Last Free Copy of
the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert |
After today, the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert will be sent only to paid
subscribers, and those who have qualified for free subscriptions.
Persons who have provided notice that they have sent payment, or
requested that payment be sent by their accounting department, will
be kept on the distribution list temporarily. Also, persons who have
subscribed in the last 30 days as free subscribers, will be kept on
the distribution list until 30 days after the date of their
subscription. The basic rate for a subscription is $250 per year.
However, there are discounts for entities with multiple subscribers.
Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for law students, journalists, elected
officials, employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch,
and state officials. The TLJ web site will remain a free access web
site. No hyperlinks will be broken. However, copies of the TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert and other new items will not be published in the web
site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page. |
|
FTC Can 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." |
|
|
USTR Imposes Prohibitive
Duties on Ukraine for Failure to Protect IPR |
1/2. The Office of the United
States Trade Representative (USTR) published a notice
in the Federal Register that it has determined to impose
prohibitive duties on certain imports from the Ukraine in
order "to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies,
and practices of the Government of Ukraine that result in the
inadequate protection of intellectual property rights".
This action was taken as a result of the Ukraine's failure
"to use existing law enforcement authority to stop the
ongoing unauthorized production of optical media products and
failure to enact an optical media licensing regime ..."
The 100% duties cover fuel oil, fertilizers, cooper, aluminum,
and other products. The duties take effect on January 23,
2002. See, Federal Register, January 2, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 1,
at Pages 120 - 121. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
Friday, Jan 4 |
10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The FCC's Network
Reliability and Interoperability Council will hold a meeting.
See, notice
in Federal Register, November 13, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 219, at
Page 56823. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, Room
TW-C305, 445 12th St. SW., Washington DC.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's Wireless
Telecommunications Practice Committee will host a luncheon.
The speakers will be advisors to the FCC Commissioners: Peter
Tenhula (Powell), Bryan Tramont (Abernathy), Paul Margie (Copps),
and Monica Desai (Martin). The price to attend is $15.00. RSVP
to Wendy Parish at wendy@fcba.org.
Location: Sidley Austin Brown
& Wood, 1501 K Street, NW Conference Room 6-E,
Washington DC.
Deadline to submit oppositions and comments to the FCC in
response to Cingular Wireless', Nextel's, and Verizon
Wireless' petitions for reconsideration of certain provisions
of the FCC's October 12 orders addressing and conditionally
approving requests for waivers and approval of revised
deployment plans for wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) services.
See, FCC
Notice. (CC Docket No. 94-102.) |
|
|
Monday, Jan 7 |
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Bowers v.
Baystate Technologies, No. 01-1108. Location: Courtroom
402, 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington DC.
Deadline to resubmit comments with the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) regarding the proposed settlement in the
antitrust case titled U.S. v. 3d Systems Corp. and DTM Corp.
(D.C. No. 1:01CV01237). The original comment period closed on
November 26, 2001. However, because of disruption of the U.S.
Mail in Washington DC, the DOJ requests that comments be
resubmitted. The deadline is 15 after publication of a notice
in the Federal Register on December 21, 2001, which would fall
on Saturday, January 5. See, notice
in Federal Register, December 21, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 246, at
Page 65992. |
|
|
Tuesday, Jan 8 |
The Supreme
Court will hear oral argument in Festo Corporation v.
Shoketsu Kinzoku Koygo Kabushiki, No. 00-1543, a case
regarding the doctrine of equivalents in patent law. |
|
|
About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a web site and daily e-mail alert
that provide news, records, and analysis of legislation,
litigation, and regulation affecting the computer and Internet
industry.
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|