News from September 11-15, 2004

DOJ Charges Infineon With Felony Price Fixing; Infineon Pleads Guilty

9/15. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a criminal information in the U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Infineon Technologies AG, charging price fixing in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1. Simultaneously, Infineon agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $160 Million fine. See also, DOJ release and Infineon release. See, full story.

House and Senate Committees to Hold Hearings on Wireless Number Privacy

9/15. The Senate Commerce Committee scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, September 21 on S 1963, the "Wireless 411 Privacy Act". The House Commerce Committee will likely hold its own hearing on 411 privacy.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced S 1963 on November 25, 2003.

S 1963 recites in its findings that wireless customers "benefit from the fact that wireless phone numbers have not been publicly available", and that, "up until now, the privacy of wireless subscribers has been safeguarded and thus vastly diminished the likelihood of subscribers receiving unwanted or annoying phone call interruptions on their wireless phones".

It further states that "the wireless industry is poised to begin implementing a directory assistance service so that callers can reach wireless subscribers, including subscribers who have not given such callers their wireless phone number".

The bill concludes that "because wireless users are typically charged for incoming calls, consumers must be afforded ... control over the disclosure of their wireless phone number".

S 1963 would provide that "A provider of commercial mobile services ... may not include the wireless telephone number information of any current subscriber in any wireless directory assistance service database unless" it "obtains express prior authorization" from the subscriber. Also, for new subscribers, the provider would be required to give notice of the right not to be listed in a directory assistance service database, and to provide convenient mechanisms for the subscriber to decline to be listed. It also requires that service providers cannot charge for not listing phone numbers.

The companion bill in the House is HR 3558. See, story titled "Rep. Markey and Rep Pitts Introduce Bill to Limit Wireless Directory Assistance" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 784, November 21, 2003. See also, S 1973.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) sent a letter to wireless phone companies asking for information about whether they will offer wireless directory assistance, whether they will allow subscribers to keep their numbers private, and whether they plan to charge consumers for privacy.

rightSen. McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and will preside at next week's hearing. Rep. Barton (at right) is the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee. Rep. Upton is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

The letter states that "Recent press accounts indicate that a consortium of five of the six national wireless carriers, with the assistance of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, are creating a multi-carrier database of subscribers’ phone numbers in order to provide the wireless phone numbers of their customers to consumers who call directory assistance services (also known as “411” services). While presenting an opportunity for wireless telephone consumers, including subscribers without wireline phones and small business users, to make their telephone numbers more widely available to friends and to potential customers, this action also raises issues of wireless telephone number privacy that are of great interest to the American public and to Congress." (Parentheses in original.)

The letter was sent to Timothy Donahue of Nextel, Robert Dotson of T-Mobile, Gary Forsee of Sprint, Stanley Sigman of Cingular, Dennis Strigl of Verizon Wireless, and John Zeglis of AT&T Wireless. It references upcoming hearings, and propounds the following questions, to be answered by September 20:

   "1. If you offer wireless directory services, will your subscribers be given a choice of whether to have their number(s) listed in a directory or not?  If so, how would they exercise such choice (i.e. opt-in or opt-out), and would it vary depending on whether it was a new or existing subscriber making the choice?
   2. Do you plan to charge subscribers to keep their wireless number(s) unlisted?
   3. Are your current terms of service with customers consistent with your responses to questions 1 and 2?"

Sen. Ensign Addresses Senate Republican High Tech Task Force and Tech Related Bills

9/15. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) spoke in the Senate regarding the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force, which he has chaired in the 108th Congress. He reviewed its accomplishments, and items that remain on the group's agenda.

Sen. John EnsignSen. Ensign (at right) said that this group "remains focused on securing final passage of important priorities such as: final passage of the JOBS Bill that includes international tax reform, extension of the R&D Tax Credit and the Invest in the USA Act; preserving broad-based employee stock option plans that are threatened by FASB; class action reform to stop frivolous lawsuits that stifle innovation and drive up costs for consumers; bringing an end to patent fee diversion that harms the ability of U.S. innovators to bring their exciting products to market." See, Congressional Record, September 15, 2004, at Pages S9281-2.

He also said that "Four-year delays to obtain patents hurt innovation; final passage of the Internet Tax Moratorium legislation to keep state, local, and federal tax collectors from driving up the cost of Internet access; final passage of the Spectrum Relocation Bill which will provide additional spectrum for the wireless revolution and has the potential to yield more than $500 billion in economic and consumer benefits over the next decade, spur $50 billion or more in capital investment, and create thousands of American jobs."

People and Appointments

Arden Bement9/15. President Bush nominated Arden Bement (at right) to be Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the remainder of a six year term expiring August 2, 2010. Bement is currently the acting Director of the NSF and Director of the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). See, White House release and second release. Phil Bond, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, said in a statement that Hratch Semerjian, the Deputy Director of the NIST, would become acting Director of the NIST if the Senate confirms Bement to be NSF Director.

9/15. President Bush nominated Michael Seabright to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. See, White House release.

More News

9/15. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS/BXA), which regulates exports, announced in a release that it fined Lattice Semiconductor Corporation $560,000 for exporting semiconductor microchips and related technical data to the People's Republic of China. The BIS stated in its release that the fine pertains to "extended temperature range programmable logic devices". The BIS did not allege that Lattice actually exported chips. Rather, the BIS states that Lattice employed Chinese nationals in the U.S. The BIS stated that this constitutes a "deemed export" in violation of its export administration regulations (EAR).

9/15. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released its prepared testimony [18 pages in PDF] titled "Telecommunications: GSA Has Made Progress in Planning Governmentwide Program but Challenges Remain". This prepared testimony, which was presented by Linda Koontz at a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee, addresses the General Services Administration's (GSA) next generation governmentwide telecommunications acquisition program known as Networx.

Rep. Dreier Addresses the eBay Economy

9/14. Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) spoke in the House about eBay. He said that "last week, we had a great statement made by Vice President Cheney talking about the new 21st century vibrant economy. He pointed to the fact that there are, in this new economy, 430,000 Americans who make their income, their living, selling on eBay."

Rep. David Dreier

Rep. Dreier (at right) said that "They are entrepreneurs." See, Congressional Record, September 14, 2004, at Page H7079.

"Over the weekend, there were a number of pundits who criticized him, saying, Well, because of the slow economy, that Vice President Cheney was advocating that people go down and find something in the basement and sell it on eBay, and that will take care of them."

Rep. Dreier continued, "The fact of the matter is, that is not what he was saying. He was talking about an industry that did not exist 10 years ago; eBay did not even exist. Today, we have got nearly half a million Americans earning their living on eBay. Frankly, if you look at the number of people who are selling things on eBay, it is in the millions."

More News

9/14. On Thursday, October 7, 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Radio Frequency Identification Workshop". See, notice [PDF]. For more information, contact Bill Lane at or 202-418-0676.

9/14. On Tuesday, November 9 and Wednesday, November 10, 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will host an event titled "Email Authentication Summit". The FTC's interest in this issue is dealing with spam and fraudulent e-mail. The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) for the email system allows information to travel freely with relative anonymity and ease, thereby making bulk unsolicited distribution, and fraud, relatively easy. The purpose of this summit is to encourage the development, testing, evaluation and implementation of domain level authentication systems. Written comments are due by September 30, 2004. Written requests to participate are due by September 30, 2004. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 178, at Pages 55632 - 55636.

9/14. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced the signing of a free trade agreement (FTA) between the U.S. and Bahrain. See, USTR release. The USTR did not release the text of an FTA. Rather, its released a short summary.

9/14. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S 2801, a bill pertaining to Social Security account number privacy protections, fraudulent misuse of the Social Security account numbers, and identity theft. It was referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

9/14. Cynthia Fornelli, Deputy Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), gave a speech in New York, NY in which she discussed the SEC's hedge fund adviser registration initiative. She stated that "the Commission staff is actively reviewing the role of technology as a regulatory tool to enhance the Commission's effectiveness as a market overseer".

Representatives Introduce Bill to Increase Authority of DHS's Top Cyber Security Officer

9/13. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced HR 5068, the "Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2004". It would increase the rank and responsibilities of the top cybersecurity officer in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It would also define "cybersecurity" to include protection of "wire communication". See, full story.

Representatives Introduce Homeland Security Science and Tech Bill

9/13. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and others introduced HR 5069 [18 pages in PDF], the "Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004".

This is a wide ranging bill concerning science and technology programs relating to homeland security, including cybersecurity.

Rep. Lofgren stated that "I believe the Department must invest more time, more money and more energy to R&D. Our legislation will help the Department develop the cutting-edge technologies needed to win the war on terror."

Cybersecurity Grants. HR 5069 would create a cybersecurity grant program at the DHS, to be run by the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity (a position to be created by the related bill, HR 5068), in conjunction with the National Science Foundation.

The grants would be limited to "institutions of higher education (and consortia thereof)". (Parentheses in original.)

The purposes of the grants would be "(1) the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity professional development programs; (2) the establishment or expansion of associate degree programs in cybersecurity; and (3) the purchase of equipment to provide training in cybersecurity for either professional development programs or degree programs."

It would authorize the appropriation of $3,700,000 for FY 2005 for this grant program.

Interoperabilty of Public Safety Communications. The bill would require that the DHS "establish a program to enhance public safety interoperable communications at all levels of government." It would also allow the creation of an Office of Public Safety Interoperable Communications at the DHS.

Rep. Mac ThornberryRep. Thornberry (at right) stated in a release that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) "Science and Technology Directorate is making progress, but we want to help the Department focus on working with the private sector and to establish a formal program to improve the interoperability of public safety communications,"

Technology Development and Transfer Program. The bill would also create a technology development and transfer program at the DHS.

Specifically, it would amend Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is codified at 6 U.S.C. § 193. Section 313 provides that the DHS "shall establish and promote a program to encourage technological innovation in facilitating the mission of the Department". It currently enumerates five components of this program.

HR 5059 would add a sixth -- "The establishment of a homeland security technology and equipment transfer program to facilitate the identification, modification, and commercialization of technology and equipment for use by Federal, State, and local governmental agencies, emergency response providers, and the private sector."

Special Access Programs. Section 302 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is codified at 6 U.S.C. § 182, provides the responsibilities and authorities of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology at the DHS.

HR 5069 would provide that "For the purposes of carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary under section 302", the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized "to establish and maintain special access programs associated with research, development, test and evaluation, and acquisition of technology or systems." The bill adds that "Access to knowledge of such programs shall be strictly limited, and such programs shall be subject to restricted reporting requirements ..."

The bill also contains provisions relating to geospatial information and technologies, joint development of counter-terrorism technologies with other governments, assessment of homeland security science and technology, and the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee.

This bill was referred to the House Science Committee.

Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Tools to Fight Terrorism Act

9/13. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security held a hearing on S 2679, the "Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004" or TFTA.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is the Chairman of this Subcommittee. He introduced S 2679 on July 16, 2004. This bill is also cosponsored by seven Republican Senators: Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Don Nickles (R-OK), Bill Frist (R-TN), Mike DeWine (R-OH), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

This is a long and wide ranging bill, that incorporates many provisions that have previously been introduced as stand alone bills. It contains provisions pertaining to seaport security, information sharing, terrorism hoaxes, and activities associated with shoulder fired missiles, radiological bombs, and the smallpox virus.

This bill is not an information technology or electronic surveillance bill. However, some of its provisions would affect surveillance of electronic communications and access to electronic data.

For example, it would amend 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1), which pertains to authorization for the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, to expand the list of predicate offenses to include certain terrorism related crimes. For example, the bill creates a new class of crimes for activities associated with the variola virus (which is also known as smallpox). The bill then adds these crimes to the list of predicate offenses for the issuance of a wiretap order.

The bill also contains a section, which is based upon S 113 and S 123, that would make Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders available for suspected lone wolf terrorists. The FISA currently only applies to foreign powers, and agents of foreign powers, including international terrorists. It does not apply to individuals acting alone.

The significance of creating a lone wolf provision is that the FISA provides for the issuance of an order on a lower standard than is required for a Title III warrant, which is used in ordinary criminal investigations. There is also greater secrecy associated with FISA investigations. This section of the bill would continue the blurring of the lines between electronic surveillance conducted under the FISA and Title III.

Daniel Bryant (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy) and Barry Sabin (Chief of the DOJ's Criminal Division's Counterterrorism Section) submitted prepared testimony in which they stated that "The new tools provided by the TFTA will prevent attacks and will save American lives."

See also, prepared testimony of Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University School of Law, opening statement of Sen. Kyl, and opening statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

AG Ashcroft Addresses Cyber Crime

9/13. Attorney General John Ashcroft gave a speech to the High Technology Crime Investigation Association in which he provided an overview of cyber threats, and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) cybercrime related activities.

He wrote in the prepared text of this speech that "Over the past few decades, we have seen human ingenuity unleash new ideas, new products, and new ways of doing business. Freedom and innovation created the personal-computing revolution -- a revolution that has extended the influence of the Internet beyond all known borders to expand commerce, increase trade, and deliver unimagined possibilities to new spheres of human aspiration."

"But with this tremendous boon to economic growth and human potential, we have seen a small group of predators try to make cyberspace a place for crime and terrorism. It is the duty of the justice community to fight these predators."

He also stated that "We know from bitter experience that malicious code can invade the most advanced networks of our nation’s most innovative companies, threatening our economic leadership and livelihood. We have seen worms and viruses attack our government’s critical infrastructure, disrupting basic services and even potentially endangering national security. And with the increased use of the Internet and especially peer-to-peer networking, we have seen malicious code spread more quickly and infect more personal computers than ever before."

Senators Introduce Bill Pertaining to Certification Marks

9/13. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced S 2796, an untitled bill pertaining to certification marks, collective marks, and service marks.

This bill is a reaction to the July 11, 2003 opinion [26 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) in Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce Farm and Sales (also reported at 335 F.3d 130.) Sen. Craig represents the state of Idaho.

While a dispute over a potato certification mark is the impetus for this bill, certification marks are also widely used by technology groups, for example, to associate a logo with products that comply with the standards of a standards setting body. For example, Wi-FI Zone [PDF] is a certification mark of the Wi-Fi Alliance.

This bill is short. It would make two changes to the Trademark Act of 1946, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. First, it would provide that "in section 3 (15 U.S.C. 1053) in the first sentence, by striking ``protection´´ and inserting ``protections, rights, and privileges´´". Second, it would provide that "in section 4 (15 U.S.C. 1054) in the first sentence, by striking ``protection´´ and inserting ``protections, rights, and privileges´´''.

15 U.S.C. § 1053 currently provides, in full, that "Subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable, service marks shall be registrable, in the same manner and with the same effect as are trademarks, and when registered they shall be entitled to the protection provided in this chapter in the case of trademarks. Applications and procedure under this section shall conform as nearly as practicable to those prescribed for the registration of trademarks". (Emphasis added.)

15 U.S.C. § 1054 currently provides, in part, that "Subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable, collective and certification marks, including indications of regional origin, shall be registrable under this chapter, in the same manner and with the same effect as are trademarks, by persons, and nations, States, municipalities, and the like, exercising legitimate control over the use of the marks sought to be registered, even though not possessing an industrial or commercial establishment, and when registered they shall be entitled to the protection provided in this chapter in the case of trademarks, except in the case of certification marks when used so as to represent falsely that the owner or a user thereof makes or sells the goods or performs the services on or in connection with which such mark is used. ..." (Emphasis added.)

Sen. Craig stated in the Senate that "service marks are words, names, symbols, or characters that distinguish the mark holder's services, while trademarks distinguish the mark holder's goods. Collective marks are trademarks that are used by organization or association to identify goods or services produced by members of a group. The certification mark is a trade or service mark used to certify characteristics about a product or service; it may indicate that the product or service originates in a specific geographic region, or meets certain standards of quality or mode of manufacture, or the work that went into it was performed by members of an organization." See, Congressional Record, September 13, 2004, at Pages S9140-1.

He continued that "these marks all serve the same purpose -- that is, they enable the public to distinguish among products and services and prevent consumers from being deceived by similar brands. Congress determined that marks would serve the public interest by enhancing product quality and safety, and provided legal protection to these marks under the Lanham Act. The federal law protects all four kinds of marks equally; specifically, 15 U.S.C. §1503 and 15 U.S.C. §1504 provide that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks ``shall be entitled to the protection provided´´ to trademarks, except where Congress provides otherwise by statute."

"Unfortunately", said Sen. Craig, "the clarity of the Lanham Act on these points has been confused" by the Second Circuit's opinion in the Idaho Potato case.

In that case, the Idaho Potato Commission (IPC), which holds certification marks, such as "GROWN IN IDAHO", entered into a contract with the defendant in which it licensed the defendant to use its marks. The contract also provided that the defendant would not challenge the marks. Subsequently, the IPC revoked the license. The defendant continued to use the marks. Although, the defendant did not sell counterfeit Idaho potatoes. The IPC sued for infringement. The Appeals Court held that notwithstanding the no challenge provision in the contract, the defendant is not barred from challenging the validity of the mark.

The Court wrote, at page 20, that the no challenge "provision places a non-quality-control related restriction on the sellers of the certified product and other licensees that benefits the mark owner in contravention of the mark owner's obligation not to interfere with a free market for products meeting the certification criteria." The Court held that its "public interest" analysis outweighs the enforcement of contracts.

Sen. Craig stated that "The principle of equal treatment also applies to ``no challenge´´ provisions in license agreements for the use of a trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. It is common for such agreements to include provisions under which licensees acknowledge the validity of and agree not to challenge the marks. By protecting the validity of the marks, these provisions reduce potential litigation costs for mark owners and protect the investment made by licensees. A long line of cases has upheld ``no challenge´´ provisions in trademark licenses and dismissed validity challenges."

Trademarks Confiscated by Cuba. Also, on September 20, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that its tentative agenda for its business meeting of September 21 includes consideration of S 2373, a bill to modify the prohibition on recognition by U.S. courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. This bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), pertains to trademarks confiscated by the communist government of Cuba.

In 1998, the 105th Congress passed, and the President signed, HR 4328; it became Public Law No. 105-277. Section 211 of this act prohibits enforcement of U.S. rights to trademarks confiscated by the Cuban government, except with the consent of the legitimate owner. The EU challenged this act before the World Trade Organization (WTO), which ultimately found in favor of the U.S. on most, but not all points. S 2373 would modify Section 211 to address the WTO's ruling.

Groups Urge 9th Circuit to Rehear French Internet Censorship Case

9/13. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and a collection of interest groups and trade associations, filed an amicus curiae brief [17 pages in PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) in Yahoo v. LICRA supporting Yahoo's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

On August 23, 2004, a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals issued its split opinion [34 pages in PDF], holding that the U.S. District Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the French defendants. The French defendants, LICRA and UEJF, sued Yahoo in a French court, and obtained a judgment ordering Yahoo to stop publishing certain material in its web site located in the U.S. In the present action, Yahoo sued the French defendants in U.S. District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the French judgment is unenforceable in the U.S. because it violates the First Amendment. The District Court held that it does have personal jurisdiction over the French defendants, and that the French judgment violates the free speech rights of Yahoo. On August 23, the Appeals Court reversed the District Court. It held that the District Court lacks personal jurisdiction because the French defendants have not purposely availed themselves of the benefits of the forum.

The brief states that the risks of foreign action "are not speculative, and France is not the only country that rejects the free and unfettered debate that is constitutionally protected in the United States. China prohibits discussion of the events at Tiananmen Square, Saudi Arabia censors criticism of that country's government, Syria bans Internet speech that is considered to be pro-Israel, and even countries such as Australia and Italy impose far stricter limits on public discourse than would be permitted in the United States. ... Often the speech foreign governments attempt to suppress is political speech, a category of speech that warrants the highest possible constitutional protection."

The amicus brief concludes that "If the panel's decision stands, Internet speakers, publishers, merchants, and service providers will face mounting persecution abroad for speech that is lawful in the United States ..."

See also, story titled "9th Circuit Reverses in Yahoo v. LICRA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 965, August 24, 2004; story titled "NDCal: French Court Order Restricting Internet Speech is Unenforceable in U.S." in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 305, November 9, 2001; and story titled "U.S. Has Jurisdiction over French Defendants in Yahoo v. LICRA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 205, June 11, 2001.

People and Appointments

9/13. Mark Cohen was appointed intellectual property attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China. He is an attorney advisor in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) office of enforcement. The USPTO stated in a release that he "will work with government officials to improve Chinese intellectual property laws, regulations and enforcement procedures."

More News

9/13. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) submitted a comment to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Review of Part 87 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning the Aviation Radio Service". This is WT Docket No. 01-289.

9/13. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics began its two day conference titled "Protecting Consumer Interests in Class Actions". FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras stated in her opening remarks that "As consumer class actions have evolved over time, however, concerns have been raised about whether some of these actions -- and especially some of the settlements agreed to -- truly serve consumers' interests by providing them appropriate benefits." She added that "in some cases class actions may be an impediment to protecting consumer welfare. ... The FTC's primary concern has been whether coupon and other non-pecuniary redress provide adequate relief to injured consumers."

9/13. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) published in its web site a document [PDF] that consists of two pages out of John Poindexter's calendar for June 26 and 27, 2002. The EPIC obtained this document from the Department of Defense (DOD) in response to a request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). At the time, Poindexter was Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Total Information Awareness Office. The calendar lists a one and one half hour meeting with Wesley Clark. The EPIC states that at this time Clark was a lobbyist for Acxiom, a data warehouse company. See also, story titled "E-Mail Shows DARPA's Interest in Huge Databases of Commercial Information" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 831, February 6, 2004.

9/13. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) published in its web site a document titled "Online Investigative Principles for Federal Law Enforcement". See, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 [large PDF scans]. The document is labeled "Property of the United States Government" and dated "November 1999".  It recites federal law enforcement policies for obtaining personal information online and engaging in surveillance. The EPIC acquired this document from the Department of Justice in response to a FOIA request.

9/13. Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) introduced HR 5067, a bill prohibit the double taxation of telecommuters. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. See also, story titled "Dodd and Lieberman Introduce Bill to End Double State Taxation of Teleworkers" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 976, September 14, 2004.

9/13. Microsoft and Sendo announced that they settled the litigation between the two companies. They stated that "the monetary component and terms of the settlement are confidential". See, Microsoft release. On December 20, 2002, Sendo filed a complaint [27 pages in PDF] in U.S. District Court (EDTex) against Microsoft alleging numerous state causes of actions, including misappropriation of trade secrets. The suit arose out of Microsoft's and Sendo's prior business dealings pertaining to mobile communications. See, story titled "Sendo Sues Microsoft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 574, December 24, 2002.

Go to News from September 6-10, 2004.