10/5. The House passed HR 2929, the "Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act", or SPY ACT, on a roll call vote of 399-1. See, Roll Call No. 495. HR 2929 is the House Commerce Committee's spyware bill. The House is scheduled to consider HR 4661, the "Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2004", which is the House Judiciary Committee's bill, on Wednesday, October 6.

HR 2929 prohibits certain conduct with respect to spyware, and gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) civil enforcement authority. Legislation regarding the consumer protection and the FTC are within the jurisdiction of the House Commerce Committee. See, House Rule X.

HR 4661 amends Title 18 to provide criminal penalties for certain conduct related to spyware. Crime legislation is within the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) stated at a press conference after the floor debate on HR 2929 that he supports HR 4661. He added that Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, insisted on a separate floor vote for his Committee's bill.

The Senate has taken no action on either HR 2929 or HR 4661. However, there is a S 2145, the "Software Principles Yielding Better Levels of Consumer Knowledge Act", or SPY BLOCK Act, sponsored by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and others. The Senate Commerce Committee amended and approved S 2145 on September 22, 2004. See, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 983, September 24, 2004.

At the September 22 meeting, the Committee approved an amendment offered by Sen. George Allen (R-VA) that creates a new class of criminal prohibitions. This amendment contains the language of HR 4661 the House Judiciary Committee bill. However, the non-criminal provisions of S 2145 and HR 2929 and different.

Sponsors and supporters of HR 2929 addressed the nature, and evils consequences, of spyware during floor debate on Tuesday afternoon, and during a joint press conference after the debate. They referenced the loss of privacy, the theft of documents and information, identity theft and other fraud, and decreased computer performance.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who Chairs the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, said that this "is a major piece of legislation" and "probably one of the first privacy pieces of legislation".

Rep. Barton (at right) stated that he is committed to putting a bill on the President's desk for his signature, "this year". He added that he will "make phone calls to three or four Senators" about the possibility of a "pre-conference" on spyware legislation. That is, rather than having the House pass two bills and the Senate pass a bill, and then going to conference to reconcile the differences, he suggested that differences be reconciled quickly, and before Senate consideration, in order to facilitate final passage of legislation in the little time that remains of the 108th Congress.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee, stated before the roll call vote that the Congress is "on the brink" of passing spyware legislation, not only in the House, "but also in the Senate".

Rep. Dingell (at left) also stated, as he has before, that spyware is similar to wiretapping. He said that it is "the equivalent of having a wiretap on your phone that allows someone to listen to your conversations".

However, neither HR 2929, HR 4661 nor S 2145, would amend the Wiretap Act (in Title 18) or the Communications Act (in Title 47). Rather, they create a new body of statutory law to be enforced by the FTC, and a new criminal section that is not a part of the Wiretap Act. The criminal provisions of HR 4661 and S 2145 add a new Section 1030A to the Criminal Code titled "Illicit indirect use of protected computers" to create two narrow criminal prohibitions related to some of the more egregious forms of spyware. The existing Section 1030 pertains to fraud and related activity in connection with computers. It contains the bans on unauthorized access to computers that serves as the statutory basis for many prosecutions of hackers.

HR 2929 is also unlike the Wiretap Act in that the Wiretap Act is primarily a restraint upon government conduct, while HR 2929 is a restraint upon private conduct. HR 2929 contains a blanket exemption for "any act taken by a law enforcement agent in the performance of official duties".

Legislative History. The bills under consideration by the House and Senate were introduced by Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT). However, the first spyware bill was introduced in the 106th Congress by Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). See, S 3180 (106th), the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000". He introduced a bill, along with Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), at the outset of the 107th Congress, in January of 2001. See, S 197 (107th), the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2001".

Rep. Bono (at left) and Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) introduced HR 2929 on July 25, 2003. See, story titled "Rep. Bono Introduces Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 706, July 29, 2003.

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute [18 pages in PDF] on June 17, 2004. See also, story titled "House Subcommittee Approves Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 922, June 21, 2004.

The full Commerce Committee amended and approved HR 2929 on June 24, 2004. See, story titled "House Commerce Committee Approves Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 926, June 25, 2004. See also, House Report No. 108-619.

On June 23, 2004, Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced HR 4661 the "Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2004". See, story titled "Judiciary Committee Members Introduce Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 928, June 29, 2004,

The House Judiciary Committee approved its bill on September 8. See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 973, September 9, 2004.

On February 27, 2004, Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), introduced S 2145. See, story titled "Senators Introduce Anti-Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 847, March 2, 2004.

March 23, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications held a hearing on spyware and S 2145,

The Senate Commerce Committee amended and approved S 2145 on September 22, 2004. See, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves Spyware Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 983, September 24, 2004.

Rep. Bono, the sponsor of HR 2929, discussed the negotiations with interested entities that produced the manager's amendment to HR 2929. She said that "the devil was always in the details, in tweaking the bill over time with industry. They had a lot of legitimate concerns, and at some points, I believe, they were actually worried because they like some version of spyware or adware. But eventually, through many many many hours of hard work with my colleagues up here, and industry, and other staff members, we were able to find a good good bill that not only will continue to promote technology and e-commerce, but will stomp out the insidious behavior that I think we have all described and heard so much."

She stated that the drafting and revising of the bill was "a very very arduous process" involving Members, their staff, and representatives of industry. She said that one of the issues was the automatic updating of software. She said that this is a good and legitimate practice, but the consumer ought to know what is being done.

She said that sponsors of the bill eventually obtained the support of Microsoft, which she described as "the 800 pound gorilla in the room".

The final vote was 399-1. Most of the 32 Members who did not vote are either engaged in election campaigns in close races, have health related reasons for missing the vote, or are retiring. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) cast the only vote against the bill. He frequently casts votes against bills. The four members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted against the bill during the full Committee markup -- Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH), and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) -- all voted for the bill on the House floor.

10/5. The House approved a manager's amendment to HR 2929, the "Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act", or SPY ACT. This manager's amendment contains numerous changes to the bill that was reported by the House Commerce Committee.

The bill contains two sets of prohibitions. First, Section 2 prohibits deceptive acts or practices related to spyware. Second, Section 3 prohibits collection of certain information without notice and consent.

Prohibition of Deceptive Acts or Practices. Section 2 provides that "It is unlawful for any person, who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer, to engage in deceptive acts or practices that involve any of the following conduct with respect to the protected computer:"

Section 2 then enumerates nine categories of such deceptive acts or practices, including taking control of a computer, modifying settings related to a computer's access to the internet, collecting personally identifiable information through keystroke logging, and removing, disabling, or rendering inoperative a security, anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology.

Section 2 also prohibits "Inducing the owner or authorized user to provide personally identifiable, password, or account information to another person -- (A) by misrepresenting the identity of the person seeking the information; or (B) without the authority of the intended recipient of the information." This might be characterized as an anti-phishing, rather than anti-spyware, provision. This language was revised by the manager's amendment.

Prohibition of Collection of Certain Information Without Notice and Consent. Section 3 prohibits the collection of certain information without notice and consent. It provides that "it is unlawful for any person (1) to transmit to a protected computer, which is not owned by such person and for which such person is not an authorized user, any information collection program, unless -- (A) such information collection program provides notice in accordance with subsection (c) before execution of any of the information collection functions of the program; and (B) such information collection program includes the functions required under subsection (d)". It also provides that "it is unlawful for any person ... (2) to execute any information collection program installed on such a protected computer unless -- (A) before execution of any of the information collection functions of the program, the owner or an authorized user of the protected computer has consented to such execution pursuant to notice in accordance with subsection (c); and (B) such information collection program includes the functions required under subsection (d)." This language was revised by the manager's amendment.

Section 3 also requires that "each information collection program" must allow users to easily "remove the program or disable operation of the program".

Section 3 also requires that "each information collection program" must have an "identity function". That is, it requires that "each display of an advertisement directed or displayed using such information when the owner or authorized user is accessing a Web page or online location other than of the provider of the software is accompanied by the name of the information collection program, a logogram or trademark used for the exclusive purpose of identifying the program, or a statement or other information sufficient to clearly identify the program." This language was revised by the manager's amendment.

The manager's amendment also adds a provision that allows for a single notice in the case of bundled software.

Exemptions and Limitations on Liability. Sections 3 and 5 of the bill include exemptions and limitations on liability. The manager's amendment expanded the network security exception in Section 5.

First, Section 3 provides that "A telecommunications carrier, a provider of information service or interactive computer service, a cable operator, or a provider of transmission capability shall not be liable under this section to the extent that the carrier, operator, or provider -- (1) transmits, routes, hosts, stores, or provides connections for an information collection program through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the carrier, operator, or provider; or (2) provides an information location tool, such as a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, through which the owner or user of a protected computer locates an information collection program."

Second, Section 5 contains a very broad law enforcement exemption. It provides that "Sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not apply to (1) any act taken by a law enforcement agent in the performance of official duties".

Third, it contains a network security exemption. Section 5(b) now provides that "(1) any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service, or a protected computer, by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer service, to the extent that such monitoring or interaction is for network or computer security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or for the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities; or (2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of computer software solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software, that occurs upon -- (A) initialization of the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software."

Section 5(b)(1) revises the language reported by the Committee. Section 5(b)(2) is new. This is related to security. It also relates to protection of intellectual property and proprietary interests.

Fourth, it contains a limitation on liability for certain providers of software or interactive computer services that attempt to remove programs that violate Sections 2 or 3.

The manager's amendment also modifies the cookies exception found in the definitional section.

Finally, the bill exempts programs that are installed as of the effective date of the bill.

Enforcement and Preemption. The bill gives rulemaking and civil enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It also allows the FTC to issue advisory opinions, and requires the FTC to submit annual reports to the Congress.

The bill preempts state laws that contain provisions similar to those contains in Sections 2 and 3. However, it does not preempt the applicability of state trespass, contract, or tort laws.

10/5. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Compaq v. Ergonome, a copyright infringement case involving the defense of fair use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's finding that the copying was fair use. There is also much in this opinion regarding alter ego claims, and awards of attorneys fees, in copyright cases.

Ergonome holds the copyright to a 100 page publication titled "Preventing Computer Injury: The HAND BOOK". Ergonome sought to license its work to computer manufacturers, including Compaq Computer Corporation. Compaq obtained, but did not license Ergonome's work. However, it subsequently published and distributed with its computers an item titled "Safety and Comfort Guide", which copied seven phrases and four illustrations from Ergonome's work, without authorization.

Ergonome did not initiate this action. Rather, Compaq filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDTex) against Ergonome seeking declaratory judgment that its work did not infringe Ergonome's work. Ergonome then filed a complaint in New York, and a contest over venue followed, which Compaq won. The District Court in Texas denied motions for summary judgment and for judgment as a matter of law. Following a seven day jury trial the District Court concluded that the copying was de minimis, and constituted fair use within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 107.

The District Court also held that the doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel barred Ergonome's claims.

The District Court also awarded Compaq $2,765,026.90 attorneys fees.

And, the District Court held that the two shareholders of Ergonome, a corporation, are also liable as alter egos. The two shareholders are husband and wife; both were involved in the affairs of the company. Notably, this holding was a Court imposed discovery sanction that was added to the final judgment.

Fair Use. Ergonome raised various issues on appeal, including the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the fair use issue.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It went through the four prong analysis provided in Section 107, one prong at a time. It concluded that "viewed through the lens of the statutory fair use factors" the copying was fair use. The Court's lens focused generously on Compaq's arguments, from the point of view of copiers.

The Court wrote, with respect to the first factor, "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes", that Compaq's use "was commercial". And, it wrote that a finding of "commerciality generally weighs against finding fair use". But, the Court did actually concede that this factor weighs in favor of Engonome in this case.

The Court concluded that the second factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work", weighs in favor of Compaq because Ergonome's publication is a "factual work, as opposed to a highly creative fictional work". However, the Court did not address any of the other elements that Courts have considered when applying the "nature of the copyrighted work" factor.

For example, the Court did not discuss Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, in its discussion of this factor. In that case, the Supreme Court held that copying 300 words out of 200,000 did not constitute fair use because of the nature of the copyrighted work.

In Ergonome's case, a significant part of the prospective market for its work was the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), for inclusion with new computers. There are only a small number of OEMs.

The Court concluded that the third factor, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", weighs in favor of Compaq because it copied seven phrases and four illustrations out of a 100 page publication.

The Court concluded that the fourth factor, "the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", weighs in favor of Compaq, because Ergonome could not show that distribution of Compaq's competing work deprived Ergonome of any sales.

Since the Court of Appeals found fair use, it did not rule on the laches and equitable estoppel issues.

Attorneys Fees. 17 U.S.C. § 505 provides that "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs."

Compaq was the prevailing party. The Court noted the 5th Circuit precedent supports the proposition that the award of attorneys' fees in copyright cases is the rule rather than the exception, and should be awarded routinely. The Court did not discuss whether $2.7 Million for a case culminating in a seven day trial is "reasonable" within the meaning of Section 505.

Alter Egos. Finally, the Court reversed the alter ego finding, as to one spouse, but not the other. This is an Edith Jones opinion.

In this case, the amount of copying was small -- seven phrases and four illustrations. Moreover, as the Court's opinion sets forth in detail, Ergonome was a difficult litigant, especially with respect to its non-compliance with discovery orders related to the alter ego issue, and its filing of petitions for writ of mandamus on the alter ego issue. On the other hand, there was a work of authorship, it was registered with the Copyright Office, Ergonome held the copyright, the work was shown to Compaq, Compaq copied from it with authorization, and Compaq distributed its competing work in mass in commerce.

Judge Pickering (a temporary recess appointment) wrote in a concurring opinion that Ergonome engaged in a "trial strategy of extortion", and that "they attempted to make the litigation so unpleasant and so costly that the defendants would be forced to settle." The Judge did not find it pertinent that it was Compaq that sued Ergonome, and not vice versa, and that much of the litigation revolved around Compaq's alter ego claim, which is unrelated to the copyright issues.

While the litigation was unpleasant, the Court's opinion reflects that much of the unpleasantness occurred in the context Compaq's litigation of the alter ego issue. An alter ego finding would enable Compaq to collect damages from the shareholders as well as the corporation, if it stood to win an award of damages. But, Compaq did not, and could not, seek damages for infringement, because it was the copier. Alternatively, an alter ego finding would enable Compaq to collect attorneys fees from the shareholders. Compaq aggressively litigated the alter ego issue, for the purpose of being able to collect attorneys fees from the shareholders, which attorneys fees it drove up by aggressively litigating the alter ego issue. The point is that both sides engaged in unpleasant litigation strategies.

Perhaps this opinion stands as further guidance for authors, copyright holders, and their attorneys that they should not litigate infringement cases in Texas or the 5th Circuit, and where possible, include choice of forum clauses in contracts.

This case is Compaq Computer Corporation v. Ergonome, Inc, App. Ct. No. 01-20861, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Edith Jones wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Dennis and Pickering joined.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM. The agenda for Wednesday and the remainder of the week includes consideration, under suspension of the rules, of HR 4661, the "Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2004", the House Judiciary Committee's spyware bill. See, Republican Whip Notice.

8:30 AM - 12:15 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host a conference, and release a report, both of which are titled "Sending the Right Signals: Promoting Competition Through Telecommunications". The speakers will include Thomas. Donohue (P/CEO of the U.S. Chamber), John Kneuer (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), Lisa Sutherland (Sen. Ted Stevens' Appropriations Committee staff), Harry Alford (National Black Chamber of Commerce), Tom Hazlett (Manhattan Institute), William Smith (CTO of Bell South), Joseph Waz (Comcast), and Hank Hamilton (AIG). See, notice and agenda [PDF]. Press registration: press@uschamber.com or 202-463-5682. Prices vary. Location: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 K Street, NW.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host a one day symposium titled "Unleashing the Educational Power of Broadband". See, notice and agenda [PDF]. The event will be webcast. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.

RESCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 14. 12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled is "Planning Meeting to Discuss Proposed Programs and Obtain Suggestions for the Upcoming Year". RSVP to Evelyn Zamora at zamorae@coudert.com. Location: Coudert Brothers, 1627 I Street, NW, 11th Floor.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Cyber Security Partnership's (NCSP) Coordinating Committee titled "Common Criteria Users' Forum". The event is free for government employees. The price to attend is $100 for non-government employees. See, notice [PDF]. See also, the NCSP's April 2004 report [104 pages in PDF] containing recommendations regarding common criteria. Location: L'Enfant Plaza.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section and Litigation Section will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "What You Need to Know About Copyright Damages". The speaker will be Terence Ross (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher). See, notice. Prices vary from $80 to $115. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H Street, NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

8:45 AM - 5:00 PM. The Cato Institute will host a conference titled "Trade and the Future of American Workers". At 9:30 - 10:15 AM, Roger Ferguson (Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board) will give the keynote address. At 1:15 - 2:00 PM, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will speak. At 3:15 PM, Rep. Cal Dooley (D-CA) will speak. See, notice. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004", HR 2391, the "Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004", S 2396, the "Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004", and S 2863, a bill to reauthorize the Department of Justice. The Committee is unlikely to consider all of these items. Press contact: Margarita Tapia (Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07) Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 4: Broadcasting and Amateur Issues will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: Shaw Pittman, 2300 N St., NW.

9:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will host an event titled "Radio Frequency Identification Workshop". See, notice and agenda [PDF]. The scheduled speakers include Chairman Michael Powell, Commissioners Kathleen Abernathy, Ed Thomas (Chief of the OET), and Julius Knapp (Deputy Chief of the OET). For more information, contact Bill Lane at william.lane@fcc.gov or voice: 202-418-0676. The event will be webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), at 445 12th St., SW.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division will host a workshop titled "Personal Identity Verification of Federal Employees/Contractors ". See, NIST notice, and notice in the Federal Register, September 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 178, at Page 55586. Location: Hilton Hotel, Gaithersburg, MD.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Cyber Security Partnership's (NCSP) Coordinating Committee titled "Common Criteria Users' Forum". The event is free for government employees. The price to attend is $100 for non-government employees. See, notice [PDF]. Location: L'Enfant Plaza.

The House may meet at 9:00 AM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in PC Connector v. SmartDisk. This is No. 04-1180. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding its proposal to eliminate paper filings and require applicants to file electronically filings related to international telecommunications services. This NPRM is FCC 04-133 in IB Docket No.04-226. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 9, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 152, at Pages 48188 - 48192.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which its proposes to exempt the Registered Traveler Operations Files from several provisions of the Privacy Act. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 173, at Pages 54256 - 54258.

Columbus Day. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other federal offices will be closed. See, Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) list of federal holidays.

POSTPONED. 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "The Proper Direction for Telecommunications Reform Legislation". Duane Ackerman, Chairman of BellSouth, will give the luncheon address. See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th Floor, 1150 17th Street, NW.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS), Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection's (IAIP), National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet. The NIAC provides advice on the security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting other sectors of the economy, including banking and finance, transportation, energy, manufacturing, and emergency government services. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 28, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 187, at Pages 57951 - 57952. Location: Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 529 14th & K St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amendments to FCC rules to permit VHF public coast (VPC) and automated maritime telecommunications system (AMTS) licensees to provide private mobile radio service to units on land. This NPRM is FCC 04-171 in WT Docket No. 04-257 and RM-10743. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 10, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 153, at Pages 48440 - 48443.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to examine the proper number of end user common line charges that carriers may assess upon customers that obtain derived channel T-1 service where the customer provides the terminating channelization equipment and upon customers that obtain Primary Rate Interface (PRI) Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) service. This NPRM is FCC 04-174 in WC Docket No. 04-259 and RM-10603. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 13, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 156, at Pages 50141 - 50146.

Extended extended deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its public notices (DA 04-1690, DA 04-1758, and DA 04-2906) requesting public comments on constitutionally permissible ways for the FCC to identify and eliminate market entry barriers for small telecommunications businesses and to further opportunities in the allocation of spectrum-based services for small businesses and businesses owned by women and minorities. This proceeding is MB Docket No. 04-228. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 178, at Pages 55630 - 55631.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a luncheon titled "Innovation Agenda 2004". The featured speaker will be James Crowe, the CEO of Level 3 Communications. See, notice and registration page. Location: Mandarin Oriental hotel, 1330 Maryland Ave., SW.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association Foundation's Board of Trustees will meet. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch on DTV transition. The speaker will be Rick Chessen, Associate Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau's (MB) Digital Television Task Force. No RSVP is required. For more information, contact Frank Jazzo at jazzo@fhhlaw.com. Location: National Association of Broadcasters, 1771 N Street, NW.

2:00 - 4:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel presentation titled "Comparing the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and the Electronic Communications Networks". The speakers will be Kenneth Lehn, Sukesh Patro, and Kuldeep Shastri (all of the University of Pittsburgh). See, notice and registration page. Location: AEI, Twelfth floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section and Employment Law Section will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "Secrets of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act". The speakers will be Milton Babirak (Babirak Vangellow & Carr). See, notice. Prices vary from $80 to $115. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H Street, NW.

Day one of a three day convention of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). See, conference web site and schedule [PDF]. Location: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H St., NW.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Cato Institute will host a conference titled "International Monetary Reform and Capital Freedom". Among the topics on the agenda is "exchange rate protectionism". See, notice and agenda. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association's Law Practice Management and Litigation Sections will host a program titled "Electronic Legal Research: New Options And Issues For Small And Large Firms". The speakers will be Elizabeth LeDoux (Training & Research Librarian at Covington & Burling), Howard Sinclair (Librarian at Kilpatrick & Stockton), and Monique LaForce (Manager Research Services at Steptoe & Johnson). See, notice. Prices vary from $15 to $20. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled is "Planning Meeting to Discuss Proposed Programs and Obtain Suggestions for the Upcoming Year". RSVP to Evelyn Zamora at zamorae@coudert.com. Location: Coudert Brothers, 1627 I Street, NW, 11th Floor.

4:00 PM. Rochelle Dreyfuss (New York University School of Law) will present a paper titled "TRIPing over Patent Reform" at an event hosted by the Dean Dinwoodey Center for Intellectual Property Studies at the George Washington University Law School (GWULS). For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or rbraun@law.gwu.edu. The event is free and open to the public. See, notice. Location: GWULS, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice [PDF] requesting interested parties to provide comments on the Multi-band OFDM Alliance Special Interest Group's (MBOASIG) request for a waiver of Part 15 of the FCC's rules regarding ultra-wideband (UWB) systems that employ multi-band orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (MBOFDM) modulation techniques.

The e-mail address for Tech Law Journal has changed. The new address is as follows:

All previous e-mail addresses no longer operate. This new address is published as a graphic to avoid e-mail address harvesting, and the associated spam messages and malicious code messages. If your e-mail system does not display graphics, see notice in TLJ website.

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.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.