10/11. The Senate approved the conference report on HR 4520, the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004", by a vote of 69-17 on October 11, 2004. See, Roll Call No. 211. The House approved this conference report on October 7 by a vote of 280-141. See, Roll Call No. 509. See, full text of conference report [650 pages in PDF].

This is a huge tax bill. The original purpose of the bill was to repeal the FSC/ETI tax regime. Title I of the bill, at pages 7-24, accomplishes this.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the foreign sales corporation (FSC) tax regime, and its replacement, the extraterritorial income (ETI) tax regime, constitute illegal export subsidies, and authorized the EU to impose up to $4 Billion in retaliatory tariffs. U.S. technology companies have benefited from the FSC and ETI tax regimes. On the other hand, U.S. technology companies that sell products and services abroad are harmed by trade tariffs, trade barriers and trade wars.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, summarized the conference report in the Senate on October 9. See, transcript [9 pages in PDF].

He said that "the WTO has ruled that FSC-ETI is an illegal export subsidy and has authorized up to $4 Billion a year of sanctions against U.S. exports. Those sanctions began in March. They now are at 12% and increase 1% for each month that we don't repeal FSC-ETI. By November, they will be at 13%. Senator Frist rightly called these sanctions Euro Taxes on our exporters."

This bill repeals the FSC/ETI tax regime, but adds transition relief, including allowing U.S. multinational corporations to repatriate foreign profits on a one time basis at a five percent tax rate.

Harris Miller, President of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), stated in a release that "This repatriation provision will channel large amounts of investment capital into the build out of American companies, product and service offerings, jobs and communities. This is particularly important to IT companies-companies that often generate 50 percent or more of their revenues from sales overseas".

This legislation has grown considerably over time, and now includes many tax provisions unrelated to FSC/ETI and the WTO. It is 650 pages.

Section 251 pertains to exclusion of incentive stock options and employee stock purchase plan stock options from wages.

Section 882 pertains to treatment of charitable contributions of patents and similar property. See, following story titled "House and Senate Approve Tax Bill That Limits Deductions for IP Contributions".

Related TLJ Stories. See, stories titled "Grassley and Baucus Organize Meeting on FSC/ETI Issue" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 511, September 18, 2002; "Deputy Treasury Secretary Addresses FSC/ETI and WTO Rulings" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 526, October 9, 2002; "Rep. Thomas Writes Colleagues Re FSC Dispute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 622, March 13, 2003; "WTO Authorizes FSC/ETI Related Tariffs" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 657, May 8, 2003; "Legislators Introduce Bills to Repeal ETI Regime and Extend R&D Tax Credit" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 715, August 11, 2003; "Senate Finance Committee Approves FSC/ETI Replacement Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 753, October 6, 2003; "Sen. Grassley Meets with Lamy Re FSC/ETI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 771, November 4, 2003; "EU Imposes FSC/ETI Sanctions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 847, March 2, 2004; and "House Ways and Means Committee Approves Tax Bill that Repeals ETI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 918, June 15, 2004. See also, TLJ news analysis titled "The FSC Tax Bill and Technology Exporters", November 17, 2000.

10/11. The conference report on HR 4520, the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004", which the House approved on October 7, and the Senate approved on October 11, includes a section that limits the deduction available under Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code for contributions of intellectual property, such as contributions of patents to universities.

See, Section 882 of the conference report [650 pages in PDF], at pages 562-572. Or, see Section 882 [HTML], titled "Treatment of Charitable Contributions of Patents and Similar Property".

26 U.S.C. § 170 addresses charitable contributions and gifts. Subsection 170(e) addresses "contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property".

In 1958, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Revenue Ruling 58-260 confirmed the deductibility of donated patents. However, in recent years, some legislators, and especially Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, have argued that the regime has been abused.

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced in December of 2003 that it will crack down on excessive claims of deductions. The IRS notice [3 pages in PDF] and story titled "IRS Plans Crack Down on Charitable Contributions Deductions Involving Transfers of Intellectual Property" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 805, December 23, 2003.

Sen. Grassley (at right) issued a release [PDF] that offers this explanation of the new restrictions. "The proposal provides that if a taxpayer contributes a patent or other intellectual property to a charitable organization, the taxpayer’s initial charitable deduction is limited to the lesser of the taxpayer’s basis in the contributed property or the fair market value of the property. In addition, the taxpayer is permitted to deduct, as a charitable deduction, certain additional amounts in the year of contribution or in subsequent taxable years based on a specified percentage of the qualified donee income received or accrued by the charitable donee with respect to the contributed property. This means a taxpayer won’t be able to claim deductions for donations that don’t earn money for the charity."

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) issued a report [12 pages in PDF] titled "ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 4520, THE ``AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 2004´´, Fiscal Years 2005 - 2014". It predicts that the IRS will collect an additional $3,653,000,000 in taxes over ten years as a result of this provision.

10/11. The House and Senate adjourned until November 16, 2004, without approving either S 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004", or HR 2391, the "Intellectual Property Protection Act" (IPPA).

On October 7, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Committee amended and approved the IPPA. This bill, HR 2391, which was originally only a patent bill known as the CREATE Act, is now titled the "Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2004" or "IPPA". It includes versions of the "EnFORCE Act" (originally S 1933), the "PIRATE Act" (originally S 2237), the "Home Movie Act" (§ 112 of HR 4007 EH), and the "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act" (HR 4077 EH).

As amended, the IPPA also includes several less controversial bills, including the "National Film Preservation Act of 2004", "National Film Preservation Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2004, and the "Preservation of Orphan Works Act". And, it includes the collaborate research bill, the "CREATE Act", which is the original HR 2391.

See, text of IPPA [44 pages in PDF], and text of IPPA [HTML], as approved by the Committee on October 7. See also, story titled "Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Large Collection of Copyright Bills" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 994, October 11, 2004.

McCain Places Hold on IPPA Because of ClearPlay Language. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke in the Senate on October 11, 2004 regarding the IPPA. He said that he has placed a hold on the bill. He stated that his objection pertains to the Family Home Movie Act, which is also known as the ClearPlay bill.

He does not object to creating an exception to the exclusive rights of copyright for skipping content, such as violence and indecency. What he objects to is the language in the bill that does not extend the exception to technology that skips advertising.

Sen. McCain (at right) said that "I believe that one part of this broad legislation, the Family Movie Act, may actually harm consumers while appearing to help them. To be clear, I support the stated goal of the Act’s authors: immunizing from legal challenges a technology that enables parents to skip offensive material from prerecorded copies of films and television. While I applaud the merits of their stated intent, I fear that the very exemption designed to achieve this laudable goal simultaneously creates an implication that certain basic practices that consumers have enjoyed for years -- like fast-forwarding through advertisements -- would constitute criminal copyright infringement. I note that Consumers Union and Public Knowledge, as well as a host of others parties interested in protecting consumers, share my concerns."

Sen. McCain added that "Americans have been recording TV shows and fast-forwarding through commercials for more than thirty years. Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004 for behavior they've been engaged in for more than a quarter century?" Sen. McCain, who is the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

§ 212 of the IPPA adds a new ¶ 11 to 17 U.S.C. § 110 (which provides exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright). It creates an exception for "the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed for such use at the direction of a member of a private household, if (A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and (B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture."

Leahy Criticizes Bush Administration Over PIRATE Act. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spoke in the Senate on October 8 regarding S 2237, "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004", or "PIRATE Act". In addition to being a stand alone bill, a version of it was added to HR 2391, the IPPA. It is now Title III of the IPPA. Sen. Leahy criticized the Bush administration for doing nothing to enact the PIRATE Act.

The PIRATE Act has two provisions. First, § 302 would authorize the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring civil actions for copyright infringement for conduct that already constitutes criminal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 506. This would accomplish two things. It would make it easier to prevail, because, among other things, the civil action would have a lower burden of proof. It would also provide a less punitive action for youthful P2P music pirates.

Second, § 303 would establish a training program (and authorize funding of $2,000,000) to educate DOJ and U.S. Attorneys Office personnel in copyright enforcement matters.

The Senate has yet to approve the IPPA. However, it has approved the PIRATE Act as a stand alone bill.

Sen. Leahy (at right) said that "the Bush administration, which likes to talk a good game, is apparently not interested in having the tools it needs to do the job. This administration has done nothing, as far as I know, to help enact important intellectual property legislation. As a consequence, congressional Republicans are holding up and resisting important legislation.

Sen. Leahy continued that "The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act, S. 2237, allows United States Attorneys' Offices to bring a civil action against a large-scale copyright infringer. For some unimaginable reason, the Justice Department, which cannot issue enough press releases about its newly-minted Intellectual Property Task Force, has taken no interest in or action on this legislation. Apparently, the Ashcroft Justice Department rejects having the law enforcement authority to stop large-scale infringers and protect America's intellectual property from piracy. A Justice Department that has reinterpreted treaties and contorted the law to claim vast and unfettered authorities for this executive has little interest in assembling legislatively enacted tools for copyright protection and to stop piracy."

"For a number of reasons having to do with law enforcement priorities, resources and other considerations, prosecutors rarely decide to bring criminal charges even against flagrant infringers." Sen. Leahy added that "the PIRATE Act would afford the Government a civil law route and civil law remedies. There are times when civil proceedings and remedies are more appropriate. Until we enact the PIRATE Act, they are unavailable."

He concluded, "I urge the Bush administration to get with the program. If you want to talk the talk and pretend to support the protection of intellectual property rights, then walk the walk and work to clear the Republican opposition so that Congress can enact the PIRATE Act." See, Congressional Record, October 08, 2004, at Pages S10822-3.

Sen. Leahy's comments anticipated the Department of Justice's (DOJ) October 12 release of its report [96 pages in PDF] titled "Report of the Department of Justice's Task Force on Intellectual Property". It contains numerous recommendations, but does not recommend that the Congress pass legislation to authorize the DOJ to bring civil actions against infringers. See, following story titled "DOJ IP Task Force Issues Recommendations".

10/12. The Department of Justice (DOJ) released a report [96 pages in PDF] titled "Report of the Department of Justice's Task Force on Intellectual Property". See also, statement by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

This is primarily a collection of recommendations regarding enhancing criminal prosecution by the federal government. There is less in this report regarding the intellectual property rights regime and civil enforcement of intellectual property rights by the holders of those rights.

It recommends adding five computer hacking and intellectual property (CHIPs) units to the U.S. Attorneys Offices in the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh), the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville), and the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). It also recommends reinforcing certain CHIPs units, and designating CHIPs coordinators in each U.S. Attorneys Office.

It recommends examining "the need to increase resources for the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division (CCIPS) at the DOJ headquarters in Washington DC to address intellectual property concerns.

It recommends that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "increase the number of Special Agents assigned to intellectual property investigations", and "the number of personnel assigned to search for digital evidence in intellectual property cases".

It recommends more prosecutions of criminal organizations that commit intellectual property crimes.

It recommends more training of prosecutors and law enforcement agents.

This report also contains a recommendation regarding the use of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) subpoenas. It recommends that the DOJ should "assist private parties enforcing civil laws that protect intellectual property owners against theft by supporting an effective statutory framework for such enforcement." The report sites only one example of such assistance -- DMCA subpoenas.

The report states "The DMCA allows copyright owners to compel Internet Service Providers to identify alleged infringers by serving a subpoena without having to first file a lawsuit. ... Armed with a subpoena, copyright owners can determine who is unlawfully downloading their copyrighted material using P2P networks ..." The report adds that some ISPs "have resisted DMCA subpoenas by contending that the subpoena provision does not apply to their service because they do not store the copyrighted material, but instead only transmit data. The Justice Department has filed briefs opposing the Internet Service Providers' challenges ..."

ISPs have successfully resisted DMCA subpoenas in RIAA v. Verizon. See, related story in this issue titled "Supreme Court Denies Cert in DMCA Subpoena Case". See also, story titled "DC Circuit Reverses in RIAA v. Verizon" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 804, December 22, 2003.

The report also recommends that the DOJ "should support the rights of intellectual property owners to decide independently whether to license their technology to others", without running afoul of antitrust laws.

The report also recommends that the DOJ should "encourage trade associations and other business organizations seeking to establish industry standards for the prevention of intellectual property theft, to use the Justice Department's business review procedure for guidance regarding antitrust enforcement concerns."

The report does not contain legislative recommendations, or positions on bills pending in the Congress. However, it does discuss several pending bills, and advances several general principles. (See, report at pages 45-49.)

For example, it states that "The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2003 (H.R. 107) would allow the sale of tools and equipment that could be used to circumvent technological safeguards designed to protect copyrighted works." 

See, stories titled "Reps. Boucher and Doolittle Introduce Digital Media Consumer Rights Act" and "Summary of the Digital Media Consumer Rights Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 532, October 4, 2002; and story titled "Reps. Boucher and Doolittle Introduce Digital Fair Use Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 582, January 14, 2003. See also, stories titled "House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Creating Fair Use Exceptions to DMCA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 899, May 17, 2004, and "Chairman Barton Says Commerce Committee Will Mark Up Boucher Doolittle Bill in July" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 924, June 23, 2004.

The DOJ report takes no position on S 2560, the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004", which would create a new civil cause of action for inducement of infringement. However, it does state that "The law should provide a remedy against those who intentionally induce infringement." It adds that copyright owners should have a remedy against "networks and other businesses, to the extent that they depend upon and intend for their customers to violate the owner's copyright". The report does not state whether this remedy should be created by a new statute, or whether the courts should recognize such a remedy as a matter of interpretation of existing theories of vicarious liability.

The report takes no position on giving the DOJ authority to bring civil suits against copyright infringers.

The report takes no position on fully funding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), or ending the diversion of USPTO fees to subsidize other government programs.

One of the DOJ's task force members is Laura Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. She is also involved in the DOJ's efforts to expand the authority of the DOJ with respect to the regulation of broadband internet access services and voice over internet protocol (VOIP), under the rubric of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).

10/7. International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) released a study [48 pages in PDF] titled "Copyright Industries in the U.S. Economy: The 2004 Report". Stephen Siwek of Economists Incorporated wrote this study. See also, IIPA release [2 pages in PDF].

The report states that "The U.S. copyright-based industries continue to be one of America’s largest and fastest-growing economic assets." It examines three measurements of core copyright industries', and total copyright industries', contribution to the U.S. economy -- percentage of gross domestic product, percentage of employment, and revenues from foreign sales.

The study finds that the value added to the economy by core copyright industries "reached $626.2 billion or 6% of the U.S. economy in 2002. In the same year, the value added by the total copyright industries was $1.254 trillion or 12% of the U.S. economy."

The study defines "core copyright industries" to include "newspapers, book publishing, recording, music, and periodicals, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasting, and computer software (including business application and entertainment software)" and "book stores, news dealers and newsstands, and commercial photography operations".

The study also finds that "the core copyright industries employ 5,484,000 people or 4.02% of U.S. workers for 20026 total revenue generated from foreign sales of the core copyright industries is estimated to be at least $89.26 billion in 2002".

10/12. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, without opinion, in NARUC v. USTA. See, Order List [14 pages in PDF] at page 3.

This order lets stand the March 2, 2004 opinion [62 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in USTA v. FCC, overturning key parts of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) triennial review order (TRO).

The Appeals Court opinion left largely untouched those portions of the TRO in which the FCC refrained from unbundling next generation broadband facilities. The opinion vacated those portions of the TRO in which the FCC delegated decision making authority to the state to make impairment findings. See, story titled "Appeals Court Overturns Key Provisions of FCC Triennial Review Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 848, March 3, 2004.

Walter McCormick, P/CEO of the U.S. Telecommunications Association (USTA), stated in a release that "Today's action by the Supreme Court should be the final chapter in this tortured saga of instability for the industry. It's time for the Commission to set clear, lawful unbundling rules to bring certainty and clarity to telecom."

Herschel Abbott, BellSouth's VP for Governmental Affairs, stated in a release that "Consumers have been well served by the Supreme Court's denial of review of the CLECs' appeal. We continue to urge the FCC to meet the commitment of having new permanent rules in place by the end of the year and to ensure that the rules are consistent with the decision of the Appeals Court. After 8-1/2 years of working under unlawful rules, BellSouth believes the quick adoption and implementation of permanent rules is essential to economic recovery and job creation in America's technology sector."

This proceeding is National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. U.S. Telecommunications Association, et al., No. 04-12, AT&T Corporation, et al. v. U.S.T.A., et al., No. 04-15, and California, et al. v. U.S.T.A., et al., No. 04-18.

10/12. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, without opinion, in RIAA v. Verizon. See, Order List [14 pages in PDF] at page 2.

This lets stand the December 19, 2003 opinion [16 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in RIAA v. Verizon. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, and held that a Section 512(h) subpoena may only be issued to an ISP that is engaged in storing on its servers material that is infringing or the subject of infringing activity.

There are other cases involving Section 512 subpoenas. Hence, this issue may yet be decided by the Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court released its order, Verizon's Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch stated in a release that "Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the personal privacy, First Amendment rights to free speech and free association, and the safety of every Internet user in this country."

While Verizon has sought to portray its opposition to the music industry's use of Section 512 subpoenas as a defense of individual privacy, and it did advance a First Amendment argument in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals did not rule on either privacy, First Amendment, or safety grounds. It merely construed the language of the statute.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "The issue is whether § 512(h) applies to an ISP acting only as a conduit for data transferred between two internet users, such as persons sending and receiving e-mail or, as in this case, sharing P2P files. Verizon contends § 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP that transmits infringing material but does not store any such material on its servers. The RIAA argues § 512(h) on its face authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to an ``[internet] service provider´´ without regard to whether the ISP is acting as a conduit for user-directed communications. We conclude from both the terms of § 512(h) and the overall structure of § 512 that, as Verizon contends, a subpoena may be issued only to an ISP engaged in storing on its servers material that is infringing or the subject of infringing activity."

17 U.S.C. § 512 provides ISPs a safe harbor from liability for infringement based on the activities of their users. There are four specific limitations on liability. § 512(a) pertains to "transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections". § 512(b) pertains to "the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network". § 512(c) pertains to "material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider". And, § 512(d) pertains to "referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link".

Subsection 512(h) then provides, in part, that "A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection." The statute then provides that the requester should also provide a copy of the 512(c)(3) notice, a proposed subpoena, and a sworn declaration.

The 512(c)(3) notice must include, among other things, an "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material." (See, 512(c)(3)(a)(iii).)

However, the statute does not expressly limit the availability of 512(h) subpoenas to 512(c) situations.

Subsection 512(h)(5) then provides, in part, that "Upon receipt of the issued subpoena, ... the service provider shall expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner the information required by the subpoena, notwithstanding any other provision of law and regardless of whether the service provider responds to the notification."

The music industry seeks to use Section 512 subpoenas to learn the identity of peer to peer infringers. The copyright holders possess only internet protocol (IP) number information on infringers. This does not reveal the identity of the infringers. However, internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon Internet Services, which provide internet access for the P2P infringers, possess information that would associate subscriber information with IP number information. That is, obtaining the ISP's information enables the copyright holders to file complaints alleging infringement against the individual infringers that names the individuals. It also enables them to contact the individuals before filing a complaint in court. Without Section 512 subpoenas, copyright holders must file John Doe lawsuits, a more expensive and time consuming procedure, that also sometimes provides out of date information on infringers.

See also, story titled "DC Circuit Reverses in RIAA v. Verizon" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 804, December 22, 2003.

This case is Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., No. 03-1579, and Verizon Internet Services, Inc. v. Recording Industry Association of America, No. 03-1722.

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. The other speakers will be Scott Cleland (The Precursor Group), Rebecca Arbogast (Legg Mason Equity Research), and Jessica Zufolo (Medley Global Advisors). 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.

12:00 NOON - 5:30 PM. The law firm of Steptoe & Johnson will host a luncheon and seminar titled "Section 337 Seminar: Part of Corporate Worldwide IP Practice and Strategy". See, brochure [PDF]. Location. Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Ave., 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.

8:00 AM. Robert Liscouski, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Infrastructure Protection at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will speak at the October Breakfast Meeting of The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP). The price to attend is $30. For more information, contact Catherine Tehan at 703 295-6026 or ctehan@tisp.org. See, TISP notice. Location: Army Navy Club, 901 17th St., NW.

8:30 - 11:30 AM. The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) will host a seminar titled "Software Licensing Best Practices Seminar Series: How to Get the Most Out of Your Software License". See, notice. Prices vary. Location: Mintz Levin, 12010 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 900 Reston, Virginia.

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.

Day two of a three day convention of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). Jon Dudas, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will give a speech titled "American Ingenuity: What the USPTO is Doing for You" at a luncheon scheduled for 12:15 - 1:45 PM. See, conference web site and schedule [PDF]. Location: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a Congressional seminar titled "Reinventing the FCC for the Digital Age". The speakers will be Tom Lenard (PFF), Randolph May (PFF), James Miller (former head of the Office of Management and Budget and the Federal Trade Commission), Darius Gaskins (former Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission), and Susan Ness (former FCC commissioner). See, notice and registration page. Lunch will be served. Location: Room 1539, Longworth Building.

TIME? Rochelle Dreyfuss (NYU) will give a lecture titled "Protecting the Public Domain of Science under International Law" as part of the Georgetown Law Colloquium on Intellectual Property & Technology Law. For more information, contact Julie Cohen at 202 662-9871 or Jay Thomas at 202 662-9925. Location: Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the high cost universal support mechanisms for rural carriers and the appropriate rural mechanism to succeed the five year plan adopted in the Rural Task Force Order. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 171, at Pages 53917 - 53923.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [15 pages in PDF] regarding "issues relating to the presentation of violent programming on television and its impact on children." This NOI is FCC 04-175 in MB Docket No. 04-261. See, story titled "FCC Issues NOI on Violent TV Programming" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 950, August 2, 2004. See also, Order [PDF] extending the deadlines.

Day three 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.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding "Internet Protocol (IP) Relay and Video Relay Service (VRS), including the appropriate cost recovery methodology for VRS, possible mechanisms to determine which IP Relay and VRS calls are intrastate and which are interstate for purposes of reimbursement, whether IP Rely and VRS should become mandatory TRS services, whether IP Relay and VRS should be required to be offered 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and whether, when, and how we should apply the speed of answer rule to the provision of VRS." See, notice in the Federal Register, September 1, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 169, at Pages 53382 - 53385. The FCC adopted this NPRM on June 10, 2004, and released it on June 30, 2004. It is FCC 04-134 in CG Docket No. 03-123. Comments are due by October 18, 2004.

TIME? The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in U.S. v. Microsoft, the government antitrust case against Microsoft.. On October 8, 2004, Microsoft, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and various state plaintiffs filed a Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments. This case is D.C. No. 98-1232 (CKK), Judge Colleen Kotelly presiding. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Executive Committee will meet. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW.

4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Legislative Committee will host an event titled "Afternoon Chat with Howard Waltzman". Waltzman is the Chief Counsel to the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. RSVP to hmarshall@wrf.com. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding,1776 K Street, NW.

11:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "The Next Big Thing in Copyright? The Induce Act and Contributory Liability". Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

TIME? The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a breakfast. The speaker will be Dan Glickman, the new head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Location: Capitol Hilton, 16th & K Streets, NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association's Computer and Telecommunications Law Section will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "Ethics and the Internet". The speaker will be J.T. Westermeier (Piper Rudnick). 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 St., NW.

10/12. The Supreme Court announced that it "will take a recess from Monday, October 18, 2004, until Monday, November 1, 2004." See, Order List [14 pages in PDF] at page 14.

10/12. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forefeiture (NAL) [29 pages in PDF] to the licensees of 169 Fox Television Network stations for apparently broadcasting indecent material on the TV program titled "Married By America". The FCC proposes to fine each licensee $7,000, for a total fine of $1,183,000. The NAL relates that this program covered bachelor and bachelorette parties that featured strippers. This NAL is FCC 04-242. See also, FCC release [PDF].

10/6. Makan Delrahim, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, gave a speech at George Mason University. It was titled "The Long and Winding Road: Convergence in the Application of Antitrust to Intellectual Property".

10/5. The Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) published a notice in the Federal Register that describes and sets the comment deadline for its notice of proposed rulemaking regarding telecommuting by federal contractors. The deadline for comments is December 6, 2004. See, Federal Register, October 5, 2004, Vol. 69, No.192, at Pages 59701 - 59702.

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.