceptive advertising and marketing practices merely because those practices relate to either the commodities or the securities business."
DC Circuit Rules on Challenge to FCC 271 Order for OK/KAN
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion in Sprint v. FCC, a challenge to the FCC's approval of SBC's application to provide long distance service in the Oklahoma and Kansas. The Appeals Court did not overturn the FCC's order; however, it remanded the matter to the FCC for further proceeding on one issue. See also, PDF copy.
Background. 47 U.S.C. § 271, which was part of the bargain struck in the 1996 Telecom Act, provides that the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) are allowed to provide in region interLATA service (i.e., long distance service) in a state once they have satisfied the FCC that they have opened up their facilities to their competitors in that state. SBC, the RBOC whose original territory includes Oklahoma and Kansas, filed a § 271 application for these two states on October 26, 2000. Various commenters opposed the application. The FCC issued an order granting that application on January 22, 2001. Sprint and other appellants filed a petitions for review of that order with the Court of Appeals, which were subsequently consolidated into this one case.
Issues on Appeal. Appellants made three arguments. First, they pointed out the low level of residential service being provided by competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) in these states, and argued that the unbundled network element (UNE) rates could not have genuinely conformed to the cost requirement, or else competition would have flourished, or at least not proven so modest. The also argued that SBC's UNE rates were too high to provide profitable residential service, and hence, that SBC was engaged in a price squeeze -- the charging of prices for inputs that precluded competition from firms relying on those inputs. This argument concluded that the FCC could not find that authorization of its entry into the long distance market was "consistent with the public interest". Second, appellants attacked the FCC's findings that the UNE rates were cost based. Third, appellants argued that the FCC improperly relied on ex parte communications.
Appeals Court Holding. Judge Stephen Williams, writing for a unanimous three judge panel of the DC Circuit, wrote that the FCC "gave appellants' claim rather a brush-off" on the "public interest" aspect of the first issue. The Court concluded that "Because the Commission has offered an inadequate justification for why it thought that evidence of a "price squeeze" precluding profitable CLEC competition was irrelevant to its public interest analysis, we remand the case for reconsideration of that issue." The Court rejected the other two appeal arguments.
FCC Allows E-Rate Funds to Support Non Educational Uses
12/28. The FCC published a notice in the Federal Register that it adopted an Order [PDF] on November 29, 2001, that permits schools and libraries in the State of Alaska that receive e-rate subsidies to allow their facilities to be used by the general public to receive telecommunications and Internet services. This order took effect on December 28, 2001.
The statutory section which serves as the basis for the e-rate program applies to "schools, and libraries for educational purposes". It states, in part: "Telecommunications services for certain providers ... All telecommunications carriers serving a geographic area shall, upon a bona fide request for any of its services that are within the definition of universal service under subsection (c)(3) of this section, provide such services to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes at rates less than the amounts charged for similar services to other parties." See, 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B).
This order applies to "rural remote communities in Alaska ... when the services are not in use by the schools and libraries for educational purposes." [Order, at ¶ 6.] The order further states that it is limited "to communities in Alaska where there is no local or toll-free dial-up Internet access". [Order, at ¶ 13.]
See, Federal Register, December 28, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 249, at Pages 67112 - 67114. This is FCC 01-350 in CC Docket No. 96-45.
DC Circuit Upholds FCC in MCI v. FCC
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion in MCI WorldCom Network v. FCC. The Court of Appeals upheld an FCC order dismissing MCI's complaint that Bell Atlantic violated the terms of a pricing condition contained in the order approving the merger of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX. MCI should have filed its complaint with a state public utility commission. See also, PDF copy of opinion.
MCI filed a complaint with the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 208 alleging that Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) violated the pricing requirement set forth by the FCC in its order approving the merger of Bell Atlantic and NYNEX Corporation. The FCC issued an order dismissing MCI's complaint, on the basis that the proper forum for MCI's complaint was the state public utility commissions, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252.
MCI filed the present petition for review with the Court of Appeals. A unanimous three judge panel agreed with the FCC, and denied the petition for review. The Court wrote: "Given the presumption of validity and the high level of deference due to an agency in interpreting its own orders and regulations ... we cannot say that the FCC acted unreasonably in declining to enforce the Paragraph 6 condition of the Merger Order in a parallel and duplicative section 208 proceeding. MCI seeks no relief from the FCC that the state public utility commissions cannot grant in their capacity as arbitrators under section 252."
DC Circuit Rules in Teledesic Case
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion in Teledesic v. FCC, dismissing as moot challenges to FCC rules which the FCC revised after the filing of Teledesic's petition for review, and denying as meritless the remaining challenges. See also, PDF copy of opinion.
Teledesic is a Bellevue, Washington, based company that is building a global broadband communications network based on low earth orbit satellites. It states that it plans to deploy this "Internet in the Sky" service in 2005. It is a privately held company whose primary investors are McCaw, Bill Gates, Motorola, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, the Abu Dhabi Investment Company and Boeing.
Teledesic filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review of an FCC order governing the reallocation of a band of radio spectrum previously shared by satellite and traditional terrestrial spectrum users. Teledesic objected to the new rules requiring satellite operators to pay the relocation costs incurred by terrestrial operators during the initial reallocation period. However, the FCC revised its rules just after the filing of the petition for review. The Appeals Court held two issues on appeal are rended moot by the rule revisions. It found other issues to be meritless.
Court Holds Computer Search Can Violate Both 1st and 4th Amendment Civil Rights
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion in Trulock v. Freeh, holding that Notra Trulock may proceed with his civil suit for damages against FBI employees for searching password protected files on a computer in violation of his constitutional rights. All three members of the appeal panel agreed that Trulock had sufficiently plead a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights, based upon government retaliation for publication of a news article critical of the government. Two judges wrote that Trulock could not proceed with a second claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. They wrote that he had sufficiently plead a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but since the case law on computer searches was not clear on this point at the time of the search, this claim may not proceed. One judge dissented on this point; he would have let this claim proceed also.
The Los Alamos - Wen Ho Lee Affair. This case arises out of the saga of security breaches and bungled investigations and prosecutions involving nuclear weapons technology held by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Much of the media coverage and Congressional investigations focused on the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, and one Wen Ho Lee. One of the plaintiffs in the present suit, Notra Trulock, was the DOE's Director of the Office of Intelligence from 1994 to 1998, and Director of the DOE's Office of Counterintelligence from 1995 to 1998.
Whistleblower. Trulock was the "whistle blower" in this affair. He had uncovered evidence of espionage at the DOE. However, the DOE, FBI, and Clinton administration did not take significant action upon his warnings. When the matter became a public scandal in 1998, he appeared before Congressional committees, and spoke with journalists. He states that he was demoted, and then forced out of the DOE.
FBI Retaliation. The complaint states that the National Review (NR) published an article that circulated in early July 2000 that contained excerpts from a longer article written by Trulock. The complaint states that the Trulock's article contained "his criticisms of the Clinton Gore White House, the DOE, the FBI and the CIA for their mishandling and cover-up of the Chinese spy threat, as well as the compromise of national security at U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, including Los Alamos." (Neither Trulock's original article, nor the NR article containing excerpts, is now in the NR web site; however, this article about the article is.) On July 14, the FBI retaliated.
The Computer. The complaint states that one Linda Conrad and Trulock shared a townhouse, which Conrad owned. The two also shared a computer, but each maintained separate, password protected files on the hard drive. The computer was located in a bedroom. No warrant had been issued for either a search of the house, or the computer. Conrad signed a consent to search. She states that it was coerced. Trulock consented to nothing. The FBI searched the computer for about 90 minutes. The FBI then confiscated the hard drive.
District Court Complaint. Trulock and Conrad promptly filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDVa) against various FBI employees, in their individual capacities, alleging violation of their First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. The defendants range from then FBI Director Louis Freeh down to the FBI technician who searched the computer in the bedroom. The complaint is based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which held that an individual may bring a civil suit against a federal officer for damages stemming from a constitutional violation.
The complaint contains two counts. Count one alleges violation of the Fourth Amendment. It alleges that the Defendants violated Conrad's rights by seizing her during the interview, violated Conrad and Trulock's rights by coercing Conrad's consent to search their home, and that Conrad's consent, even if voluntary, was insufficient to permit the search of Trulock's private computer files. Count two alleges violation of the First Amendment. It alleges that the FBI conducted the search and seizure in direct retaliation for the unflattering magazine article.
District Court Ruling. The District Court, Judge Albert Bryan presiding, dismissed the complaint prior to pre-trial discovery for failure to state a claim upon which can be granted, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).
Appeals Court. Judge Benson Legg wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Roger Gregory joined, reversing the dismissal of the complaint as to the First Amendment count. Judge Blane Michael concurred on the First Amendment count reversal, but dissented regarding the majority's affirmance of the dismissal as to the Fourth Amendment count.
Fourth Amendment Claim. The Appeals Court first wrote that there was no Fourth Amendment violation based on allegations of coerced consent; the interrogation was not custodial, and Conrad consented to the search. However, the Court continued that "Conrad lacked authority to consent to the search of Trulock's files. Conrad and Trulock both used a computer located in Conrad's bedroom and each had joint access to the hard drive. Conrad and Trulock, however, protected their personal files with passwords; Conrad did not have access to Trulock's passwords. Although Conrad had authority to consent to a general search of the computer, her authority did not extend to Trulock's password protected files."
The Court reasoned that "Consent to search in the absence of a warrant may, in some circumstances, be given by a person other than the target of the search." However, "the third party must have authority to consent to the search." It continued that "Authority to consent originates not from a mere property interest, but instead from "mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched." The Court cited U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), as authority.
However, having concluded that under the Fourth Amendment the FBI lacked authority to search Trulock's files, the Court nevertheless upheld the dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claim. The Court stated that the case law on this issue was not clear in July 2000, when the search was conducted. It wrote that "the Defendants are entitled to immunity because a reasonable officer in their position would not have known that the search would violate clearly established law".
Now, the law is clear. Trulock cannot proceed with his Fourth Amendment claim for damages, but future similarly situated plaintiffs will be able to pursue Fourth Amendment Bivens claims.
First Amendment Claim. The Appeals Court wrote that "we find that Trulock has alleged sufficient facts in support of his retaliation claim to withstand a motion to dismiss and proceed to discovery. The complaint contains facts that bolster Trulock's claim of improper motive. First, the timing of the search raises an inference of retaliatory motive. ... The article was published in early July 2000 and the search occurred on July 14, 2000. The article chastised the White House, the CIA, the DOE, and the FBI, the very agency that executed the search. According to the Plaintiffs, a criminal referral is necessary for the FBI to commence an official investigation. The complaint alleges, however, that the FBI initiated the investigation without receiving a criminal referral from the DOE. ... All of these factors, when viewed together and accepted as true, raise a reasonable inference that the interrogation and search were retaliatory."
The Court also found that the defendants lacked qualified immunity from a First Amendment Bivens claim. The government argued that the National Review article "did not enjoy First Amendment protection" and hence no "reasonable officer would have known that retaliatory conduct was impermissible". The Court briefly rejected this argument.
Dissent. Judge Michael dissented in part. He wrote that "The owner of password protected computer files has a clear expectation of privacy in those files that is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Another person who does not know the passwords has no authority to consent to a search of these private files because he lacks the ``joint access or control´´ required by U.S. v. Matlock ... This should have been abundantly clear to any reasonable law enforcement officer operating in the year 2000. I therefore respectfully dissent ..."
10th Circuit Affirms Conviction Based on Laptop Search
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir)." issued its opinion in U.S. v. Russell Walser, a criminal search and seizure case involving a laptop. The Appeals Court upheld warrant based searches of a laptop, and a sentencing condition prohibiting use of the Internet without permission of the probation office.
Background. A motel manager reported to police that Walser had drugs in motel room occupied by him and another person. Police obtained a search warrant that covered "records, and/or receipts, written or electronically stored, ... that show or tend to show ownership or control of the premises and other property used to facilitate the distribution and delivery [of] controlled substances". Police then searched the room, found Walser's laptop, and searched it for drug related records. However, police also opened a single AVI file, and found child pormography. Police then obtained a second warrant specifically addressing evidence of child pormography. The second search found further illegal images. Walser was charged with possession of child pormography.
District Court. The U.S. District Court (DWyo) denied Walser's motion to suppress evidence collected from his laptop by police officers. Walser then plead guilty. The Court imposed a sentencing condition that prohibits him from using the Internet without prior permission from the U.S. Probation Office. He appealed both the denial of the motion to suppress, and the sentencing condition.
Appeals Court. The Appeals Court affirmed on both issues. It wrote that "The advent of the electronic age and, as we see in this case, the development of desktop computers that are able to hold the equivalent of a library's worth of information, go beyond the established categories of constitutional doctrine. Analogies to other physical objects, such as dressers or file cabinets, do not often inform the situations we now face as judges when applying search and seizure law. ... officers conducting searches (and the magistrates issuing warrants for those searches) cannot simply conduct a sweeping, comprehensive search of a computer's hard drive. Because computers can hold so much information touching on many different areas of a person's life, there is a greater potential for the ``intermingling´´ of documents and a consequent invasion of privacy when police execute a search for evidence on a computer."
The Court found that opening a single AVI, or other graphics file, during a search for records of drug transactions is permissible. However, the Court suggested that had the police searched through more graphics files, without a warrant covering graphics files, this would have violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant.
The prosecution had also argued that "because computer files can be re-labeled to disguise their contents, an agent is free to open any file in order to determine its contents and that therefore, opening the AVI file did not exceed the scope of the warrant." The Court left this argument "for another day", since it affirmed on other grounds.
More Court Opinions
12/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion in Compaq v. IRS, a tax case. Compaq engaged in a foreign stock transaction involving the purchase and resale of American Depository Receipts (ADRs). The U.S. Tax Court held that because the ADR transaction lacked economic substance, the transaction should be disregarded for federal income tax purposes. The Appeals Court reversed.
12/28. The California Court of Appeal (4/3) issued its opinion [PDF] in Charles Burns v. Nature's Best, a case regarding application of the definition of "confidential communication" under § 632 of California Privacy Act in a civil suit arising out of the audio recording of a telephone conversation conducted with a speakerphone without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff prevailed in the trial court. The Court of Appeal reversed.
FCC Reallocates Spectrum
12/28. The FCC announced that it adopted an order reallocating 27 megahertz of spectrum from federal government use to other uses. The order reallocates seven small spectrum blocks: the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz, 1427- 1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz bands. This is ET Docket No. 00-221. See, FCC release.
More News
12/28. President Bush signed into law HR 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. See, signing statement by Bush.
12/28. President Bush signed into law S 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. See, signing statement by Bush.
NIST Taking Applications for Summer Undergrad Research Fellowships
12/27. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a notice in the Federal Register that it is seeking grant applications for several programs, including the 2002 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF). The SURF program includes funding for fellowships with the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory (EEEL), the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL), and other labs. See, Federal Register, December 27, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 248, at Pages 66874 - 66887.
NIST's ITL has activities in the areas of high performance computing and communications systems, emerging network technologies, access to, exchange, and retrieval of complex information, computational and statistical methods, information security, and testing tools and methods to improve the quality of software.
NIST's EEEL has activities in the areas of "electrical metrology and of metrology supporting industry and government agencies in the board areas of semiconductors, electronic instrumentation, radio frequency technology, optelectronics, magnetics, video, electronic commerce as applied to electronic products and devices, the transmission and distribution of electrical power, national electrical standards (fundamental, generally quantum based physical standards), and law enforcement standards."
The NIST notice states that "SURF students will have the opportunity to work one on one with our nation's top scientists and engineers. It is anticipated that successful SURF students will move from a position of reliance on guidance from their research advisors to one of research independence during the twelve week period. One goal of this partnership is to provide opportunities for our nation's next generation of scientists and engineers to engage in world class scientific research at NIST, especially in ground breaking areas of emerging technologies."
USTR Seeks Comments on Telecom Agreements
12/27. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments on the operation and effectiveness of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecommunications Agreement, the telecommunications provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and other telecommunications trade agreements. This is pursuant to an annual review of telecom agreements required by Section 1377. Comments are due by 12:00 Noon on January 28, 2002. See, Federal Register, December 27, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 248, at Pages 66963 - 66964.
Bush Finalizes PR China PNTR
12/27. President Bush signed a proclamation extending nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of the People's Republic of China. This is the final step in extending permanent normal trade relations status to the PR China. It takes effect January 1, 2002. This terminates the annual Jackson Vanik trade certification process.
Yahoo Acquisition of HotJobs
12/27. Yahoo and HotJobs announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement regarding Yahoo's acquisition of HotJobs. Yahoo will acquire HotJobs for a total equity value of approximately $436 Million. The transaction is subject to expiration or termination of the Hart Scott Rodino waiting period. The law firm of Skadden Arps was legal advisor to Yahoo on this transaction. The law firm of Wachtell Lipton was legal advisor to HotJobs. See, Yahoo release.
People and Appointments
12/27. California Governor Gray Davis announced the appointment of Conrad Rushing as an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District (San Jose). Rushing has been a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County since his appointment by Governor Brown in 1978. Recently, he presided over the criminal prosecution of Avant Corporation and various individuals in connection with the theft of trade secrets from Cadence Design Systems. The case culminated with no contest pleas, and large fines and restitution.
12/27. California Governor Gray Davis announced the appointment of Jon Tigar as a Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court. He is currently a partner with the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest. His practice includes unfair competition, antitrust, and intellectual property cases.
GAO Reports on E-Commerce at USPS
12/26. The GAO released a report [PDF] titled "U.S. Postal Service: Update on E-Commerce Activities and Privacy Protections". The report concludes that the "USPS continues to have difficulty defining, identifying, and classifying its Internet related initiatives, including e-commerce initiatives. Additionally, inconsistency remains in the implementation of its processes and controls for developing, approving, and monitoring the performance of e-commerce initiatives. Also, financial information related to its e-commerce and Internet related activities is not complete, accurate, and consistent. In our opinion, a major factor contributing to USPS’ limited progress in this area has been its management approach. Overall, the management of USPS’ e-commerce program has been fragmented, and implementation of e-commerce initiatives has been inconsistent across the various business units involved in these activities."
The 52 page report was prepared for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), the ranking Republican on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services.
USTR Seeks Special 301 Comments
12/26. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments regarding foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.
The USTR requests comments pursuant to its duties under § 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2242, which is better known as the "Special 301" provisions. Comments are due by 12:00 Noon on Friday, February 15, 2002. See, Federal Register, December 26, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 247, at Pages 66492 - 66493.
California Governor Davis Appoints Judges
12/21-26. California Governor Gray Davis announced appointments for the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (San Francisco): Laurence Kay (Presiding Justice of Division Four), James Marchiano (Presiding Justice of Division One), Linda Gemello (Associate Justice in Division Five), Sandra Margulies (Associate Justice in Division One), Stuart Pollack (Associate Justice in Division Three), and Maria Rivera (Associate Justice in Division Four). Kay and Marchiano are both currently Associate Justices of the Court of Appeal. Gemello is currently a San Mateo Superior Court Judge. Margulies is currently an Alameda County Superior Court Judge. Pollack is currently a San Francisco Superior Court Judge. Rivera is currently a Contra Costa Superior Court Judge.
Gov. Davis announced the appointment of Ronald Robie to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Sacramento). He is currently a Sacramento Superior Court Judge.
Gov. Davis announced the appointment of Richard Fybel to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Orange County).
Gov. Davis also announced several Superior Court Appointments. He named Newton Lam to the San Francisco Superior Court. He is currently a Commissioner in the San Francisco Municipal and Superior Courts. He also announced the appointments of Joel Pressman to the San Diego Superior Court, Gilbert Lopez to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Claudia Silbar to the Orange County Superior Court, and Peter Polos to the Orange County Superior Court.
More News
12/26. The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress published a notice in the Federal Register that the Librarian of Congress has rejected the initial and revised reports of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) in the Phase II proceeding in the syndicated programming category for distribution of the 1997 cable royalty funds. He further remanded the case for a new proceeding before a new CARP. See, Federal Register, December 26, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 247, at pages 66433 - 66455.

Go to News Briefs from December 21-25, 2002.