Senators Introduce Bill to Relax Student
Loan Requirements for Online Education |
6/5. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY),
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and
Sen. Ben Campbell (R-CO) introduced
S 1203,
the "Distance Education and Online Learning Act of
2003", a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding distance
education. The bill was referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee.
Sen.
Enzi (at right) stated that "the Internet has made it possible for prospective
students in rural communities, far removed from the university campus, to attend
college online."
He continued that "the most significant barriers that distance learners and
online education programs must face are those that were created by the Higher
Education Act. Under current law, students attending institutions that enroll
more than half of their students in distance programs are ineligible for Federal
student financial assistance. As a result, many of the communities that this
assistance is designed to reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits,
including students from rural communities, single mothers, working
professionals, and a range of others who are interested in attending college but
who cannot afford to do so."
"The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by creating an
avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to rural communities and
non-traditional students by making them eligible for federal student assistance.
It creates an eligibility standard for these institutions that helps to ensure
they will provide high quality education programs, while it also protects
Federal funding from fraud and abuse", said Sen. Enzi. See, Congressional
Record, June 5, 2003, at page S7495.
20 U.S.C. § 1091
pertains to "student eligibility" for government loans, grants
and work assistance. The bill would tweak the requirements contained in this
section to allow more internet based instruction to qualify for assistance under
the Higher Education Act.
For example, subsection (l) (this is the lower case of the letter L),
subparagraph (A), currently provided that "A student enrolled in a course of
instruction at an institution of
higher education that is offered in whole or in part through
telecommunications and leads to a recognized certificate for a program of
study of 1 year or longer, or a recognized associate, baccalaureate, or
graduate degree, conferred by such institution, shall not be considered to be
enrolled in correspondence courses unless the total amount of
telecommunications and correspondence courses at such institution equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the total amount of all courses at the institution."
This would be revised. The removed language is crossed out. The added
language is in red. "A student enrolled in a course of instruction at an institution of
higher education that is offered in whole or in part
predominantly through
telecommunications and leads to a recognized certificate for a program of
study of 1 year or longer, or a recognized associate, baccalaureate, or
graduate degree, conferred by such institution, shall not be considered to be
enrolled in correspondence courses unless the total amount of
telecommunications and correspondence courses at such institution equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the total amount of all courses at the institution.
The bill would also replace subparagraph (B), which requires, among other
things, that "An institution of higher education referred to in subparagraph (A)
is an institution of higher education .. for which at least 50 percent of the
programs of study offered by the institution lead to the award of a recognized
associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree." It would replace subparagraph (B)
with the following: "An institution of higher education referred to in
subparagraph (A) is an institution of higher education that is not an
institution or school described in section 3(3)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998."
|
|
|
SCO And Novell Continue Argument Over
Rights in UNIX Operating System |
6/6. The SCO Group (SCO), also known as
Caldera, reasserted that it is "the owner of the UNIX operating system", and
that "all rights to the UNIX and UnixWare technology, including the copyrights,
were transferred to SCO as part of the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell
and SCO dated September 19, 1995."
Background. On March 6, 2003, Caldera (SCO) filed a
complaint in
state court in Utah against IBM alleging
misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and
breach of contract in connection with IBM's alleged use of Caldera's proprietary UNIX
code. The complaint did not assert copyright or patent infringement.
IBM filed its
answer [17 page PDF scan] on April 30, 2003. It asserted that "contrary to
Caldera's allegations, by its lawsuit, Caldera seeks to hold up the open source
community (and development of Linux in particular) by improperly seeking to
assert proprietary rights over important, widely used technology and impeding
the use of that technology by the open source community." (Parentheses in
original.)
SCO wrote a
letter
to Linux customers on May 12, 2003. It asserted that "SCO holds the rights
to the UNIX operating system software originally licensed by AT&T to
approximately 6,000 companies and institutions worldwide (the ``UNIX
Licenses´´). The vast majority of UNIX software used in enterprise applications
today is a derivative work of the software originally distributed under our UNIX
Licenses."
On May 28, 2003, Novell entered the
fray. It wrote a
letter
to SCO in which it stated that "SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V
patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent
Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents."
Novell added that "SCO is
not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S.
Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer
agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it. To Novell's knowledge, the 1995
agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO
the associated copyrights. We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that
it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights."
SCO responded in a
statement
which claims that "SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX operating system.
SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code,
methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor." It added that
"Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you
use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint,
contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights
... SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights.
SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to
protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than
6,000 licensees."
Amendment No. 2. In the latest exchange, SCO asserted that "Any
question of whether the UNIX copyrights were transferred to SCO under the Asset
Purchase Agreement was clarified in Amendment No. 2 to the Asset Purchase
Agreement dated October 16, 1996."
SCO asserted that this Amendment No. 2 provides that, "A. With respect to
Schedule 1.1(b) of the Agreement, titled "Excluded Assets", Section V,
Subsection A shall be revised to read:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by
Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise it rights
with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies. However, in
no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party
pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks." See, June 6 SCO
release.
Novell responded that "Amendment #2 to the 1995 SCO-Novell Asset Purchase
Agreement was sent to Novell last night by SCO. To Novell's knowledge, this
amendment is not present in Novell's files. The amendment appears to support
SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in
1996. The amendment does not address ownership of patents, however, which
clearly remain with Novell." See, Novell's June 6
release.
See also, stories titled "Novell Asserts Intellectual Property Rights in UNIX
Technology" and "German Software Group Threatens to Sue SCO Over Linux Claims",
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 670, May 30, 2003; and "Microsoft Licenses
Technology at Issue in Caldera v. IBM", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 669, May
29, 2003.
|
|
|
Oracle Makes Hostile Bid for PeopleSoft |
6/6. Oracle made a hostile bid for
PeopleSoft on June 6, following PeopleSoft's and
J.D. Edwards' June 2 announcement that
PeopleSoft would acquire J.D. Edwards.
On June 2, PeopleSoft announced in a
release
[4 pages in PDF] "a definitive agreement for PeopleSoft to acquire J.D. Edwards,
creating the world’s second largest enterprise applications software company.
Under the terms of the agreement, stockholders will receive 0.860 PeopleSoft
common shares for each outstanding J.D. Edwards common share. Based on the
closing price of PeopleSoft stock on May 30, 2003 and J.D. Edwards’ shares
outstanding, the transaction is valued at approximately $1.7 billion." See
also, J.D. Edwards
release.
On June 6, Oracle announced in a
release [PDF] that it will "commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of
the outstanding shares of PeopleSoft ... for $16 per share, or
approximately $5.1 billion." See also, Oracle
document [PDF] titled "Frequently Asked Questions Document".
On June 6, Craig Conway, P/CEO of PeopleSoft stated in a
release that Oracle's offer is "atrociously bad behavior from a company with
a history of atrociously bad behavior. Obviously it is a transparent attempt to
disrupt the acquisition of J.D. Edwards by PeopleSoft announced earlier this
week".
PeopleSoft's release added that "PeopleSoft and its Board of Directors is
required by law to review all cash tenders regardless of intent, and will
provide a definitive recommendation to shareholders shortly thereafter. In the
meantime, PeopleSoft advises it shareholders to take no immediate action."
Either transaction is conditioned upon expiration of the applicable
Hart Scott Rodino Act waiting period.
|
|
|
US and Chile Sign FTA |
6/6. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR), and Soledad Alvear, the Chilean Foreign Minister, signed the
U.S. Chile Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) in Miami, Florida. See,
USTR release.
On May 6, President Bush and Singapore Prime Minister
Goh Chok Tong signed the U.S.
Singapore FTA at a ceremony at the White House. Singapore has been more supportive of
U.S. anti terrorism efforts than Chile. See, story titled "Bush and Goh Sign US
Singapore FTA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 656, May 7, 2003.
The U.S. Chile FTA addresses several technology related topics. See,
Chapter 13
(pertaining to telecommunications),
Chapter 15
(electronic commerce),
Chapter 17
(intellectual property), and
Chapter 21
(transparency).
This FTA still requires Congressional approval. However, under the trade
promotion authority granted to the President last year, the Congress can approve
or reject, but not amend, these FTAs.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the
Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, announced in a
release
that he "hopes" to schedule hearing on the Chile and
Singapore FTAs "later this month".
Dave McCurdy of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA)
stated in a
release
that "Free trade is one of the electronics industry's highest priorities,
particularly since more than a third of U.S. jobs in the computer and electronics
manufacturing sector are supported by exports ... U.S. high-tech goods and services
exported to Chile totaled $865 million in 2001, and it is critical that we keep our
manufacturers on a level playing field as others, such as the EU, implement their own
FTAs with Chile."
|
|
|
FTC Opposes Class Action Settlement
Involving Coupons for Software |
6/5. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
filed an amicus curiae brief
[PDF] with the District Court of Cleberg County, Texas, in Haese v. H&R Block,
a class action regarding tax preparation services. The plaintiffs' lawyers and
H&R Block have proposed a settlement under which the plaintiffs' lawyers will
get $49 Million as attorneys fees, and the class members will get coupons from
H&R Block for tax preparation and planning software, a book containing tax
preparation and planning advice, and a rebate on tax preparation services.
The FTC wrote that "Courts and commentators alike have come to view class
action coupon settlements with skepticism, and with good reason. Past experience
shows some defendants promise to pay high attorneys' fees in exchange for
counsel's willingness to accept a settlement consisting of coupons of dubious
value that many, if not most, class members are unlikely to redeem. ... The
coupon settlement proposed by H&R and class counsel in this consumer class
action has some of the indicia that commentators cite as evidence of a collusive
deal." See also, FTC
release.
Also, the House is scheduled to consider
HR 1115,
the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003", on Wednesday, June 11, or
Thursday, June 12. See,
Republican Whip Notice. One of the findings of the bill is that "Class
members have been harmed by a number of actions taken by plaintiffs' lawyers,
which provide little or no benefit to class members as a whole, including (A)
plaintiffs' lawyers receiving large fees, while class members are left with
coupons or other awards of little or no value".
The bill would provide a number of protections against abusive class actions.
For example, it provides that "The court may approve a proposed settlement under
which the class members would receive noncash benefits or would otherwise be
required to expend funds in order to obtain part or all of the proposed benefits
only after a hearing to determine whether, and making a written finding that,
the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members".
|
|
|
Treasury Department Announces Rules for
Incentive Stock Options |
6/9. The Treasury Department and the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
regarding regulations that "affect certain taxpayers
who participate in the transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of incentive
stock options and the exercise of options granted pursuant to an employee stock
purchase plan (statutory options)." (Parentheses in original.) See, Federal
Register, June 9, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 110, at Pages 34344 - 34370.
The notice further states that "Written and electronically submitted comments
and requests to speak, with outlines of topics to be discussed at the public
hearing scheduled for September 2, 2003, must be received by August 12, 2003."
The Treasury Department stated in a
release that
incentive stock options (ISO) "provide employees with the ability to acquire
employer stock without realizing income when the option is exercised. If the
employee holds the stock a required period, any gains on sale of the stock are
capital. The exercise price for an ISO must be no less than the fair market
value of the stock when the option is issued. An ISO plan must be approved by
shareholders, and the amount of ISOs that can be granted to an employee is
limited. The employer does not get a deduction."
The Treasury Department added that "Taxpayers may rely on these proposed
regulations for any ISO granted after June 9, 2003."
|
|
|
SEC Files Civil Fraud Complaint Against
Former Xerox Officers |
6/5. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) filed a civil
complaint
in U.S. District Court (SDNY)
against six former officers of Xerox alleging fraud. The defendants include
former CEOs Paul Allaire and Richard Thoman, and former CFO Barry Romeril.
The complaint alleges that defendants "misled investors about Xerox's
earnings to polish its reputation on Wall Street and to boost the company's
stock price. These results also benefited the defendants with higher
compensation and higher prices for personal sales of stock. This complaint
alleges that the defendants' fraudulent conduct is responsible for accelerating
the recognition of equipment revenues by approximately $3 billion and increasing
pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.4 billion in Xerox's 1997-2000 financial
results."
The complaint alleges violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act; violations of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange
Act Rule 13b2-1; aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange
Act and Exchange Act Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20; and aiding and abetting
violations of Section 13(b) of the Exchange Act. In addition to injunctive
relief, the complaint seeks disgorgement of unjust enrichment and civil fines.
See also, SEC
litigation release. The SEC also stated in a second
release that the
defendants "have agreed to pay over $22 million in penalties, disgorgement and
interest without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations."
|
|
|
|
DHS Creates Cyber Security Division |
6/6. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) announced the creation of a National Cyber Security Division (NCSD),
located in the DHS's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate (IAIPD).
The DHS stated in a
release that the
NCSD will "identify, analyze and reduce cyber threats and vulnerabilities;
disseminate threat warning information; coordinate incident response; and
provide technical assistance in continuity of operations and recovery planning.
The NCSD builds upon the existing capabilities transferred to DHS from the
former Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, the National Infrastructure
Protection Center, the Federal Computer Incident Response Center, and the
National Communications System."
Robert
Liscouski, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Infrastructure
Protection, will oversee NCSD. However, the DHS has yet to name the person who
will head the NCSD.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002,
HR 5005
(107th) and Public Law No. 107-296, at Title II, creates the IAIPD, which has
primary responsibility for information sharing and cyber security matters.
Frank
Libutti is the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection.
Title II of the Homeland Security Act also creates the positions of Assistant
Secretary for Infrastructure Protection and Assistant Secretary for Information
Analysis. Liscouski holds the former position, and reports to Libutti. The head
of the newly created NCSD will be beneath Lisouski. This places the head of the
Cyber Security Division at least three levels below
Tom Ridge,
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
See also,
TLJ story
titled "DHS and NIST to Collaborate" May 22, 2003; story titled "Bush Fills More
Tech Positions at DHS" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 623, March 14, 2003; and story titled "Bush Picks Frank Libutti
for Key Tech Position at DHS" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 628, March 21, 2003.
Harris Miller, President of the Information
Technology Association of America (ITAA), stated in a
release "While the Director position
was not given the rank within the Administration that we believe it merits, the
fact that Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Bob Liscouski has
agreed to build an organization under him that coordinates the cyber security
activities of the various offices within DHS and other agencies, and serves as
the central point of contact for the private sector, shows his resolve to
address cyber security challenges head-on. We look forward to helping identify
the strongest candidates for the job and working with the new cyber czar to get
the job done."
Robert Holleyman, P/CEO of the Business
Software Alliance (BSA), stated in a
release that "This is a welcome move by the Department, and industry looks
forward to working closely with this important new unit of DHS ... Over the past
two years, the United States has made significant strides in improving our
country's physical security. But without cyber security, there is no physical
security. Study after study indicates we remain ill-prepared to defend against
threats to our critical information networks -- meaning a major virus or cyber
attack could wreak havoc on our communications, transportation, utility,
financial or other vital information infrastructure."
|
|
|
DC Circuit Upholds FCC's Number Portability
Rules for Wireless Carriers |
6/6. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its
opinion [19 pages PDF] in CTIA
v. FCC, in which it rejected a challenge to the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
number portability rules for wireless carriers.
Number portability is the ability of phone service customers to keep their phone
numbers when they switch carriers. The FCC promulgated regulations requiring
wireless carriers to provide number portability. Its Report and Order was released
in 1996. The FCC set a compliance date of June 30, 1999. The
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association (CTIA), a group
that represents wireless carriers, requested that the FCC forbear from
enforcement of its wireless portability rules. Verizon Wireless also sought forbearance.
On July 26, 2002, the FCC denied Verizon's forbearance petition, but extended
the enforcement deadline to November 24, 2003.
The CTIA and Verizon filed a petition for review of the FCC's
order denying permanent forbearance with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in
August of 2002. They challenged the statutory authority of the FCC to promulgate
a wireless number portability rule, and the FCC's failure to forebear.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review as to the
challenge to the statutory authority of the FCC. A petition for review must be
filed within 60 days. The petitioners waited several years before filing. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition for review for failing to forbear.
Tom Wheeler, P/CEO of the CTIA stated in a
release
that "We are disappointed in the court's decision ... This decision increases
the pressure on the FCC to do what they have yet to do -- define the
implementation of number portability. There are only 24 weeks between now and
the portability deadline, but the basic 'how tos' have yet to be addressed. If
there is to be number portability in November, the FCC must announce final rules
by Labor Day or consumers will find chaos in the market."
|
|
|
Monday, June 9 |
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour and at 2:00 PM for
legislative business. The House will consider several non tech related items
under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 12:00 NOON.
The Supreme Court will return from
a one week recess.
5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will
meet to adopt a rule for consideration of
HR 2143,
the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act".
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 10 |
The House will meet at 10:30 AM for morning hour and 12:00 NOON for
legislative business. The House will consider several items under suspension
of the rules, including
HR 1086,
the "Standards Development Organization Advancement Act". The House will also
consider HR 2143,
the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act",
subject to a rule. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
8:00 AM - 5:30 PM. The Progress and Freedom
Foundation (PFF) will host a conference titled "Promoting Creativity:
Copyright in the Internet Age". The speakers will include
Brad
Brown (George Mason University Tech Center),
James
Burger (Dow Lohnes & Albertson),
Richard Epstein (University
of Chicago), Mike Godwin (Public Knowledge),
Scott Kieff
(Washington University),
Edmund
Kitch (University of Virginia),
Stanley Liebowitz (University
of Texas at Dallas),
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), James
Delong (PFF),
Michael
Abramowicz (GMU School of Law), Greg Aharonian (Patent News), Michael Einhorn,
Bruce Kobayashi (GMU School of Law),
Katherine Lawrence (University of Michigan Business School), Adam Mossoff (Clerk, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit), Harold Furchtgott Roth,
Solveig
Singleton (CEI), and William Adkinson (PFF). RSVP to Brooke Emmerick at 202
289-8928 or bemmerick@pff.org.
Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The President's
Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) will meet. The agenda includes a discussion of the
status of the work of its workforce education and information
technology manufacturing competitiveness subcommittees, a discussion of draft
report from the subcommittee on the science and technology of combating
terrorism, and a discussion of its review of the federal National
Nanotechnology Initiative. See,
notice in the Federal Register, May 29, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 103, at pages
32037 - 32038. Location: Washington Room (roof level), Hotel Washington, 15th
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
1:00 PM. The House Ways and Means
Committee's Trade Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled "Implementation
of U.S. Bilateral Free Trade Agreements with Chile and Singapore". Location:
Room 1100, Longworth Building.
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 11 |
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider
HR 1320,
the "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act", under suspension of the
rules, and
HR 1115, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003", subject to a
rule. See, Republican
Whip Notice.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing on several pending nominations, including
that of William Pryor to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit. Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. Location: Room
226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Commerce
Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold
a hearing titled "The Spectrum Needs of Our Nation's First Responders".
The hearing will be webcast. See,
notice. Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202
225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The
The House Commerce Committee will
hold a hearing titled "Reauthorization of the Federal Trade Commission:
Positioning the Commission for the Twenty-First Century". See,
notice. Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. Location:
Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a program
titled "Taxing the Internet: Questions for Governors and Legislators".
Lunch will follow the program. Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado, will speak. See,
Cato notice. Location: 1000
Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing on "P2P file sharing networks, focusing
on personal and national security risks". Press contact: Margarita Tapia
at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce
Committee's Subcommittee of Competition, Foreign Commerce, and
Infrastructure will hold a hearing on reauthorization of the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Location:
Room 253, Russell Building.
2:30 PM. The House
International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere will
hold a hearing on Radio and Television Marti. Location: Room 2200, Rayburn Building.
|
|
|
Thursday, June 12 |
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider
HR 1320,
the "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act", under suspension of the
rules, and
HR 1115, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2003", subject to a
rule. See, Republican
Whip Notice.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar
Association's (FCBA) Online Communications Practice Committee will host a
brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Vinton Cerf. RSVP to Christine
Peyton at cpetyon@wrf.com. Location:
Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1750 K St., NW, 10th
Floor, Room 10E.
|
|
|
|
|
People and Appointments |
6/5. The Senate confirmed Peter Keisler to be an Assistant Attorney
General in charge of the Civil Division.
Keisler is formerly a telecom lawyer at the law firm of
Sidley Austin.
6/2. Broadcom elected Robert Switz
to its Board of Directors. He is EVP and CFO of
ADC Telecommunications. See, Broadcom
release.
6/5. Rambus elected Harold Hughes
to its Board of Directors. Hughes worked for Intel from 1974 through 1997. He
was then Ch/CEO of Pandesic, an Intel and SAP joint venture. See, Rambus
release.
|
|
|
More News |
6/4. The Boards of Directors of Palm and
Handspring announced a definitive
agreement for Palm to acquire Handspring. The Board of Directors of Palm also
voted to spin-off operating system subsidiary as PalmSource, Inc. Palm stated in a
release that "Palm, Inc. consists of two businesses -- PalmSource, a
subsidiary responsible for developing and licensing the Palm OS operating
system, and the Palm Solutions Group, a business unit responsible for designing,
making and marketing the world's leading handheld devices. Immediately following
the completion of the spin-off, Handspring will be merged with Palm, and the
merged company will be renamed later in the year." See also, Handspring
release. The transaction is conditioned upon the expiration or termination of
the waiting period under the Hart Scott Rodino Act.
5/27. The Department of Justice's
Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) filed their joint
amicus curiae brief
on the merits with the Supreme Court in Verizon v. Trinko, a case
involving the application of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. § 2, in the
context of telecommunications. See also,
TLJ story
titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Verizon v. Trinko", March 10, 2003.
6/6. The Commerce Department's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published in its
website a
document titled "NTIA Spectrum News". It summarizes recent NTIA actions
related to spectrum policy reform, the appointment of Janet Obuchowski as WRC
ambassador, spectrum for Third Generation (3G) wireless systems, and wireless
access systems at 5GHz.
|
|
|
About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|